Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[kidz110]

I don't recall that. What I do recall, and I could be wrong, was the State recognising the error after resting their case 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.

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.

 

[MarthaM]

re BBM:

Not true. Felony murder would've gotten them there just as well.

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.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

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

Thank you...although LDB's reputation has been smeared in the media, all morning...I'm glad he or whomever corrected their dates / reports.

I'm still lost though...I posted on previous page, the transcript from the jury foreman's interview and he / they were very aware that there was only 1 google search. I'm having "FCA Juroritis" and can't seem to be able to connect the dots... Seriously...I really do feel like I'm missing something with this whole thing...TIA

 

[SMK]

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

I agree. What if they had gotten a conviction, only to have it overturned due to this? In a sense, the prosecution acted in a rash manner which was unfair to themselves, and to the State of Florida. JMO.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I'm just scratching my head about the fact that this man had 3 years to check this system/program AND, perhaps, using HIS diligence in reporting such data to the SA office, why not check and re-check HIS results?? Although, it appears to me he's "passing the buck" to make himself less responsible for supplying incorrect info, he blames the SA for not checking HIS data. Call me crazy, but when you pay for a service, that's the point, the service is required to give CORRECT responses....you have a TRUST in their reports you PAID for and see no reason to have other computer experts check HIS results.
Why wait till the 11th hour to alert the prosecution on June 25th of an error.
So, basically, not only did the SA's office receive incorrect data back 3 or so years ago, all his company's "other" clients received the same incorrect data to work off of because of same said mistake....YET, he comes out NOW to announce the mis-information utilized by the prosecution??? None of the "other" clients.
AND, as was questioned in above posts....is it just a "sin of omission" that only "chloroform" is incorrect is being discussed?? What about the "how to make chloroform" searches....does make them "nonexistant"?? Was THAT an error also fixed by the fixing/redesigning of the program??

I understand the seriousness of this info reported. BUT, is some other info being with- held, like the "how to make chloroform" searches, to spin this AGAINST the SA....to make KC seem LESS of the vile person she's made out to be??
Just IMO...I'm in no way any type of computer specialist....YET, still understand the implications of this report. I honestly need to go back to listen to LDB's closing and wording of this new fact coming out.

"Mr. 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 Sergeant Stenger about the discrepancy, and the sergeant said he was aware of it, Mr. Bradley said. He waited to see if prosecutors would correct the record. They did not."

 

[Shelby1]

: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:

I hope the pros isn't responsible.

Just because I'm trying to help explain what could happen, doesn't mean I want it to happen.

And, you're right. Unfortunately, Mr. Baez's opening statement isn't evidence, but also, unfortunately, the computer searches are.


edited to add:

I hope the state clears all of this up soon so I don't have to worry about it anymore. Will they make a statement?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:maddening:

Whether the Jury believed 1 search was done, or 4 searches, or 84 searches ... the "number of searches" obviously did NOT matter to the jury !

The Jury did NOT even believe there was "chloroform" in the trunk of the car and they obviously did NOT understand Dr. Arpaad Vass !

So if they did NOT believe Dr. Vass or that there was high amounts of "chloroform" in the car ...

They probably did NOT believe there were searches on the computer !


So ... this tells me that they would not even be able to get themselves out of a paper bag -- with a map -- if they couldn't figure this out !

:maddening::banghead::maddening:

 

[JBean]

So is this an attempt to make her appear innocent so that people back off? YAWN. I am bored.

I don't think that is the issue..at all.

 

[Polifax]

I think the big picture is being overlooked. Take out the minute details of 1 search v. 84 searches and take out personal emotions. What you have left is an allegation that the SA used information in a Death Penalty case that was known to be untrue.

I would question what the ramifications could be to other cases the SA tried. Could this result in appeals being filed in other cases? If in fact it is true, I feel it can call into question past cases and verdicts.

:twocents:

 

[annalia]

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:





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-chloroform-ONCE-84-times.html#ixzz1SZV05Phr

My bolding

How do you disprove sexual abuse allegations?

 

[Shelby1]

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

My thanks wasn't enough. You said it perfectly.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Is Bradley's deposition available? I found an article from April 13th that says:

"I found two results," Bradley told lawyers in his deposition. "One was for 'chloroform,' spelled 'c-h-l-o-r-o-f-o-r-m,' and that was dated March 17, 2008, at 14:43 p.m., 41 seconds. And there was one visit. And the second entry is for 'how to make chloroform,' and the same spelling on the 21st of March, 2008, at 3:16 p.m. and 30 seconds. One visit."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/april/232153/

 

[cityslick]

: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:

2 things. First, if the prosecution was told this info is incorrect and LDB still emphasized it in rebuttal and closing, then that's a big deal because at that point you are intentionally misleading the jury to believe something that is factually not true.

Second, JB can say martians are responsible for Caylee's death and he is not responsible for proving any of it, only to show evidence that shows doubt, preferable to support his own theory.

Will anything come out of this? Probably not, she was aquitted. But if she wasn't, this could of been a much bigger story, one that perhaps could of gotten her off on appeal.

 

[annalia]

I agree. What if they had gotten a conviction, only to have it overturned due to this? In a sense, the prosecution acted in a rash manner which was unfair to themselves, and to the State of Florida. JMO.

But they didn't get a conviction.

 

[Just Jayla]

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

LambChop did not write 84 in the post, she wrote that KC did look it up, once or twice too much. That is known via LE early on, before the 84 times thing came into play. KC being the one to have looked it up is based on the premise that CA was at work and this was done using Mozilla on KC's "side" of the computer and in combination with searches for MySpace and One Tree Hill (IIRC), which I am personally certain George was not searching. This aspect was well covered here very early on.

 

[Mendara]

She is FREE.

 

[SMK]

My bolding

How do you disprove sexual abuse allegations?

You can't. That is the point. Fair or not, it is the truth.

 

[JBean]

My bolding

How do you disprove sexual abuse allegations?

This would be a question for another thread. Thanks.

 

[tennisgirlsc]

I don't remember hearing LDB stating the number 84 times during her closing argument or after the 16th for that matter.

 

[SMK]

But they didn't get a conviction.

But did they not put their own potential conviction at grave risk? I think so.