Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[dizzychick]

My hubby and I have been fighting over this since the trial ended. He claims the canadian guy who testified for the state made a mistake about the 84 Chloroform searches and in fact the term was searched only 1 time. This morning he hit me with this article and said since the state " KNEW" this was a mistake and chose to use it, they are therefore liars like Casey and we cannot believe any of the puter searches reported at trial. Humm I disagree and think one mistake does not mean the totality of the other evidence should be discredited. I think it only took one search to find out it only requires bleach and nail polish remover to make the stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1&hp

 

[SMK]

ouch.

What a tough technical evidence case the prosecution had to deal with. ME Experts can't agree... Air experts can't agree. And now, we're told the PT were not even given reliable computer forensics?

No doubt, Casey's new PR program (whoever has put her under contract) is off and running.

:cow:

Well, I have yet to see an illustrious publication such as the New York Times run with anyone's PR machine. They stick to facts and stories of objective import.

 

[Ithaka]

This point might have been mentioned (I apologize in advance if this is the case): I have doubts concerning the reliability of the types of software checking the hard disk for searches done by a browser (was it Firefox in this case?) The outcome cannot and should not be used in a court of law because anyone can plant information in the registry of the computer about a search saved in the browser's history. In order to prove that someone has done a certain search, one would have to be able to access information saved on all the servers the search went through. Only having access to server records can we be certain that the search actually did take place.
My point? This non-reliable software shouldn't have been used by the prosecution - this evidence could have been successfully challenged on appeal.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

The jury was obviously made aware of the 1 search vs 84...according to the jury foreman's interview w/ GVS...what am I missing? If the jury knew, then the defense knew...and I "thought" I knew that it was clarified as well?? Alas, I'm lost...HELP!

VAN SUSTEREN: You mentioned the chloroform. How did that figure into this and into your thinking?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, the chloroform -- it really -- as far as the development of the chloroform, the Internet search on the chloroform, you know, really, there was the MySpace or FaceBook posting of the "Win her over with chloroform" picture. And then there was the actual Google search the next day that was done from the computer, not the laptop, but from the actual desktop computer in the Anthony home.

You can speculate, you know, hey, here it is, the boyfriend posts this, "Win her over with chloroform." The next day, I want to know what chloroform is. You can speculate into that. There was no documentation on buying anything to make chloroform. The one Internet search that she made from Google was a three-minute Internet search. And then it subsided from there.

And you know, if there was possible more traces of it in greater amounts, more of a way of how it can be concocted, how it could be purchased, whatever may be -- none of that was ever there. So we were very limited in what we had when it came to chloroform.

We were told, and they did, you know, as far as how -- and what chloroform is detected in other products at the levels -- you know, chloroform is detectable in other products, as well. But there just was not enough, there really was not enough for us to bring chloroform into the mix.

We know there were smaller levels of it in the trunk. We know there was a Google search on it. And that's what we had. It wasn't detected anywhere else. It wasn't on the steering wheel. It wasn't on the handle of the door, going into the car. And even if there was, there still is a question of who and where.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...39everything-was-speculation039#ixzz1SZSQDVA0

 

[JWG]

New York Times



This suggests the other.

The NYT has it incorrect. Mr. Bradley was very specific. The chloroform.htm page on sci-spot.com was visited once, not 84 times as originally thought.

 

[LancelotLink]

First off, in reply to others above, there is a time gap between Mr. Bradley's testimony of June 8 and his alleged communications with OSCO in late June.

I am scandalized if what is alleged by Mr. Bradley in the NYT article is true. But I find his claims somewhat dubious considering that he (1) seems to be saying he was "forced" to testify to matters other than CacheBack itself (as in the 84x chloroform search), and (2) is saying that it was OSCO's job to verify his verification.



Still reviewing PattyG's videos, starting at Part 8 for June 8, 2011. Bradley's testimony seems to be well into things at this part....if anyone wants to join in...
‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 8 - 6/8/11‬‏ - YouTube

(I am thinking now, whatever might be discovered, that I would not be very likely to enlist Mr. Bradley's firm to do any kind of computer data retrieval or forensics....He might blame me for the faults in his software or say I made him find things that weren't there! lolol)

Thank you!!

 

[Chilly Willy]

I know that at some point during the trial it came out that 84 searches was a mistake. We discussed it here and wondered how the prosecution would rectify the error. I believe it was the defense that pointed out the mistake and the prosecution never addressed it or corrected themselves. I was surprised to hear LDB restate that 84 searches were made during her closing.

IMO, which really means nothing, the state deserves a huge slap on the wrist but, since Casey was not convicted, she really can't claim to have suffered any damages and is not entitled to compensation. The state is after her to pay for the expenses related to the lying for which she was convicted, nothing else.

 

[EPfan]

My understanding is that the SEARCH in GOOGLE was of the phrase "how to make chloroform". I remember them showing the string "how+to+make+chloroform" which is a parameter that is passed in to the google search URL:


URL

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.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

:waitasec: I seriously doubt that LDB will be held accountable for this ... it was NOT her fault !

And speaking of "double standards" ... Judge Perry has NOT done anything to Jose Baez YET ! And I don't know what Judge Perry is waiting for !

The "Double Standard" was in favor of the Defense throughout the Trial ! Judge Perry "bent over backwards" and "sideways" for the Defense.

Remember this :

The State did NOT intentionally do anything wrong ...

But the JB and the Defense Team INTENTIONALLY made up a bunch of LIES for their Opening Statement, of which NONE of their LIES were PROVEN !

:banghead::maddening::banghead:

Until this is investigated, at this point, I cannot say that this was not intentional and I don't know how anyone could. If she was told that this information was incorrect and used it anyway then that is intentional. I am REALLY hoping that you are right and that this guy is lying. I wouldn't want to think that they would do anything that was not 100% truthful. Especially on information that I gave so little weight to in the first place.

 

[SMK]

It is a huge deal, no matter which "side" you are on. The 84 was put out there for one reason, shock value and to hammer in on the chloroform, which the state wanted to use as cause of death. If they knew that someone had looked up that term one time, okay, that would still bolster their case, but nothing like shouting "84 times" in a courtroom would do...

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:maddening:

I am just appalled by the number of people who want to hold the State and Linda Drane-Burdick "responsible" for the mistake of this computer "witness" ...

I also want to know WHY these same people who want to hold the State and LDB responsible for an error made by a computer witness, are NOT screaming to hold Jose Baez responsible for his LIES in his Opening Statement ?

I know Opening Statement is NOT evidence -- but Jose put it out there -- the Jury heard -- and they "bought" it ! :banghead:

You just can't have it both ways ...

:banghead::maddening::banghead:

 

[elementary]

Didn't we hear all about these errors in the rebuttal from the SA?
What's the big deal?

I don't recall that. What I do recall, and I could be wrong, was the State recognising the error and formally informing the DT of it and the judge, not sure when, but it was first thing in the morning, and Baez whining about it. Unfortunately my recollection is pretty vague but I do recall something being mentioned because I was surprised.

 

[JWG]

Sgt. Stenger produced the report on June 3. Baez objected to the state entering it into evidence, calling it a discovery violation because the state had just handed him a copy. However, LDB argued that the defense had had the hard drive in their possession for over two years and that the report simply reflected a summation of part of that hard drive.

Then, the state had Mr. Bradley read the report and describe what was on the report. This was the first time Mr. Bradley had ever seen the report. Again, Baez objected because the state was asking an expert to testify to another expert's report. He was overruled because one expert can testify to what he sees in a second expert's report.

When asked how many times the chloroform site was visited, Mr. Bradley said something to the effect that, "according to the report, 84 times."

Mr. Bradley learned of Sgt. Stenger's direct examination by the defense on June 16, where he read from a NetAnalysis report that the site was visited once. He contacted Sgt. Stenger and asked him about that, and was told OCSO had known about the discrepancy for a LONG time. That there, folks, is problem #1.

Mr. Bradley worked to correct his software and "liased" with LDB from June 16-19. On June 23 when Cindy tried to take the fall for the chloroform searches, LDB asked her if she made the search 84 times? By then, LDB had known about the problem and the correct figure at least 5 days. And that there is problem #2.

Looks like a correction is in order. Mr. Bradley had said that the triggering event was Sgt. Stenger's testimony when called by the defense. This was the same day Cindy took the fall for the chloroform searches. So LDB did not yet know there was an error when she asked the question.

See: http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp

 

[french75]

Regardless of the things that the DT and Casey did, this is still a BIG DEAL. Thinking that it is a big deal does not minimize anyone the actions of anyone else in this!!

"Well what about what FCA/JB/CM did?!" is not a valid response to this. That is honestly the kind of response I would expect from a 5 year old.

 

[EPfan]

Well, we do know it was more than once because CA said she searched both days and obviously the jury believed her because the chloroform was thrown out by the jury as an issue. Maybe they were confused as we were why one program showed one search when we knew there was more than one and another program shows 84. The software designer was there to present facts not to lie. If he knew the spreadsheet he was given was wrong he should have said so.

If this software was wrong I'd have some serious issues with a witness who would get on the stand and agree that the information on that datasheet was correct. And he was on the stand twice, was he not. jmo

The jury (or some) said the chloroform could have come from houshold products and there wasn't enought evidence to factor in chlorform. I took it they meant there wasn't any evidence or buying products to make chloroform, or evidence of making chloroform.

 

[JBean]

What - you mean because the jury listened to this mistaken information, digested it, believed it and convicted ICA because of it?

I think the issue is more about the principle and the potential cost effect.

 

[New1]

And if it isn't wrong his company gets a lot of exposure. We know chloroform was looked up on 17th and 21st. We know someone looked up how to make chloroform. Twice to me would be too much.

We don't KNOW that. We THOUGHT she had looked it up 84 times. What else did the SA get wrong? Makes me wonder.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Looks like a correction is in order. Mr. Bradley had said that the triggering event was Sgt. Stenger's testimony when called by the defense. This was the same day Cindy took the fall for the chloroform searches. So LDB did not yet know there was an error when she asked the question.

See: http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp

I don't agree. We knew about it when Cindy was questioned. Why wouldn't the state? I remember being surprised that Cindy was asked if she'd searched 84 times because we already knew that information was not accurate.

 

[SMK]

:maddening:

I am just appalled by the number of people who want to hold the State and Linda Drane-Burdick "responsible" for the mistake of this computer "witness" ...

I also want to know WHY these same people who want to hold the State and LDB responsible for an error made by a computer witness, are NOT screaming to hold Jose Baez responsible for his LIES in his Opening Statement ?

I know Opening Statement is NOT evidence -- but Jose put it out there -- the Jury heard -- and they "bought" it ! :banghead:

You just can't have it both ways ...

:banghead::maddening::banghead:

1. Allegations of sexual abuse have not been disproven factually.
2. As you state, opening statements are theoretical, and not based on fact and complete trust, as is evidence:

One can feel some repulsion for Mr. Baez or Ms. Anthony, while still feeling a different repulsion for dishonesty in the prosecution. I tend to be harsh with dishonesty from high officials; NOT in any way aimed at this particular team:

Casey Anthony searched for 'chloroform' ONCE not 84 times... and the prosecution knew claims software designer

Mr Bradley said he immediately contacted prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June via email and by phone to tell them of the mistake.
Sergeant Stenger said he was aware of the discrepancy, according to Mr Bradley.
'I gave the police everything they needed to present a new report,' Mr Bradley said.
'I did the work myself and copied out the entire database in a spreadsheet to make sure there was no issue of accessibility to the data.'
He even offered to fly to Orlando at his own expense to go through the findings.
Despite Anthony being cleared of murder, the revelations have angered her defence.
Defence lawyer Cheney Mason told the Times 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.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-chloroform-ONCE-84-times.html#ixzz1SZV05Phr

 

[EPfan]

Looks like a correction is in order. Mr. Bradley had said that the triggering event was Sgt. Stenger's testimony when called by the defense. This was the same day Cindy took the fall for the chloroform searches. So LDB did not yet know there was an error when she asked the question.

See: http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp

LDB knew when she presented the closing arguements.