Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[cluciano63]

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

 

[cluciano63]

This only appears to make KC looked as if she was, indeed, the searcher. If one search was the only one done.....CA admitted to at least two...one on the 17th and one on the 21st. So much for improving KC's imagine. jmo

I disagree as to Casey, anyway. I know I would have looked up chloroform to see what it was being used for these days if my BF had something like what was posted to R's website...as for Cindy, she was flying all on her own up there.

 

[elementary]

How could they not know the software was flawed?
How could they not know the body farm was junk science (pardon me for that but I knew it well before this went to trial.)
How could prosecution not know they had no forensic evidence?
How could prosecution not know CE is not always enough?
And these are professionals? Who spent thousands of bucks trying a case they couldn't prove?

The jurors were not dummies and I applaud them. JMO.

Nice satire. :rocker:

 

[dunlurken]

Well I guess if you ignore the 31 days, duct tape,lies,jail house videos, smell in the car,tattoo and the partying just to name a few then I guess it (PC searches) would be a big deal. But honestly though the Jury didn't care because they bought into the Defense's opening statement so the entire trial after that was a mute point and that my fellow posters is the facts the way I see it.

Not mute, moot. I can't find a hug icon, but I hope you read this with the way it was posted. :seeya:

 

[dvdman]

So what you are saying is that just because she searched 1 time for Chloroform and not 84 then she's innocent and the Juror's did a good job and they should ignore all of the other evidence? I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree and I also believe you're giving that Jury way too much credit.

How could they not know the software was flawed?
How could they not know the body farm was junk science (pardon me for that but I knew it well before this went to trial.)
How could prosecution not know they had no forensic evidence?
How could prosecution not know CE is not always enough?
And these are professionals? Who spent thousands of bucks trying a case they couldn't prove?

The jurors were not dummies and I applaud them. JMO.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

my bolding

could have?

And from "could have" you got that that state is is trouble and you predict ldb's resignation shortly?

does anyone know if their has been a response from the state attornys office, before we have everyone on the prosecutution
resigning in disgrace--geez!!!!

 

[dvdman]

Thanks for catching that.

Not mute, moot. I can't find a hug icon, but I hope you read this with the way it was posted. :seeya:

 

[dunlurken]

So what you are saying is that just because she searched 1 time for Chloroform and not 84 then she's innocent and the Juror's did a good job and they should ignore all of the other evidence? I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree and I also believe you're giving that Jury way too much credit.

No, I'm saying if one thing is flawed, what else is flawed?

 

[back2back19]

does anyone know if their has been a response from the state attornys office, before we have everyone on the prosecutution
resigning in disgrace--geez!!!!

No, there hasn't been. According to Bob Kealing, there should be one soon. He tweeted that:

bobkealing bob kealing
Soon I'm told“@teamperkins: #CaseyAnthony Has there been response from the SA Office regarding the error on the 84 searches on chloroform?

 

[elementary]

Right, it is the media, from the NY Times to MSNBC, to HLN and Forbes, etc., which is stating that this is a gravely serious matter. And for good reason. I have nothing against the prosecution, just believe that this was a terrible blunder on their part.

I would say that Baez was knee deep in gravely serious matters. Or were they, given the lack of sanctions?

 

[dvdman]

But you really can't explain away her actions
(31 days,lies,partying,videos,tattoo) and that for me was the most "incriminating" evidence against her the Jury just ignored. The Scott Peterson Jury did not make that mistake.

No, I'm saying if one thing is flawed, what else is flawed?

 

[KathrynL]

Baez brings it up just before Linda Drane Burdick stands up for her closing rebuttal, the morning of July 4. (nice bit of ambush there):

http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html (10:45 mark) (Thanks to kidz110, who posted this earlier for the link! :rocker:

LDB's response is that defence has finished closing arguments. She seems pretty laid back about it.

Judge Perry says he doesn't know if it is true or not, and that if there was false testimony that the defence file the appropriate motion at the appropriate time and he will take a look at it. He says he doesn't want to go chasing arguments now.

Many thanks to you and the original poster. I do remember that now, the entire exchange. I read the posting at Hinky Meter yesterday before it came up here on WS, and also Hornsby's posting that was linked there. I filed it away (until it was mentioned here). I decided to wait and see, basically. That is one side of this story, and no other side has come out so far. It will be interesting to see if the "outraged" CM/JB team files that motion. Meanwhile, I think the story has media legs because it has to do with that woman.

imo

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Right, it is the media, from the NY Times to MSNBC, to HLN and Forbes, etc., which is stating that this is a gravely serious matter. And for good reason. I have nothing against the prosecution, just believe that this was a terrible blunder on their part.

SMK.....

And that is why I ask---WHY???? Why would the prosecution allow this to happen knowing it would be grounds for a mistrial. Just does not make sense, they cannot be that irresponsible---especially with THIS case.:maddening:

 

[gxm]

Actually, I just noticed he has corrected the dates on that page.

Dang but this guy makes a lot of mistakes. Some, apparently, even under oath.

 

[JSR]

Baez brings it up just before Linda Drane Burdick stands up for her closing rebuttal, the morning of July 4. (nice bit of ambush there):

http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html (10:45 mark) (Thanks to kidz110, who posted this earlier for the link! :rocker:

LDB's response is that defence has finished closing arguments. She seems pretty laid back about it.

Judge Perry says he doesn't know if it is true or not, and that if there was false testimony that the defence file the appropriate motion at the appropriate time and he will take a look at it. He says he doesn't want to go chasing arguments now.

Also point to note if this software guy said he told the state LONG before trial when asked on the stand about these searches why did he testify that it was done 84 times? Why did he lie if he knew it wasn't the truth? Obviously the error was not discovered until much later.

 

[MustlyLurking]

What he said is one thing... What it says to me is, "My software is junk, nobody should rely on it's accuracy for any reason. In fact, I don't think anyone should even but it. I think I found a way to cash in on Caylee's misfortune. Watch me shoot myself in the foot."

LOL

 

[notreworked]

Bringing over from another thread....


As soon as they found out what really happened they should have made it clear to the jury. The 84 times came as a surprise to everybody here. But did the state really withhold any information? The defense brought the report that had only 1 result for sci-spot.com Maybe they just had 2 reports and they really didn't know which one was correct. They disclosed both to the defense but used the one they wanted to. Which is also wrong because they had plenty of time to get another opinion on it or figure out which one was right. Or Is it not any different than having two witnesses up on the stand who are saying completely different things? "The duct tape was on before decomposition.... I believe the duct tape was placed on after the body was skeletonized."? I have to think about this one a little more.

Its computer forensics and there is a correct answer. Its not like having 2 different interpretations of forensic data. This is just a list of the raw data itself. A report was generated from both programs which means the file is not corrupted, so that isn't the possible problem. Getting the correct answer should easily be able to be done. 2 conflicting reports tells you that one is wrong or possibly both. The cacheback guy clearly stated that the error could and should have been cleared up by manually validating specific URLs. Instead the OSCO agent screwed up and saw the number 84 somewhere which was not what was meant by validating.

 

[dunlurken]

But you really can't explain away her actions
(31 days,lies,partying,videos,tattoo) and that for me was the most "incriminating" evidence against her the Jury just ignored. The Scott Peterson Jury did not make that mistake.

The SP jury had a heck of a lot more to go on. I don't want to go there, so..... GPS on his car for instance, making of the anchors, etc. That one was a slam dunk although it took me a long time to get there.

Cynthia Sommers....... I assumed it was a slam dunk (poisioned husband, breast implants, sleeping with numerous guys after her husband died). But she's out. Werner Spitz is the connection between Cynthia and Casey's case.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

No, there hasn't been. According to Bob Kealing, there should be one soon. He tweeted that:

bobkealing bob kealing
Soon I'm told“@teamperkins: #CaseyAnthony Has there been response from the SA Office regarding the error on the 84 searches on chloroform?

Thank you back2back19!!

 

[Soju]

I disagree as to Casey, anyway. I know I would have looked up chloroform to see what it was being used for these days if my BF had something like what was posted to R's website...as for Cindy, she was flying all on her own up there.

Oh I would've looked it up, too. However, I probably would've googled "What is chloroform" instead of "How to make chloroform", but hey, I'm crazy like that.