Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[Shelby1]

So when are all the TH going to pick up this story? JVM and NG, I'm talking to YOU.

I've been listening to In Session all morning (the trial that's going on is verrrry boring, IMO) and they've been all over it.

 

[SATA]

When I heard the prosecution mention that KC had searched Chloroform 84 times, I thought, nah, doesn´t sound plausible. That´s a LOT of times. It rang false to me right away.
This was indeed a major bloop by the prosecution!

 

[Hot Dogs]

Anybody know the answer to this question?

Was the initial search that was typed into the searchbox "how to make chloroform" or "chloroform"?

 

[JBounds]

Big deal, so they got it wrong. She still looked it up.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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.

I understand that it is possibility ... BUT ... I would be willing to "bet" that CFCA is NOT going to reimburse the State of Florida one penny ! NOT ONE RED CENT !

Convicted Felon Casey Anthony has gotten away with EVERYTHING -- EVERYTHING in her life INCLUDING MURDER ... and after a "lifetime" of "enablers" -- CA and GA -- NOW her DEFENSE TEAM is going to do the same thing !

Sickening ... just sickening ...

I just can't wait for the day when CFCA "turns" on the Defense Team ... and it WILL happen ... hopefully sooner than later ... :floorlaugh:



MOO MOO MOO ...

 

[HRCODEPINK]

And what about the various complaints to the bar on Baez? 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).

All of the complaints against Baez would still go forward. This is a different can of worms and I doubt that his violations could be brought up. This would work in both directions tho. When Baez goes for his misconduct, he would not be allowed to bring up hers, I would imagine. It goes to a two wrongs don't make a right mentality and rightfully so.

And I think that we all know that Baez is a fool. After appealing the 4 Lying to LE convictions, it is obvious that they don't know when to quit and consider themselves lucky.

And going back to your other post, I fully agree with you that the computer searches mean nothing and doesn't change a thing in my mind as to her guilt. BUT a violation of a person's Constitutional rights trumps pretty much everything and could have gotten her conviction overturned and does still leave the state open for lawsuits. This was the Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland that might help explain what I am saying about the significance of the evidence not mattering:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/373/83/case.html

"There is considerable doubt as to how much good Boblit's undisclosed confession would have done Brady if it had been before the jury. It clearly implicated Brady as being the one who wanted to strangle the victim, Brooks. Boblit, according to this statement, also favored killing him, but he wanted to do it by shooting. We cannot put ourselves in the place of the jury, and assume what their views would have been as to whether it did or did not matter whether it was Brady's hands or Boblit's hands that twisted the shirt about the victim's neck. . . . t would be 'too dogmatic' for us to say that the jury would not have attached any significance to this evidence in considering the punishment of the defendant Brady."

"Not without some doubt, we conclude that the withholding of this particular confession of Boblit's was prejudicial to the defendant Brady. . . . "

 

[dvdman]

31 days.......enough said.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Was the site she visited, did it have a recipe for chloroform?

Yes, it did.

 

[askfornina]

Big deal, so they got it wrong. She still looked it up.

yes, big deal indeed

 

[Chablis]

Yes, it did.

Can the narrow down the time spent on the site? Would they be able to tell if she cut and pasted it, then opened up notepad and pasted it?

 

[GiantPickle]

If LDB was told that the testimony was incorrect and did nothing about it (i.e. alerting the defense) the whole trial should be thrown out Maybe she didn't really lie to police either....I demand a retrial !!

In all seriousness, it did sway me from my accident theory to a murder theory (I always believed Casey wasn't watching Caylee and she did in fact drown and was floating in that water for a long time before being discovered...hence the need for a coverup scenario...everything that came after that was staging the kidnapping). But I just couldn't get passed the 84 times...there's nothing innocent about 84 times...they could convince me once was tied in to Riccardo's myspace...but 84 sold the poisoning to me. So this information would be significant if it was done with knowledge that it was in fact false or with the later "lie of omission" type after the testimony.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

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.

The problem isn't how many times she did or did not look it up. The problem is that any time the state presents something in court that they know to be untrue they are violating the rights of the defendant. We all agree that she is <insert something here that would probably get me banned> and that she killed her child. But that doesn't make it okay that the state presented evidence that they knew to be false, if this is true.

 

[GhostCrab]

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).

First, this is a HUGE deal. Exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case, there really is nothing more egregious than that. LDB PREACHED to the jury about the 84 searches.

Second, my hope is that Mr. Cheney uses his standing in the bar and gets sanctions brought against her. It is the very least that she deserves considering that Casey came very close to having to fight this information from state prison.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:waitasec:

Jose Baez and the Defense Team better "look in the mirror" before they start to "accuse" the State of Florida of MISCONDUCT !

What a bunch of "whining hypocrites" !!!

:maddening::banghead::maddening::banghead:

 

[SMK]

Just wanted to repost this one piece I had replied to someone with above, because it does infact show how serious was the deception on the part of Linda:

Prosecutors Hid Screw-Up in Anthony Trial: Witness

(NEWSER) &#8211; The prosecution witness who testified that Casey Anthony ran online searches for &#8220;chloroform&#8221; 84 times says he screwed up&#8212;and that prosecutors ignored him when he let them know. The prosecution used John Bradley&#8217;s software to make its assertions about Anthony&#8217;s search habits. But Bradley tells the New York Times that he redesigned the software in June, and discovered he&#8217;d been wrong&#8212;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. &#8220;If in fact this is true &#8230; it is more than shame on them. It is outrageous,&#8221; says one of Anthony&#8217;s lawyers. &#8220;This was a major part of their case.&#8221;

http://www.newser.com/story/123775/c...-84-times.html

 

[yllek]

I think this is really important, even if one (me included) believes there was ample valid evidence to support the charges filed by the State. If Mr. Bradley's account is true, he was brushed aside when he repeatedly brought the error to the State's attention while the trial was still in progress.

The defendant got acquitted, true enough. Thus, the Defense may not jump all over it in the media (but they may well choose to exploit it for all its worth and try to influence public opinion that this is indicative of tactics used by the prosecution against their proclaimed innocent client; remains to be seen how big this will or will not become).

This is bothersome to me regardless of the outcome of the trial; just like Baez's disregard for court orders was bothersome to me. I wish the State's Attorney office would comment. They don't have to relive the trial to respond imo; just address the issue that has been made public by their expert witness and publicized by the media.

P.s. no jurors that have spoken have mentioned the search error as a factor in their verdict, IIRC. Wouldn't be surprised if it comes up in future interviews though.

JMO....

 

[Chablis]

First, this is a HUGE deal. Exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case, there really is nothing more egregious than that. LDB PREACHED to the jury about the 84 searches.

Second, my hope is that Mr. Cheney uses his standing in the bar and gets sanctions brought against her. It is the very least that she deserves considering that Casey came very close to having to fight this information from state prison.

Knowing that someone you are trying to put to death did not look 84 times but then pushing that aside and acting like she did, it almost seems criminal to me. This was a DEATH PENALTY case.

 

[LambChop]

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.

He had every opportunity to tell the jury that the 84 searches may not be correct because of his software. It sounds more to me as if he found out after the fact there was indeed and error and now is backpeddling.

I find it hard to believe that any of the SA would put their jobs on the line to encourage someone to bring false testimony if they knew this to be true.

Wasn't one originally discovered but there was a problem with the software and they consulted with this gentleman to fix the error and he is saying his software revealed 84. It was pretty clear he said on the stand his software showed 84.

I'm still thinking this was discovered after the fact and he is blaming SA to keep from being sued himself. If he had not testified I'd say it is possible SA is at fault, but he did of his own free will. Sounds way too far fetched to me. But it should be interesting to see how it plays out. jmo

 

[HRCODEPINK]

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

From my understanding, he was told to tell the jury what was on the report that was in his hand. The problem comes in where he found out there was a mistake before trial was over and then he claims that he contacted the state and told them and they said they knew that "long ago." and then after he contacted them, LDB continued to say 84 times, for example, on July 1st, when she asked Cindy on rebuttal. It is not necessarily the number of searches that are the issue as much as the state continuing to say that it was more than it was after they knew that it wasn't 84.

 

[com n sense]

Twice would have been to much for me too! Actually, looking up "how to make chloroform" would have been enough for me.

Just to add to this... Her mother Cindy lying & saying she looked it up.
That to me confirms this was not an innocent search.
Her mother would lie to protect her for one reason only, because KC is guilty.