Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[Mendara]

If her team sues the State for this, she will probably be drinking Dom and eating caviar. I am most mad at the State and worried how this will affect other cases that LDB and JA have tried. And JA may have suppressed evidence before. Not good. jmo

My point is that we do not know if this is true and we should not assume that the state did this on purpose.

Casey really needs to go away and start a new life. If she thinks she will be able to sue and appeal and go on tv and claim to be a victim of everyone, she is going to go down a dark road - I mean it is really making a spectacle of her daughter's death to try to make herself appear like a victim.

She is evil to the core and I heard it all in her own words.

 

[elementary]

It would be considered exculpatory because it disproved an accusation made by the state.

It doesn't necessarily disprove it.

 

[Stargazer7]

I also want to add the 84 times always made me uncomfortable and I remember the discrepancy in the reports was pointed out the first time this was brought up in court. It just seemed so unnecessary. Casey obviously researched chloroform and how to make chloroform on those two dates in March. She also researched other ingredients contained therein and other violent phrases. Whether she wrote it down or printed it out, there really wouldn't have been a reason to go back all those times to those sites. It's like when I look up a recipe online. I don't need to keep looking it up once I learn how to make it.

I just remember that the defense kept bringing up the one vs. 84 times for that particular site everytime it was mentioned in court. There was no way the jury could have missed it.

Yet the outright lies and prejudicial inferences the defense made (especially about the drowning and Caylee supposedly opening a door, and ALL of River's hearsay testimony) are just dandy. I think it's not fair that the defense has so much leeway to be sneaky. The defense basically has a license to be underhanded while the State is legally accountable for any mistakes.

 

[suzihawk]

For me I think it is a very bad move on the procecution.
It shows that they just wanted to convict no matter what they had to do.
They knew on June 25th that the search was only 1 time and that the search was for 19th Century Chloroform use.
LDB used the 84 time search in closing arguements. Do you think this is right?
The procecution got up and talked about lying the whole trial. Now do you think is it OK for them to do it?
How can there be justice for you and me, when people try to procecute with false evidence. I know that they didn't know in the beginning but then when they found out they should have done the right thing because of justice.

I may not like the outcome of this whole trail but this information is absolutly very important and it shouldn't be over looked no matter who was on trail.

Would you please provide a link to the bolded part above? I just listened to LDB's closting statement again and she never mentioned chloroform at all - much less referenced the 84 times. :waitasec:

 

[Shelby1]

KC is being asked to pay LE back for giving false information which caused them to search for a missing child that her attorney now claims drowned and she covered it up. KC and KC alone mislead police and that is what she will be willed for. jmo

Right.

But if she receives damages for her rights being violated, then, the state could end up owing her more money than what the searches cost. It just depends on which is more money.

 

[GhostCrab]

It doesn't necessarily disprove it.

It disproves the number 84.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Withholding exculpatory evidence = violation of civil rights, no matter WHO the person is.

Why would this be considered exculpatory evidence? While it apparently is not as damaging as was first presented, it certainly doesn't seem to meet the definition:

exculpatory adj. applied to evidence which may justify or excuse an accused defendant's actions, and which will tend to show the defendant is not guilty or has no criminal intent.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see I'm running way behind.

 

[Soju]

Part of the mistake that he reported, besides the one time instead of 84 was that it was - 19th Century Chloroform use- that was looked up, NOT -How-to-make-chloroform.
This makes me mad because they had ample time to correct this before deliberations. The State of Florida does't look too good right now.

someone DID type into the google search field "How to make chloroform"

 

[LambChop]

Judge Perry said that the witnesses were giving opinions and it is up to the jury to weigh whether their testimony has any merit. This jury admits they did not consider the tests for chloroform much less the computer program. But, I for one would like to hear from the State. If no sanctions against the state are filed by defense then I guess we have our answer. jmo

 

[Chablis]

My point is that we do not know if this is true and we should not assume that the state did this on purpose.

But if they did this, it has little to do with Casey. This opens up the potential door for others this team has tried to get appeals based on their conduct and that is unacceptable.

jmo

 

[dvdman]

I honestly don't care if it was 1 or 84 she still searched for it. Let's NOT forget someone purposely deleted only these searches on that particular computer. Hmmmmm let me guess who that was? Seriously though what does it change? Casey Marie Anthony still got away with murder.

 

[JSR]

How is this exculpatory?

ex·cul·pa·to·ry
   [ik-skuhl-puh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
–adjective
tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt.

Correcting a software error testimony from 84 visits to 1 visit to a web site wouldn't be exculpatory. It does not prove her clear of fault or guilt. It would just say she went one time to that particular web site, not 84. It does not clear her. Why did she even go one time?

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone please RE READ THE ABOVE DEFINITION!!!!!!!!!

What we have here is a MISINTERPRETATION of evidence! Not a willful Brady violation!!!!

There is NOTHING exculpatory about this evidence, absolutely NOTHING. And it would not have been overturned by a higher court because it would have had to show that the exclusion of this evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial, which IMO it wouldn't have, especially if she was convicted on a lesser charge than 1st degree murder. If that was the only evidence the state had then yes it could have been likely the conviction would have been overturned. Because really all the searches show are premeditation.

If I didn't know better I would think JA was the one on trial and not FCA. It's important to note that the defense was saying it was Cindy who did these searches so it's moot. And c'mon let's get real 84 or 1 time visiting this site? Even once is bad enough coupled with the rest of the evidence.

If you want to talk about misconduct I think you're criticism would be better leveled at the one counsel who was REPEATEDLY reprimanded in open court by HHJP for violating discovery rules. Not just once but REPEATEDLY!

 

[Psmith]

The problem isn't with the number of searches. The problem is if the state lied and didn't turn it over to the defense that the report was wrong. Granted, the defense found out on their own, but the value of the evidence does not matter at all. It is the defendants Constitutional right that they be provided the information and CM has already come out swinging that they were not given this evidence and that LDB continued to say 84 searches/visits when, according to Bradley, she already knew this was false.

Maybe this is why the state decided not to pursue CA for perjury. Especially considering that the perjury was about the exact same subject matter. How are they going to charge her with lying about the searches if they did so also and did not turn the info over to the defense.

(bold in original)

iirc, the potential perjury charges were about Gentiva records as to when CA was working and the phone call records as to whether CA called GA about the ladder being up.

jmo, State decided not to pursue perjury b/c it was a lost cause. During the trial itself, it would have caused issues with one of their key wits--making her entire testimony a wash. Hypothetically, after the murder trial itself, the jurors on a perjury case might have been swayed by sympathy for a mother trying to save her daughter from the DP (and thereby might have given CA a pass). No, I don't have any factual basis for this claim/hypothetical.

 

[Soju]

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm talking about the most serious charge of 1st Degree Murder, which was the State's ultimate goal in this Death Penalty case. In order to get a conviction for that, they had to prove premeditation. And I think they felt that 84 searches strengthened their case for that.

Death that occurs during the commission of a felony will still be first degree murder, elegible for the death penalty, without premeditation. I was correcting your statement that the state NEEDED to prove premeditation in order to get a first degree murder conviction. That is simply not true.

 

[Mendara]

But if they did this, it has little to do with Casey. This opens up the potential door for others this team has tried to get appeals based on their conduct and that is unacceptable.

jmo

Someone is trying to convince you of that for sure. I am not convinced.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

How is this exculpatory?

ex·cul·pa·to·ry
   [ik-skuhl-puh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
–adjective
tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt.

Correcting a software error testimony from 84 visits to 1 visit to a web site wouldn't be exculpatory. It does not prove her clear of fault or guilt. It would just say she went one time to that particular web site, not 84. It does not clear her. Why did she even go one time?

If you go into court and charge someone with visiting a site 84 times and then find out later that they did not search 84 times, but instead only searches once, and you made a big deal out of 84 times and then that was also plastered all over the news as having been visited 84 times it is the states responsibility to correct the error and make sure that it is clear that they were incorrect. The problem comes in with this guy stating that they know "LONG AGO" that it was wrong and still using it as though it were fact.

 

[Shelby1]

I honestly don't care if it was 1 or 84 she still searched for it. Let's NOT forget someone purposely deleted only these searches on that particular computer. Hmmmmm let me guess who that was? Seriously though what does it change? Casey Marie Anthony still got away with murder.

Like JBean said earlier the issue is more about the principle and the potential cost effect.IMO

 

[Mendara]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone please RE READ THE ABOVE DEFINITION!!!!!!!!!

What we have here is a MISINTERPRETATION of evidence! Not a willful Brady violation!!!!

There is NOTHING exculpatory about this evidence, absolutely NOTHING. And it would not have been overturned by a higher court because it would have had to show that the exclusion of this evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial, which IMO it wouldn't have, especially if she was convicted on a lesser charge than 1st degree murder. If that was the only evidence the state had then yes it could have been likely the conviction would have been overturned. Because really all the searches show are premeditation.

If I didn't know better I would think JA was the one on trial and not FCA. It's important to note that the defense was saying it was Cindy who did these searches so it's moot. And c'mon let's get real 84 or 1 time visiting this site? Even once is bad enough coupled with the rest of the evidence.

If you want to talk about misconduct I think you're criticism would be better leveled at the one counsel who was REPEATEDLY reprimanded in open court by HHJP for violating discovery rules. Not just once but REPEATEDLY!

Thank you. Seriously I feel like I am in a dream where now the defense wants to turn the tide and make us all belive he is the hero, Casey is innocent and the state is evil.

I expect more claims like this before Casey is crying with Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer and the world now smiles at her when she walks by.

Sick.

 

[BiancaS]

Something doesn't seem right and I think he may be trying to save the reputation of his company and he is throwing the Prosecution under the bus. He has already corrected the dates. Like everything else in this ridiculous case, "There's something wrong!" as Cindy likes to say. http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp I'm going to say it. After three gut-wrenching years, I am officially tired of Casey Anthony and all of this. I don't care where Casey is, I do hope she is miserable, makes JB miserable, and makes her parents miserable. I pray no one gets rich, and they all just go AWAY.

 

[GhostCrab]

Why would this be considered exculpatory evidence? While it apparently is not as damaging as was first presented, it certainly doesn't seem to meet the definition:

exculpatory adj. applied to evidence which may justify or excuse an accused defendant's actions, and which will tend to show the defendant is not guilty or has no criminal intent.

It is 100% exculpatory. The state put forth their case and essentially listed why they thought she was guilty, duct tape, lying, partying, and so on. The 84 searches was part of their case that showed premeditation. If they received information that the analysis of the chloroform search was not correct, that info would be considered exculpatory and by not giving it to the defense they violated the rules of discovery but more importantly they violated her civil rights. She has the ultimate right to know any and all evidence that the state has against her followed with the right to know if that evidence is shown to be not true.