Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[dog.gone.cute]

All is well that ends well. Right?

Hmm... I guess I'm a just little disappointed that so many were so quick to jump on the bandwagon and pick up the pitchforks and torches without waiting for any sort of verification or at least going back to listen to the testimony.

:rocker::rocker: I totally agree !

 

[Americka]

All is well that ends well. Right?

Hmm... I guess I'm a just little disappointed that so many were so quick to jump on the bandwagon and pick up the pitchforks and torches without waiting for any sort of verification or at least going back to listen to the testimony.

I could not believe it as well. Beyond disappointing. No words.

 

[JSR]

I repeatedly made sure to say "If this were true" and that I wanted it fully investigated and Bradley held responsible if it were a lie. And I still stand by that 100%. I want to see his head rolling for this. As a former volunteer for the IP I take great offense and give much seriousness to any type of allegation that there is misconduct on the part of the state and if proven I will NEVER support it under any circumstances. But at the same time, when allegations are made against the state (especially in an effort to save the credibility of a product, wth????) that are proven to be false I believe that he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Whatever that may be in Florida.

When there are questions and only one side is talking, I would like to think that we can all ask questions and I, myself, was simply trying to explain why, if true it was a big deal and why it does not matter how much weight we as individuals put on the evidence if the allegations were true. I didn't want to hang anyone out to dry and even started some bazillion posts back that I was not willing to burn anyone at the stake yet. I'm just glad the state responded so this can be put to rest.

(By the way JSR, this post isn't meant to say that I think your post was directed at me or being snarky. At least I am not taking it that way. Just clarifying my position in it all. And please know that in doing so, I am not trying to be snarky to you either. This guy just really makes me sick and I hope that his company and product suffer for it, as well as himself on a personal level.)

Totally understood.

I think the point was that it was simply a misunderstanding of the data. Not a willful intentional withholding of evidence. And I was just not ready to fall hook line and sinker that LDB would ever do anything unethical. The duration of the trial she was the epitome of ethics and grace under fire.

It just seems that everyone choose to believe this was never discussed in Court or handled even though those of us that had watched the whole trial knew that it had been addressed. Nor bothered to go back and look at the trial footage.

And I still stand firm that this would not have not been something that would have overturned a conviction had the conviction been something less than a 1st degree murder. I'm not even entirely certain it would have reversed a conviction of 1st degree, but it was possible.

 

[JWG]

I'm thinking valhall at the hinky:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/07/18/caylee-anthony-case-84-visits-or-not-and-why-it-matters/

I read both of their blogs yesterday and was sickened by both of them.

I wrote the blog entry, not Valhall. So if you have a beef, take it up with me.

Mr. Bradley spelled out a timeline for when he learned things and took action. Unfortunately, part of his timeline was spelled out as one week earlier than what actually happened. Nowhere in that timeline does he accuse the state of wrong-doing - he simply says what he told the state.

Now, because his timeline had that one-week error, folks looked at it and said that the State must have known of the problem before they crossed Cindy on June 23, but did nothing about it.

Once the one-week error was corrected (which was done today) it became obvious the State did not commit fraud of any sort, because neither Mr. Bradley nor the State knew of the problem during the cross of Cindy Anthony.

 

[JSR]

The computer expert on the stand said that he found chloroform had been searched for 84 times. He was the expert and the Pros believed him. I think Casey Anthony would have gotten off regardless of how many time chloroform had been searched...one time or 84 times. The jury focused on George Anthony and had their minds made up early on.

Correct, IIRC The jury foreman said he believed it was GA who killed Caylee. Not covered up a accident but actually killed Caylee.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Mr. Bradley never alleged misconduct on the part of the State. That conclusion was leapt to by the press and piled on by the defense. The worst thing he pointed out was that the OCSO knew there was a difference between the CacheBack and NetAnalysis reports a LONG time ago, but never told anyone - including the State. He points that out.

But Mr. Bradley did, after saying that they knew long ago, said that they "selectively omitted" information to him, which is a statement one makes when they are really screaming deception. He also said "I had translated the data into something meaningful for the police,” he said. “Then I turned it over to them. The No. 1 principle for them is to validate the data, and they had the tools and resources to do it. They chose not to.”

I wish that I had gotten a screenshot because I was not expecting him to delete it. But anyway, in my opinion, he repeatedly implied that the state was less than truthful with the information before apologizing to them for having to speak in an unfavorable light. If he stood behind what he was saying, and what his statements seemed to imply, I would think that he would not have deleted the post. I have no respect for the man at this point, whatsoever.

ETA: I can't remember the exact words, but he did say that something to the effect of him waiting for the state to correct the mistake in court and they did not and that it was something that they needed to get right.

 

[suzihawk]

Well at least we know he knows how to delete...unless one of his employees did it for him. jmo

Ahh... but nothing is really deleted. He should know that.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

 

[JSR]

All is well that ends well. Right?

Hmm... I guess I'm a just little disappointed that so many were so quick to jump on the bandwagon and pick up the pitchforks and torches without waiting for any sort of verification or at least going back to listen to the testimony.

Right. I agree.

It's disappointing because this gives us a glimpse how years from now how Casey will be able to rewrite history so easily. And how many will and can be easily fooled into believing Casey was the victim and not Caylee. That somehow Casey was railroaded.

 

[Sistah Sleuth]

Casey Anthony: Cursed with Freedom



http://www.youtube.com/lancescurv#p/u/22/3ENGjhFNmx0

 

[JWG]

But Mr. Bradley did, after saying that they knew long ago, said that they "selectively omitted" information to him, which is a statement one makes when they are really screaming deception. He also said "I had translated the data into something meaningful for the police,” he said. “Then I turned it over to them. The No. 1 principle for them is to validate the data, and they had the tools and resources to do it. They chose not to.”

I wish that I had gotten a screenshot because I was not expecting him to delete it. But anyway, in my opinion, he repeatedly implied that the state was less than truthful with the information before apologizing to them for having to speak in an unfavorable light. If he stood behind what he was saying, and what his statements seemed to imply, I would think that he would not have deleted the post. I have no respect for the man at this point, whatsoever.

He is talking about the computer forensics department of OCSO, not that State Attorney's office. And I completely agree with him. OCSO dropped the ball. If I found an glaring inconsistency between two forensic programs I would most certainly contact the sources. It is not just Mr. Bradley who was not contacted. The developers of NetAnalysis say on their blog they were never contacted either.

 

[msinformed]

I have not, nor will I read this entire thread. I feel compelled to voice my dismay over an Orlando criminal defense attorney and the admin. of a site we regularly link here, having taken "this ball," and run with it yesterday.

I was astonished, to say the least, and took offense at being called 'part of an angry mob, replete with torches,' due to the fact I, as well as many, many others are sick over this verdict and have voiced our opinions strongly.

Oh, and to the Prosecutors ...... you did a bang up job. Too bad, it was a wasted effort on folks whose minds were already made up .......... kinda like what is stated in the Bible ......."Casting Your Pearls to Swine."

K ......... got that outta my system ~ off soap box ~

Carry on ...........:crazy:

 

[JSR]

Ahh... but nothing is really deleted. He should know that.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

I so puffy heart love you!!!!!!

 

[HRCODEPINK]

He is talking about the computer forensics department of OCSO, not that State Attorney's office. And I completely agree with him. OCSO dropped the ball. If I found an glaring inconsistency between two forensic programs I would most certainly contact the sources. It is not just Mr. Bradley who was not contacted. The developers of NetAnalysis say on their blog they were never contacted either.

So, is it factually true that the OCSD knew that there were not 84 searches "LONG AGO" and do you happen to know if this "LONG AGO" was before trial? And if so, why would the OCSD not turn this information over to LDB before trial, or at least once they saw that she was using it at trial? If you don't know, I understand.

ETA: I'll be back to check and see if you know tomorrow. I have to get my kids down and then write a 2000 word assignment on Megan's Law, so it will be a while.

 

[Magdalyn]

Ahh... but nothing is really deleted. He should know that.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Hehehe. The irony is rich indeed. Or is that iorny ... :waitasec:

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Well, I posted many of the "Prosecutorial Misconduct" articles , AND I also posted the Press Release from the State of Florida. I for one do not feel responsible for the misleading media headlines. If they did in fact mislead, then it is on their conscious, not mine. We were debating news about the Anthony case, after all. See title of this thread.

SMK,

Not saying you are responsible. You posted the report from the media, not a problem. The reaction to that report is troubling----Plenty of room for informed discussion once we had BOTH sides of that story--Don't you think?

 

[JSR]

So, is it factually true that the OCSD knew that there were not 84 searches "LONG AGO" and do you happen to know if this "LONG AGO" was before trial? And if so, why would the OCSD not turn this information over to LDB before trial, or at least once they saw that she was using it at trial? If you don't know, I understand.

I think, and might be wrong, but I think there wasn't anything nefarious going on here. I think, they thought that two different programs gave different results and that they believed the CacheBack program was providing the most correct data. That's how I'm interpreting it.

 

[crucibelle]

Thank you. Like I said on this same topic in another thread, I was convinced of her guilt long before this discrepancy, and this discrepancy doesn't change my mind in the least. This was not SA misconduct. It would not reverse the trial. This is being blown WAY out of proportion. There was a lot more circumstantial evidence that put chloroform in the back of Casey's trunk, and even visiting a website on How to Make Chloroform ONCE is not a good thing in my eyes. Programs can be wrong because they are made by humans. Humans make mistakes. If it was such a big issue, Baez would be on it like a dog on a bone. But she got ACQUITTED. So this is a MOOT POINT.

BBM. Respectfully, Baez WAS on it -- he accused the Prosecution of lying about the 84 hits during his closing statement, remember? I agree that it is a moot point, though. KC was acquitted. If she had been found guilty, that might have been another story. As for misconduct, the defense is much more guilty of that than the prosecution.

 

[mitzi]

Ahh... but nothing is really deleted. He should know that.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...d=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Careful about reposting this, as this does not show the date corrections that he made in the updated version.

 

[BiancaS]

I was reading at the hinky and rhornsby's blog last night and was totally disgusted to see them jump on the "prosecution hid exculpatory evidence" bandwagon. Done reading on both of their sites. Bob Kealing twittered the states response over three hours ago and people are still beaking about the big bad prosecution team, ugh!

WESH still has the article up with the bad info and people are still commenting on it!! They have a new article with the update, why don't they take the other one off? I posted on their Facebook page, I am so tired of sloppy journalism!!!!

 

[kelian36]

Originally Posted by Overuled

So true you are...it wouldn't have mattered if they had a video of the actual crime. This jury was out to make sure she walked. jmo

:thumb: