Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[defense101]

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.

Defense lawyers can't bring charges against people like prosecutors do, as such they are held to a higher standard.

 

[Baldy]

EDIT- I should have scrolled down to the State's response... more lies from the defense... surprise, surprise!!! EDIT

If they knew and did not tell the defense immediately, wouldn't this be grounds for ending trial and never trying her again? It seems awfully bad, IMO. Can't remember the phrase, but something about "dismissal, with prejudice?" FWIW< I have always thought Casey was guilty of at least manslaughter or above.

 

[SMK]

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:

Well, I posted many of the "Prosecutorial Misconduct" articles , AND I also posted the Press Release from the State of Florida. I for one do not feel responsible for the misleading media headlines. If they did in fact mislead, then it is on their conscious, not mine. We were debating news about the Anthony case, after all. See title of this thread.

 

[cluciano63]

If they knew and did not tell the defense immediately, wouldn't this be grounds for ending trial and never trying her again? It seems awfully bad, IMO. Can't remember the phrase, but something about "dismissal, with prejudice?" FWIW< I have always thought Casey was guilty of at least manslaughter or above.

Well, IF it had been true, it probably would only cause a retrial if she had been convicted. And she can't be tried again now, under any circumstances, even if she confesses...

 

[mitzi]

This is what I remembered-- http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html (10:45 mark) LDB didn't seem too concerned with JB's threat.

People who think that the State withheld anything...WATCH THIS VIDEO, above!!!

Defense knew about the incorrect information from the State, talked about it during the juror's 'special break', IN OPEN COURT! HHJP told the defense to file a motion regarding it, and then HHJP would address the jury, but defense DID NOT file a motion, and HHJP did not address the jury. LDB DID NOT mention the 84 searches during her closing.

CASE CLOSED!!!

Let's quit bashing the prosecution with incorrect information...watch the damn video! :banghead:

 

[MarthaM]

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.

Well, if someone on their team did bring up that 84 searches seems a bit odd, it sure doesn't look like anybody listened since their witness did testify to that. And the prosecutors brought up that magic number of 84 later. So either no one on the prosecution team thought it should be checked out further, or someone think so did but they still went with it. I suppose I'll never know the answer to that one.

All I know is this: In a death penalty case, the prosecutors should really have a better handle on their evidence.

 

[grammieto5]

Defense lawyers can't bring charges against people like prosecutors do, as such they are held to a higher standard.

OH, OK so is this why the defense can lie, and destroy innocent people, and doesn't have any standards?

 

[kelian36]

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:

Yes, that's what most all of us want to know RU. I particularly want to know is this a sleazy game the defense team is playing?

 

[kelian36]

OH, OK so is this why the defense can lie, and destroy innocent people, and doesn't have any standards?

:rocker:

 

[kelian36]

Is there a test for Common Sense????

If there is, the DT missed it.
Must have been given the day the jurors were absent too. :banghead:

 

[Maia]

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:

:tyou: A thanks just isn't enough. THIS is exactly what I thought last night when all this discussion started. The more I read, the harder I had to sit on my hands. JA and LDB have over 50 years experience between them...there is NO WAY either of them would have done this deliberately, nor would either have jeopardized their career for a conviction. All my opinion, of course.

 

[defense101]

OH, OK so is this why the defense can lie, and destroy innocent people, and doesn't have any standards?

No...this is why prosecutors are held to higher standard, I believe that's what I said.

 

[mitzi]

I first saw word of this issue from richard hornsby's tweet yesterday...not from the defense FWIW...

Even Richard has replied to his own blog about this that he just heard there was a revised version of Bradley's blog, with changed dates and all. Perhaps Richard needs to update his incendiary blog to match what some peeps on here have repeatedly posted to no avail. Me thinks Richard just jumped on this for his blog entry with no research done by him...maybe a retraction by him will be forthcoming...if not, it SHOULD BE!!! :banghead:

 

[TexanMom]

People who think that the State withheld anything...WATCH THIS VIDEO, above!!!

Defense knew about the incorrect information from the State, talked about it during the juror's 'special break', IN OPEN COURT! HHJP told the defense to file a motion regarding it, and then HHJP would address the jury, but defense DID NOT file a motion, and HHJP did not address the jury. LDB DID NOT mention the 84 searches during her closing.

CASE CLOSED!!!

Let's quit bashing the prosecution with incorrect information...watch the damn video! :banghead:

Seriously, thanks is not enough! Much ado about NOTHING!

 

[kelian36]

Defense lawyers can't bring charges against people like prosecutors do, as such they are held to a higher standard.

Higher standards?!?!? :floorlaugh:

When did getting a mother who murdered her toddler off become a higher standard?
That's right----IT DIDN'T.
Baez is a liar and a bully. He should be ashamed of himself. Instead I'm sure he will continue to gloat like a toad.

 

[cluciano63]

Even Richard has replied to his own blog about this that he just heard there was a revised version of Bradley's blog, with changed dates and all. Perhaps Richard needs to update his incendiary blog to match what some peeps on here have repeatedly posted to no avail. Me thinks Richard just jumped on this for his blog entry with no research done by him...maybe a retraction by him will be forthcoming...if not, it SHOULD BE!!! :banghead:

He had this out there more than 24 hours ago...so he may have "started" it.

 

[kelian36]

People who think that the State withheld anything...WATCH THIS VIDEO, above!!!

Defense knew about the incorrect information from the State, talked about it during the juror's 'special break', IN OPEN COURT! HHJP told the defense to file a motion regarding it, and then HHJP would address the jury, but defense DID NOT file a motion, and HHJP did not address the jury. LDB DID NOT mention the 84 searches during her closing.

CASE CLOSED!!!

Let's quit bashing the prosecution with incorrect information...watch the damn video! :banghead:

:rocker: Thank YOU Mitzi.

 

[SMK]

Well, if I were the State, I would ask Bradley to retract statements he is making, such as below:

Bradley said that he only testified what was on a report, and not based on research he had conducted. After he testified, he found that it was odd that the specific Web site for chloroform showed 84 visits. After his research, he found that it was only visited once.
Bradley, fearing that jurors were being given false information based on his data, contacted the police and the prosecution the weekend of June 25. He asked Sgt. Stenger about the discrepancy, and he said he was aware of it, Bradley said. He waited to see if prosecutors would correct the record. They did not.

and I would also want retracted pieces which say things such as:

The details of how the cops and prosecutors failed to validate data, and of how Bradley tried to press them to do exactly that, are interesting. They're here in the New York Times piece by Lizette Alvarez.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/07/19/software-designer-be.html

and this from the New York Times:

A former Canadian police sergeant who specializes in computer forensic analysis, Mr. Bradley said he first became suspicious of the data after he testified on June 8. He said he had been called to testify by the prosecution about his CacheBack software. Instead, he was asked repeatedly about the Sheriff&#8217;s Office report detailing the 84 search hits on &#8220;chloroform,&#8221; which he had not seen.

&#8220;I had translated the data into something meaningful for the police,&#8221; he said. &#8220;Then I turned it over to them. The No. 1 principle for them is to validate the data, and they had the tools and resources to do it. They chose not to.&#8221;

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

 

[pookie53]

Something is really weird about Bradley's statements.

MAR-MAY, 2011 - I contacted the State Attorney's office on numerous occasions to verify what I was required to testify about at trial. I specifically inquired about whether I needed to examine the data, create any presentations for court, or if I required a laptop. I was told that I did not need to bring anything and that everything was already looked after. I was expected to only be on the stand for a few minutes - that was it.

JUN 8 & 9, 2011 - I was called to the stand by the State to testify about a CacheBack report that I had never seen before and the contents of which I had no foreknowledge of. This report was created by OCSD on June 3rd, 2011! I was only supposed to get up on the stand and say "I decoded the file" and that was it.

During his testimony June 8th he made the following statements.

"I've gone so far as to prepare for today, and I've actually visited wikipedia's website, and my own common knowledge is it tends to underscore key words in certain documents."

When talking about the druglibrary.org 1800s chloroform habit website Baez asks him "Did you look at that page at anytime?"

Bradley's answer "As a matter of fact last night I did."

So he just happened to look at that website last night even though he had no knowledge of what was in the report? Or am I not understanding his statements? How would Baez know to ask him that question about whether or not he looked at that website and knew what was on it? Up until that page I don't think he had asked him if he visited any of the other sites. I would have to go back and watch again to be sure, but it seemed like Baez knew what his answer was going to be.

 

[defense101]

Higher standards?!?!? :floorlaugh:

When did getting a mother who murdered her toddler off become a higher standard?
That's right----IT DIDN'T.
Baez is a liar and a bully. He should be ashamed of himself. Instead I'm sure he will continue to gloat like a toad.

Did you read the original message I was replying to... Prosecutors are held to a higher standard as they are the ones who bring charges against people, defense lawyers cannot bring charges and have someone put to death.