Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Solace said:
I know that the forensic computer expert for the State said at the recent press conference that there was unfortunately a fault in the program and they fixed it and immediately notified the prosecution.

I did not notice Linda Drane Burdick acknowledge it at the trial - in fact she asked Cindy TWICE did you go on that site 84 times. I believe it had been shown that this was not true by that time (the 84 visits I mean).

Myspace had been visited 84 times and Chloroform 1 time. This is what I gleaned from the testimony.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Solace said:
I know that the forensic computer expert for the State said at the recent press conference that there was unfortunately a fault in the program and they fixed it and immediately notified the prosecution.

I did not notice Linda Drane Burdick acknowledge it at the trial - in fact she asked Cindy TWICE did you go on that site 84 times. I believe it had been shown that this was not true by that time (the 84 visits I mean).

Myspace had been visited 84 times and Chloroform 1 time. This is what I gleaned from the testimony.
Click to expand...

So if they asked her that 84 number AFTER they were told it was not accurate, could LDB be in trouble?
 
SMK said:
I was very shocked and angry to find that the prosecution out and out lied about the 84 searches, with full knowledge that they were lying. It IS huge, and I have seen this story now in the New York Times, on MSNBC, and on In Session. Had she been convicted, experts say, the conviction may have been overturned due to this. So much for the prosecution being honest:
Click to expand...
Kind of evens out when you look at the opening statement made by the defense huh ? Accident, sexual abuse by George/Lee, Mr. Kronk is morally bankrupt, etc

I personally think the 84 searches was given to the State by Mr. Bradley and LDB did not knowingly introduce this evidence as a falsehood. And whether it was 84 searches or only one, looking up 'how to make chloroform' is enough for me and should have been for the jurors.

And even further, if you think about all of lies told by FCA when covering up the murder of her child ...
 
SMK said:
Yes, it was a huge misstep, and an illegal prosecutorial action, amounting to serious misconduct, to continue to use the 84 searches when the expert had clearly told them that there was no 84.
Click to expand...

Why would Mr. Bradley testify in court that his program found 84? Does anyone think that SA would put him on the stand if they thought this man would say something different? Even once looking at chloroform when traces are in the trunk is a red flag. The state did not need the 84. jmo
 
LambChop said:
Why would Mr. Bradley testify in court that his program found 84? Does anyone think that SA would put him on the stand if they thought this man would say something different? Even once looking at chloroform when traces are in the trunk is a red flag. The state did not need the 84. jmo
Click to expand...

One search to a site about how chloroform was used in the 1800 is not looking up the recipe. Thats the important thing here.
 
:waitasec:

I don't think it's that "big of a mistake" because "how to make chloroform" was searched on the Anthony home by CFCA ! And the "bottom line" was it was SEARCHED and searched at least 2 times and ALL BY CFCA !

This is NOTHING ... NOTHING compared to JB and the DT's "performance" at trial !

- JB's Opening Statement ...
- Accusations by JB that Caylee "drowned" in an accident -- which we know is NOT true...
- Accusations by JB that George molested CFCA ...
- Accusations by JB that Lee molested CFCA ...
- Cindy committed PERJURY on the witness stand regarding the searches for "chloroform" and "chlorophyll" ... and they had to bring in her former employer ...
- JB put George "on trial" and he had absolutely NOTHING to do with Caylee's murder ...
- JB put Roy Kronk on trial also ... and all he did was find Caylee's remains ...
- JB and CM constantly "WHINING" in court and requesting a "MISTRIAL" and "SIDE BARS" -- seriously ... they probably "broke" a "world record" ...
- JB has ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about the LAW and court procedure ... and has NO ETHICS whatsoever ...

These are just a few of the things that come to mind ... and feel free to add.

To me ... 84 or 1 ... NO BIG DEAL ... all it took was ONE SEARCH to get the RECIPE ON HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM, PRINT the RECIPE, and USE IT ...

And CFCA did use it on Caylee ... it was also FOUND in the TRUNK of CFCA's car !

MOO MOO and MOO !!!

:maddening::maddening::maddening:
 
Aedrys said:
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.
Click to expand...


But it's not moot because if the defense decides to go after this, the state of Florida could end up paying for the whole trial instead of KC having to pay.
 
Chablis said:
So if they asked her that 84 number AFTER they were told it was not accurate, could LDB be in trouble?
Click to expand...

Yes, she could be. And it is misconduct if she knew it was not true and continued to state it. And I bet that the defense team will be all over this before it is over.
 
dog.gone.cute said:
:waitasec:

I don't think it's that "big of a mistake" because "how to make chloroform" was searched on the Anthony home by CFCA ! And the "bottom line" was it was SEARCHED and searched at least 2 times and ALL BY CFCA !

This is NOTHING ... NOTHING compared to JB and the DT's "performance" at trial !

- JB's Opening Statement ...
- Accusations by JB that Caylee "drowned" in an accident -- which we know is NOT true...
- Accusations by JB that George molested CFCA ...
- Accusations by JB that Lee molested CFCA ...
- Cindy committed PERJURY on the witness stand regarding the searches for "chloroform" and "chlorophyll" ... and they had to bring in her former employer ...
- JB put George "on trial" and he had absolutely NOTHING to do with Caylee's murder ...
- JB put Roy Kronk on trial also ... and all he did was find Caylee's remains ...
- JB and CM constantly "WHINING" in court and requesting a "MISTRIAL" and "SIDE BARS" -- seriously ... they probably "broke" a "world record" ...
- JB has ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE about the LAW and court procedure ... and has NO ETHICS whatsoever ...

These are just a few of the things that come to mind ... and feel free to add.

To me ... 84 or 1 ... NO BIG DEAL ... all it took was ONE SEARCH to get the RECIPE ON HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM, PRINT the RECIPE, and USE IT ...

And CFCA did use it on Caylee ... it was also FOUND in the TRUNK of CFCA's car !

MOO MOO and MOO !!!

:maddening::maddening::maddening:
Click to expand...


Right, I totally get what you're saying, but there's a problem.

If the defense decides to go after this, KC could end up not having to pay a dime back for the trial and the state of Florida would have to pick up the whole tab.
 
HRCODEPINK said:
Yes, she could be. And it is misconduct if she knew it was not true and continued to state it. And I bet that the defense team will be all over this before it is over.
Click to expand...

Well today I believe everything you say thats for sure, lol!
 
LambChop said:
Why would Mr. Bradley testify in court that his program found 84? Does anyone think that SA would put him on the stand if they thought this man would say something different? Even once looking at chloroform when traces are in the trunk is a red flag. The state did not need the 84. jmo
Click to expand...

From what he is saying, he was not able to clarify because they only asked him on the stand what the report that he was holding said.
 
I don't see what it matters as long as she did visit the site . If she did indeed look it up whats the difference does visiting only 10 times make you less ok a killer then visiting 84 times no i think not she cant be more guilty then guilty so whats the difference.
 
HRCODEPINK said:
Yes, she could be. And it is misconduct if she knew it was not true and continued to state it. And I bet that the defense team will be all over this before it is over.
Click to expand...

But Mr. Bradley did not reveal anything other than his system showed 84 searches. I also believe Mr. Bradley disclosed there was a problem and it had been corrected and he still said 84. So did he lie... jmo
 
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).
 
Shelby1 said:
Right, I totally get what you're saying, but there's a problem.

If the defense decides to go after this, KC could end up not having to pay a dime back for the trial and the state of Florida would have to pick up the whole tab.
Click to expand...

This is correct, but it would happen in a backwards kind of way. :giggle:

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.
 
So when are all the TH going to pick up this story? JVM and NG, I'm talking to YOU.
 
Was the site she visited, did it have a recipe for chloroform?
 
Sustained said:
Kind of evens out when you look at the opening statement made by the defense huh ? Accident, sexual abuse by George/Lee, Mr. Kronk is morally bankrupt, etc

I personally think the 84 searches was given to the State by Mr. Bradley and LDB did not knowingly introduce this evidence as a falsehood. And whether it was 84 searches or only one, looking up 'how to make chloroform' is enough for me and should have been for the jurors.

And even further, if you think about all of lies told by FCA when covering up the murder of her child ...
Click to expand...
But the sexual abuse allegations can not really be disproven.
This is really a big, big deal for the State:

Prosecutors Hid Screw-Up in Anthony Trial: Witness


(NEWSER) – The prosecution witness who testified that Casey Anthony ran online searches for “chloroform” 84 times says he screwed up—and that prosecutors ignored him when he let them know. The prosecution used John Bradley’s software to make its assertions about Anthony’s search habits. But Bradley tells the New York Times that he redesigned the software in June, and discovered he’d been wrong—the search had only been run once, and led only to a single site, which dealt with 19th-century chloroform use.

Bradley says he immediately alerted police and prosecutors, and even gave them spreadsheets of the new data. Yet prosecutors never told the defense and continued to refer to the 84-search figure in court. By law, prosecutors must reveal all potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense. “If in fact this is true … it is more than shame on them. It is outrageous,” says one of Anthony’s lawyers. “This was a major part of their case.”
Click to expand...
http://www.newser.com/story/123775/casey-anthony-trial-prosecutors-hid-fact-that-she-searched-chloroform-once-not-84-times.html
 
HRCODEPINK said:
This is correct, but it would happen in a backwards kind of way. :giggle:

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.
Click to expand...


See? You always say it better than I do.:rocker:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

... and 219 more.
Total: 730 (members: 220, guests: 510)

Online statistics

Members online
220
Guests online
510
Total visitors
730
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
625,780
Messages
18,509,868
Members
240,844
Latest member
wanda9511
Back
Top