Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[New1]

: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:

We must have watched a different trial because I recall Judge Perry sustaining almost every objection by the prosecution and overruling almost all the defense objections. He also ruled against the defense in almost every pre-trial motion. He let the prosecution slide with hearsay evidence, but not the defense. "When"? When Troy Brown's girlfriend (I don't recall her name) testified that Casey told someone that she couldn't make their date because she had a flat tire then threw the phone on the dash and said, "I'm such a good liar." Remember that testimony? That was hearsay. Judge Perry ruled that JB could not ask Lee Anthony about sexual abuse. He ruled that Tony's testimony that Casey had told him about the sexual abuse was hearsay and so was Jesse Grund's testimony about what she had said to him. Hearsay is hearsay, but one side(the prosecution) was allowed to bring it in and one side (the defense) was not allowed to. I watched the whole trial and I remember thinking "why is what Troy Brown's girl friend said not hearsay but Tony's and Jesse's is?" Both were things Casey had TOLD them. Hearsay. What's the difference?

 

[EPfan]

someone DID type into the google search field "How to make chloroform"

This search led to the, 19th century use of chloroform.

I think someone said there was a search "GOOGLE search" on How TO Make Chloroform.

 

[JSR]

Do you have a cite to your source that the state informed the defense that the cacheback report was wrong? Regardless, it wouldn't matter because if the state were to correct such an error it would not simply mean turning over a corrected report to the defense. There would have to have been a jury instructing giving the correct information, something that Judge Perry would have absolutely done had the court been given notice.

Please go back and watch the portions of the trial. IIRC LDB said so in open court that there was an error and it was discussed among the parties in front of HHJP.

And to give a jury instruction to the Jury was the judge's decision NOT the SA. So if there was an error made it was on HHJP's decision not to instruct the jury. HHJP decided not to instruct the jury, so none was given.

 

[NavySubMom]

Oh how odd - cause I'm remembering that the SA came back in their rebuttal and said there were mistakes made in this information.....but haven't gone back to check the tapes - too busy counting Baez's lies in his OS and working to rebut the facts actually are...

I agree with you, that is why I am confused about all of this. I remember during rebuttal, the software person testifying admitted there were errors in the report, and I remember that the 84 number was proven wrong on the stand. That they discovered the error and re-ran the data with the updated software. At that point, I thought, if I was a juror, since this appeared confusing to me and not exact, I would not have believed the "number of times" the chlorofom site was visited, I would only go by the actual terms manually typed in by the human being doing the search, "chloroform", How+to+make+chloroform", "neckbreaking", etc. . I would look at the terms searched, versus the number of "hits" since there was conflicting testimony. I remember thinking this was cleared up, and that there was possibly only 1 hit on the chloroform page, and 84 hits to MySpace. this is what I have always thought was testified to on rebuttal. IMO, MOO. etc,

 

[Stargazer7]

This search led to the, 19th century use of chloroform.

I think someone said there was a search "GOOGLE search" on How TO Make Chloroform.

IIRC, the chloroform search was done on March 17 (and that's where the 84 v. 1 discrepancy comes from). The "How to make chloroform" was a separate google search done on March 21.

 

[Soju]

This search led to the, 19th century use of chloroform.

I think someone said there was a search "GOOGLE search" on How TO Make Chloroform.

There WAS a google search and a human being typed in the words "HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM" Please double check wherever you're getting your information that nobody typed that in. It's not true. Someone google searched how to make chloroform. The end.

 

[KathrynL]

from my understanding, we all (myself included) keep saying searches. But the actual issue of 1 vs 84 was how many visits there were to the Sci-spot site.

I believe I commented at the time that I was mad that the media kept saying 84 searches, when in fact the testimony was 84 site visits. This was no small point, in my mind. I did, in the end, disregard the chloroform evidence because it seemed weak.

From my recollection of the testimony (that may be a bit fuzzy now), I believe defense testimony indicated that those 84 visits were to MySpace, not to the chloroform site (sci.whatever). That was the dispute during the defense case about the number 84. If I'm remembering correctly then I assume the current discussion is about the state knowing that information before the defense discovered it. Because I do remember it coming in during the DT case.

imo

 

[SMK]

From Forbes online:

Prosecutor Misconduct In Casey Anthony Case Alleged

According to a software designer who created the computer program used by police and prosecutors to allege that Casey Anthony had conducted a Google search of the word “chloroform” 84 times, the prosecution erred in their assertion regarding the computer search and knew they might be doing so prior to the conclusion of the Anthony trial.

The computer search was a key piece of evidence in the murder trial as the prosecution sought to prove that Anthony had carefully studied the use of chloroform to render her daughter unconscious as part of a plan to murder 2 year old Caylee Anthony.

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/07/19/prosecutor-misconduct-in-casey-anthony-case-alleged/

Prosecutorial Misconduct – to say the least. Should heads roll?

http://kevinfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/prosecutorial-misconduct-%E2%80%93-to-say-the-least-%E2%80%93-should-heads-roll/

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't if this has been pointed out yet, but Bradley has his dates wrong. Stenger testified 6/23 about the 84 times, not 6/16.

 

[Chilly Willy]

It is 100% exculpatory. The state put forth their case and essentially listed why they thought she was guilty, duct tape, lying, partying, and so on. The 84 searches was part of their case that showed premeditation. If they received information that the analysis of the chloroform search was not correct, that info would be considered exculpatory and by not giving it to the defense they violated the rules of discovery but more importantly they violated her civil rights. She has the ultimate right to know any and all evidence that the state has against her followed with the right to know if that evidence is shown to be not true.

I still don't see it as exculpatory. The difference between 84 visits and 1 visit would not have cleared her of the charges had she been found guilty. It would have given her an issue for appeal but would not, on it's own, have allowed her to walk out the door with a not guilty verdict. Even one search for how to make chloroform is damning when a dead child and chloroform have been in your trunk.

 

[BladeRunner]

Canada guy I never trusted, I bet we find out he did something sneaky when he contacted SA, like left a message on an obscure line that was garbelled lol, or sent an email that never made it to them. He is setting up SA to make his own incompetence not the issue. IMHO. Give SA the benefit of the doubt, they stand up for Caylee remember?

 

[GhostCrab]

Please go back and watch the portions of the trial. IIRC LDB said so in open court that there was an error and it was discussed among the parties in front of HHJP.

And to give a jury instruction to the Jury was the judge's decision NOT the SA. So if there was an error made it was on HHJP's decision not to instruct the jury. HHJP decided not to instruct the jury, so none was given.

If LDB had corrected the report in open court JP would have HAD to give an instruction to the jury. No woulda, coulda, shoulda. He would have had to in order to ensure due process.

Not only did that not happen, but the most glaring omission is a motion for a mistrial based on incorrect information being testified to the jurors.

There was NEVER a correction by the state.

 

[2goldfish]

this is a load of silly sausages. if she'd been found guilty it would most likely have gotten her a second trial....


.....but only on the technicality. before I heard 84 I assumed myself it was once, and to find out it was, changes nothing.

I looked it up once and I havent forgotten how to make it. but wait! MY kids are alive and well so it doesnt MATTER that I looked it up. the day one or both appears deceased in the trunk of my car stenching of decomp and insane high levels of chloroform, THEN it becomes something to consider.


note: this is not to say that whoever knew this was wrong was not incorrect in not pointing it out. it just simply doesnt matter. it wouldnt have mattered to me as a juror and nothing at all mattered to the jurors she did get.

 

[Chilly Willy]

We must have watched a different trial because I recall Judge Perry sustaining almost every objection by the prosecution and overruling almost all the defense objections. He also ruled against the defense in almost every pre-trial motion. He let the prosecution slide with hearsay evidence, but not the defense. "When"? When Troy Brown's girlfriend (I don't recall her name) testified that Casey told someone that she couldn't make their date because she had a flat tire then threw the phone on the dash and said, "I'm such a good liar." Remember that testimony? That was hearsay. Judge Perry ruled that JB could not ask Lee Anthony about sexual abuse. He ruled that Tony's testimony that Casey had told him about the sexual abuse was hearsay and so was Jesse Grund's testimony about what she had said to him. Hearsay is hearsay, but one side(the prosecution) was allowed to bring it in and one side (the defense) was not allowed to. I watched the whole trial and I remember thinking "why is what Troy Brown's girl friend said not hearsay but Tony's and Jesse's is?" Both were things Casey had TOLD them. Hearsay. What's the difference?

River Cruz's testimony for the defense was hearsay.

 

[NavySubMom]

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.

At the time, I also believed there were not 84 searched, my thought was that LDB was trying to see if Cindy would answer "yes" to this wrong number of searches, to prove how far she would lies to help ICA. If CA really thought there really were 84 searches, would she just say "yes", as in, "would she just say, yes, whatever you ask me about the computer searches, I will cope for to cover for ICA. Does this make sense? this is what I have been thinking. IMO, MOO. etc.

 

[Psmith]

I probably worded this poorly.

I'm talking about this:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_casey-anthony-caylee-marie-law-enforcement


Here is how it was explained to me by HRCODEPINK:


What would most likely happen is that should would be ordered to pay back the money, but the suit for her Constitutional rights being violated could offset that amount and she would be required to pay the difference, or the state would be required to pay her the difference, whichever was higher.

Thank you for your reply and the info

From the link:

The mandatory minimum for prosecution costs and law enforcement investigative costs is $100 per case for a felony and $50 per case for a misdemeanor.

But Burdick noted in the motion that the statute says: "The court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred."

She goes on to say that the Orange County Sheriff's Office and the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation Task Force incurred special costs of "investigation expenses, above the minimum, for which proof is available." They specifically request "reimbursement of appropriate costs."

Burdick said the "efforts and costs of the investigation were extensive and not immediately available."

The prosecution wants Perry to set a hearing within 60 days to determine total investigation costs.

The motion asks for an order forcing Casey Anthony to reimburse the Sheriff and MBI for the special costs of investigation. Enforcement of the order would be turned over to Collections Court.

I think I've almost got it.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

Well, it was withheld from him, but I guess he is finding out now.

Link please? I can't tell what's fact or fiction in this thread. TIA

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You know what ticks me off.

Mis information that has been flying around in this thread. Like the fact that it was NOT typed in the search box "HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM". It most certainly WAS typed out. FCA did INDEED type out how to make chloroform and used google search under her password protected username.

Correction, she typed "how to make chloraform."

 

[Ssejors]

Everyone has a right to their opinions. And I respect that you have yours. And I can respectively say that I believe you to be completely wrong. So I guess it's a let's agree to disagree.

Atleast you both agree that the other is completely wrong... that's agreeing.


I just wanted to thank you both for agreeing to disagree civilly and I enjoy the differing opinions as it makes me think think think like pooh bear

 

[evelyn24]

And what about the various complaints to the bar on Baez? All of his misconduct in this trial? You think the SA is not going to bring every single thing Baez did wrong in this trial back at him if he tries to go after this one item that is really not a big deal? I doubt the SA is going to lie down and not answer back on this if he tries anything. Baez would be a fool to do anything about this, especially with a witness tampering investigation still going on (Laura Buchanan).

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

This..so much word. Please don't tell me that's not what this is about either.
Sorry.

JMO and all that jazz.