cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,302
I first saw word of this issue from richard hornsby's tweet yesterday...not from the defense FWIW...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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
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.
Not mute, moot. I can't find a hug icon, but I hope you read this with the way it was posted. :seeya: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.
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.
my bolding
could have?
And from "could have" you got that that state is is trouble and you predict ldb's resignation shortly?
Not mute, moot. I can't find a hug icon, but I hope you read this with the way it was posted. :seeya:
No, I'm saying if one thing is flawed, what else is flawed?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.
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!!!!
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.
No, I'm saying if one thing is flawed, what else is flawed?
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.
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.
Actually, I just noticed he has corrected the dates on that page.
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.
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.
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.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, 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?
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.