Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[cluciano63]

well, it's basically bleach, acetone, and ice cubes. So I highly doubt that. Thanks, though.

But why would Casey know that? I sure wouldn't...just saying. Anyway, I would be looking into chloroform if my BF has posted about it in the way that R did. And I might read up on any sites it took me to.

 

[grandmaj]

Wait a minute. Didn't the defense argue that it was only one search not 84 and that the report was wrong? In the last few days of trial? I'm not getting how this was held back if they knew about it?

 

[gladiatorqueen]

BBM: You are not alone ... I feel like I am in the "twilight zone" as well ...

My Opinion Only: I am shocked by the number of people who are ANTI-prosecution ...

MOO MOO MOO !

Although it certainly doesn't even come close to outweighing those who are anti-defense.

My take, personally, is that most of us who are for the verdict are not "anti-prosecution." I know I am certainly not, but that doesn't mean people should be blind to any mistakes they've made or that we shouldn't be critical to them. The defense has certainly been critized EXTENSIVELY throughout and since the trial. Cheers.

 

[GhostCrab]

Wait a minute. Didn't the defense argue that it was only one search not 84 and that the report was wrong? In the last few days of trial? I'm not getting how this was held back if they knew about it?

There is a difference from the defense believing that the report was inaccurate and arguing that point and the state KNOWING that it was inaccurate.

 

[Chablis]

From the WFTV link provided above...(thank you to the member who posted it). Anyway, I am now suffering from PTSD from watching 10 minutes of the trial again, but did so in order to transcribe what was being said.

As has been posted throughout this thread...the defense team, ASA's and Judge Perry were aware of this error. I should have done this sooner as it resolves the majority of the questions occurring from page 1.


@10:45 the chloroform searches, Stenger’s testimony and Bradley’s testimony is brought up by Baez.


JB: Yes sir, I just have a brief issue that I need to get on the record.

JP: Yes sir

JB: It relates to the issue of dealing with the computer searches. You may recall that there was an issue with the number of times that chloroform site was visited. The sci-spot….Mr bradley testified based on a report that was introduced by the state of florida that was actually compiled by the Sergeant Stenger. This was the 2nd report that was compiled a year later using a new software program in which they were having problems with and the net analysis that was conducted on August 2008 showed the identical website visited only once and that 2 columns below was 84 times for myspace which did not show up on the cache back report. It is our understanding that the cacheback report contains false information and we have placed the state on notice that the testimony elicited was false and we would ask that the state, on rebuttal clarify that false testimony and advise the jury of this falsehood.

JP: Any response from the state?

LDB: Mr. Baez has already made his closing arguments your honor.

JP: uh…folks I don’t know what you’re saying, whether it’s true or false. The only thing I can say is if there’s evidence of false testimony, then you need to file the appropriate motions at the appropriate time and I will take a look at it and see whether or not it is proven to be false. But at this stage I can’t chase after arguments, so file the appropriate motion and we’ll cross that bridge when we get there. Anything else?

LDB: No sir

JB: No

JP: ok, let’s return the jury.


http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html


It would seem to me, the real question is did the DT file a motion, if so what was the outcome? Instead of accusing others of misconduct.

Wonder why Mason did not to know about this issue...since it was in open court? :waitasec:

Cheney Mason, one of Ms. Anthony’s defense lawyers, said it was “outrageous” that prosecutors withheld critical information on the “chloroform” searches.

“The prosecution is absolutely obligated to bring forth to the court any and all evidence that could be exculpatory,” Mr. Mason said. “If in fact this is true, and the prosecution concealed this new information, it is more than shame on them. It is outrageous.”

“This was a major part of their case,” Mr. Mason added.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html

Is the issue that maybe they did not enter the evidence into court that their report was wrong, and they were supposed to?

 

[JSR]

You've got a point and that's what Caylee's Law is all about.

Okay, but why didn't George or Cindy report anything "missing"? They could've reported their car if nothing else. Lots of blame to go around IMO.

Cindy and George didn't know Caylee was missing until July 15th for certain. FCA told her mother over and over again that Caylee was alive and well with the nanny.

 

[Soju]

Wait a minute. Didn't the defense argue that it was only one search not 84 and that the report was wrong? In the last few days of trial? I'm not getting how this was held back if they knew about it?

Exactly. And they didn't even HAVE a computer expert.

 

[grandmaj]

Stop talking about one another and discuss the topic. It has been 3 weeks since Casey was acquitted and the bad behavior has to end now. Moderators cannot continue to work at the pace they have for the last 8 weeks. Everyone get back to the TOS and rules please. STOP the snark!

 

[SMK]

BBM: You are not alone ... I feel like I am in the "twilight zone" as well ...

My Opinion Only: I am shocked by the number of people who are ANTI-prosecution ...

MOO MOO MOO !

One can be absolutely NOT anti-prosecution, and still believe that if true, this is bad. Not really a pro or con issue, just one of official alleged misconduct. Even if true, would not mean the prosecution is evil or anything; just that they did something unethical.

 

[grandmaj]

There is a difference from the defense believing that the report was inaccurate and arguing that point and the state KNOWING that it was inaccurate.

No it is possible the State told the defense?????? Do we know that they were not told?

 

[LC446]

How about that dude from the body farm that was either trying to get a grant or money to continue non-research. :floorlaugh: Who the heck was it who was trying to sell a new device for scientific reserach? Was it the dead hair (death band) guy, who was a non-entity. I can't even remember who brought him on, but his "experiments" were junk in relation to this case.

Ok, I think you should put IMO or JMO in front of this stuff. You're entitled to your opinion but I think it is disrespectful to talk about Dr Vass' work like that, considering he is a pioneer in his field and the hair banding scientist works for the FBI, also a well respected agency. You can have all the negative derogatory feelings you would like about these folks but you should preface your comments so that people know these are your opinions only.

 

[dunlurken]

Wait a minute. Didn't the defense argue that it was only one search not 84 and that the report was wrong? In the last few days of trial? I'm not getting how this was held back if they knew about it?

I think that's what we're debating. However, if she was found NG, which she was, then the filing of motions are irrelevant.

 

[SMK]

No it is possible the State told the defense?????? Do we know that they were not told?

The Defense is claiming that they were NOT told. If the Defense is lying about this, that would be equally bad.

 

[BiancaS]

Baez brings it up just before Linda Drane Burdick stands up for her closing rebuttal, the morning of July 4. (nice bit of ambush there):

http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html (10:45 mark) (Thanks to kidz110, who posted this earlier for the link! :rocker:

LDB's response is that defence has finished closing arguments. She seems pretty laid back about it.

Judge Perry says he doesn't know if it is true or not, and that if there was false testimony that the defence file the appropriate motion at the appropriate time and he will take a look at it. He says he doesn't want to go chasing arguments now.

10:45 www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html

If you have not watched this, please take the time to do so. Very clear that the defense was made aware and they brought it up to the Judge. Judge Perry said they needed to file the appropriate motion so he could decide how to deal with it. Apparently the Defense never filed a motion and it was not addressed further. Prosecution was NOT HIDING ANYTHING.

 

[dunlurken]

Ok, I think you should put IMO or JMO in front of this stuff. You're entitled to your opinion but I think it is disrespectful to talk about Dr Vass' work like that, considering he is a pioneer in his field and the hair banding scientist works for the FBI, also a well respected agency. You can have all the negative derogatory feelings you would like about these folks but you should preface your comments so that people know these are your opinions only.

It wasn't Dr. Vass. It was the guy with blondish hair, a young guy, who was a protegee of Vass, IIRC. JMO.

(I didn't know we had to put JMO, etc. here. Thanks for the heads up!)

 

[grandmaj]

Well someone had to have told them. They jumped right on this in the final days of trial. It was confusing. So to me that tells me they were told by someone. They didn't figure it out on their own IMO.

 

[JSR]

I think that's what we're debating. However, if she was found NG, which she was, then the filing of motions are irrelevant.

If they wanted a remedy to be heard by the jury then the DT should have filed it before it went to the jury, they did not.

 

[Aedrys]

From what I can find, it was June 23rd when Cindy said she used the computer to search those terms...and if so, that was the date that LBD hammered on about the 84 times, IIRC. Which would be significantly after the date of June 16th, when the computer guy is saying he informed the state about the error.

He has updated his timeline. He is now saying it was June 23rd, not June 16th. That changes things significantly.

 

[SMK]

:waitasec: IIRC ... CFCA "waived" her right to a "speedy trial" ...

:waitasec:

I meant she clearly was culpable of something, or she would have been free.

 

[Aedrys]

Well someone had to have told them. They jumped right on this in the final days of trial. It was confusing. So to me that tells me they were told by someone. They didn't figure it out on their own IMO.

ITA! They didn't even LOOK at the hard drive or even hire any computer experts until it was too late to do so! There's no way they found this out themselves. Someone told them.