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."