Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[Smelly Squirrel]

AGAIN From the state:
We are dismayed at the suggestion made by the defense that prosecutors would withhold exculpatory material. Court records show that the defense was completely aware of the issues, utilizing these facts at trial.

So? What does that have to do with my post?

 

[kelian36]

There is a difference between the defense knowing and the prosecution knowing and presenting evidence they knew to be false.

Kinda like that false stuff about George and Lee being molesters and Caylee drowning.................
That was some bs spewed by the defense now wasn't it?

 

[Nova24]

This company didn't realize THEIR mistake until after they tesified in court. DT was aware. They didn't puposely mislead anyone. And this company had a big screw up and I'm sure they are trying to throw some of it on State versus taking accountability. I think it hurts this company in the future because what other lawyers would use them now? I wouldn't because you can't trust their data. This is THEIR error and they testified FALSELY but INNOCENTLY. They didn't mean to mislead people either. LDB didn't say it again AFTER knowing it was bad info. If she had there would be an issue.

 

[Psmith]

Huh, so he not only got the dates wrong by a week, but apparently the software designer admitted to sending an email with additional info to the wrong email address...sounds like someone tried to shift the blame on the SA to cover his own arse...

Any chances of a CacheBack IPO being made anytime soon may have taken a nose dive :crazy:

(No ill wishes to Mr. Bradley or his company. But the news has not been good–error after error, even down to the simplest thing such as sending info to the incorrect email address.)

Peace out.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

The defense did have an expert for consulting, and he also told Baez about the discrepancy.

Ex Forensis: Casey Anthony Digital Evidence - Chloroform Searches

Thanks...interesting read.
snip>>

I don't know how they got a copy of the history.dat file used in the case. However, as the consulting expert that assisted the defense team in this area, I can say that based on the analysis I did of all of the digital evidence in the case, that Digital Detective got it right.

I too wonder how they got a copy of the dat file. IIRC the day of the testimony, there were quite a few posters on the Anthony Computer thread, searching for a copy of the dat file; which had not been released then...and I don't believe it's been released to date. Anyone?

Since I was a consulting expert and could not testify at trial, I supplied the cross examination information for Jose Baez to use in confronting the 84 hits when the opportunity came at trial.

But JB did say during trial he said he didn't retain a computer expert, remember it was the same day that the state revealed the potential connection between FCA's story and April Whalen. (link below):waitasec:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/printthread.php?t=140975&pp=1000

 

[BCV]

I never believed the info was right when they showed she had 84 hits on my space or whatever every session.

 

[MissJames]

JA was right when he said he needed to get everything JB said on video. An agreement means nothing to him. He played this game with discovery, with the depo vs proffer agreement (Nurse Sally ,the grief expert) and now ,when he knows what the truth is.
Baez and Mason,both,have no respect for anyone or anything but money,IMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I would like to see that history file too, or at least the Netanalysis/Cacheback reports.

 

[LambChop]

Any chances of a CacheBack IPO being made anytime soon may have taken a nose dive :crazy:

(No ill wishes to Mr. Bradley or his company. But the news has not been good–error after error, even down to the simplest thing such as sending info to the incorrect email address.)

Peace out.

I know....that blew my mind. jmo

 

[grammieto5]

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

If in fact this is trueIt seems to me all Mr. Mason is doing is getting the media and the public to focus on this so FCA can be moved without everyone watching.

 

[Nova24]

CM is a liar. He knew about this during the trial. It's clear even from the info posted above. He lies as much as ICA does now. Shame he has sunk so low after what was a distinguished career prior to this case. I guess ICA can drag down just anout anyone to her level.

 

[elementary]

Then they should have put this expert on the stand to discredit the state's expert, they didn't. And that's not the state's fault.

The State Attny has released a statement addressing the matter. Has this been posted here yet? If not:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/CacheBack-errors-0719.pdf

Quote:
Mr. Bradley never told prosecutors that the searches or the dates and times of the searches were inaccurate. The only inaccuracies discussed were the visit counts discrepancy and that each software program (CacheBack & Net Analysis) revealed a different number of total records. Again, all of this information was disclosed to the defense in a timely manner.
We are dismayed at the suggestion made by the defense that prosecutors would withhold exculpatory material. Court records show that the defense was completely aware of the issues, utilizing these facts at trial.

We are dismayed at the suggestion made by the defense that prosecutors would withhold exculpatory material. Court records show that the defense was completely aware of the issues, utilizing these facts at trial.

This explains why neither LDB nor Judge Perry reacted with any sort of concern when Baez "wanted it on the record" that there was a discrepancy, implying all along, that it was false testimony. So that's why JP told him to put in a motion and move on. Why LDB argued that DTs's closing statements were finished. In actuality it was Baez's last chance to disrupt court proceedings and unsettle LDB just before her critical closing rebuttal.

And, they never filed the motion as Perry suggested.

Meanwhile. today has been all about smearing the prosecution before all the facts were known because, of course, the State is the only one left standing with clean hands and that can't be possible..

 

[Pink Panther]

The jury heard that she had visited the site 84 times. True or not. It didn't make a shred of difference to them. The point is moot.

moo

ETA - What a jury! I now firmly believe that at minimum, IQ tests should be administered to those who hold the responsibility of "justice" in their hands.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

OMG! I am SO glad the state has responded and cleared this up. I really think that this guy needs to be held accountable for what he is claiming. Especially this little tidbit: "This information was selectively omitted in my discussions with OCSD." I really don't like that term. The only time that I ever hear that term is when I am being told about someone who is deliberately lying. And from reading over his little post again, it would seem that the information about him sending the reports to the wrong email address was the selective omission here. At the very least, he needs to add to his apology at the end, but I think that some other sort of punishment is in order here, personally.

ETA: I suppose he felt it would not be a good idea to mention that he sent it to the wrong email address because it is already a post about his product being faulty at the time. Can't let anyone see that you can't do anything right. Ugh!

 

[MarthaM]

This company didn't realize THEIR mistake until after they tesified in court. DT was aware. They didn't puposely mislead anyone. And this company had a big screw up and I'm sure they are trying to throw some of it on State versus taking accountability. I think it hurts this company in the future because what other lawyers would use them now? I wouldn't because you can't trust their data. This is THEIR error and they testified FALSELY but INNOCENTLY. They didn't mean to mislead people either. LDB didn't say it again AFTER knowing it was bad info. If she had there would be an issue.

I'd like to know whether anybody on the prosecution team (not just the big lawyers, but the whole team) questioned that magic '84' number. So many average ordinary viewers thought it sounded odd, so didn't a prosecutor question it before putting this guy on the stand? Or did they just run with it, since they liked what they heard?

 

[LambChop]

The jury heard that she had visited the site 84 times. True or not. It didn't make a shred of difference to them. The point is moot.

moo

ETA - What a jury! I now firmly believe that at minimum, IQ tests should be administered to those who hold the responsibility of "justice" in their hands.

Is there a test for Common Sense????

 

[Mystic]

I recall the discrepancy being mentioned near the end of trial. And imo it didn't change anything; whether 1 or 84 times. The testimonial of the spike of cholorform in the trunk.. it was either used or not. If not, then that poor little girl wasn't even knocked out before she put the tape on her mouth & nose. I played out every possible scenerio of a drowning and imo that never happened. I don't for a minute think the SA would have taken a chance of holding out this info to latter have a successful appeal had KC been convicted.

 

[grammieto5]

According to the Supreme Court, "while prosecutors may strike hard blows, a prosecutor in not at liberty to strike foul ones". How sad Defense attorneys are not held to high standards like the prosecutors, in fact the Defense is held to no standards. I still say CM did this to get the media and the public focused on something else while FCA is moved.

 

[elementary]

I'd like to know whether anybody on the prosecution team (not just the big lawyers, but the whole team) questioned that magic '84' number. So many average ordinary viewers thought it sounded odd, so didn't a prosecutor question it before putting this guy on the stand? Or did they just run with it, since they liked what they heard?

And so many average ordinary viewers didn't notice it, like me, for instance. So I don't see how you can extrapolate from that that they just ran with it "because they liked what they heard". I don't think it works that way with the rules of law. It's a strange sort of speculation to throw out there, IMO, with no basis in fact.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Statement from the state released today:
We are dismayed at the suggestion made by the defense that prosecutors would withhold exculpatory material. Court records show that the defense was completely aware of the issues, utilizing these facts at trial.

I can't stand KC's dufense team.

SO___18 pages of comments about prosecution misconduct, withholding evidence from the DT.....reversals, mistrial, early retirement, resignations, head's will roll, yada.....yada.....yada.....

THINK we should of given the STATE a chance to respond!!!!! WTH is happening here. :waitasec: