Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[HRCODEPINK]

The problem I have with this is that Bradley is saying in his blog or interviews (whatever he is doing) that he asked them what he was going to testify to and then when he was on the stand he ended up testifying to more than what he thought. He says he testified to results in a report that he hadn't prepared or analyzed. Well..he shouldn't have done that. He should have said "I do not feel comfortable testifying to a report that I did not prepare or analyze". He is saying that now in hindsight but I thought it was odd at the time that he was the one testifying to this report instead of the person that prepared it.

DH and I were talking about this at the time and I said I thought 84 was hard to believe but at the same time even one search for "how to make chloroform" was one search too many so I couldn't care less if it was 1 or 1000. There should have never been ONE search for that at all!!

The biggest problem with the issue that is being discussed here is that he was called in to explain what a report said that was created by his software. If they knew that the report they were handing him was inaccurate then the state is who is to blame, as he was only called in (according to his own statements) to say what the report in his hand says. He also says that as soon as he found out the report was in error, he called and emailed them to say that it was wrong and he is claiming that they told him that they already knew it was wrong. Experts are called in to testify to findings on reports that they did not create all the time. They are called in to clarify for the jury what scientific evidence means. I too could care less how many times she searched because none of that changes my mind as to her guilt. However, under no circumstances am I ever okay with any state presenting any evidence that is not 100% factual against a defendant in a court of law. That is where the problem lies and that is what the state is going to have to answer to. I really hope that this guy is lying, but until it is fully investigated, I can't say one way or the other. His apologies to the OCSD on his site and making these allegations in public are very VERY serious and I, personally, want the truth one way or the other. No matter what that truth is. But I am obviously hoping that this guy is lying.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

And the FBI said the level of chloroform was consistent with cleaning products, so..........

The search was in may, right after her boyfriend posted something about chloroform.

Anyways, I think the state is in trouble somehow.

BBM - Actually the search was done in March. My question is, did they ever really put into evidence WHEN RM posted that chloroform picture on his myspace? I never could find that out, and only heard the defense make the claim that the posting on myspace was right before the searches during their closing argument. Anybody know the real date of that myspace post?

 

[GhostCrab]

Oh how odd - cause I'm remembering that the SA came back in their rebuttal and said there were mistakes made in this information.....but haven't gone back to check the tapes - too busy counting Baez's lies in his OS and working to rebut the facts actually are...

No they didn't. That is what this is all about.

 

[cluciano63]

It is a huge deal, no matter which "side" you are on. The 84 was put out there for one reason, shock value and to hammer in on the chloroform, which the state wanted to use as cause of death. If they knew that someone had looked up that term one time, okay, that would still bolster their case, but nothing like shouting "84 times" in a courtroom would do...

 

[dog.gone.cute]

That's ok, I imagine that LDB will be held accountable for this somewhere down the line. No double standards here.

:waitasec: I seriously doubt that LDB will be held accountable for this ... it was NOT her fault !

And speaking of "double standards" ... Judge Perry has NOT done anything to Jose Baez YET ! And I don't know what Judge Perry is waiting for !

The "Double Standard" was in favor of the Defense throughout the Trial ! Judge Perry "bent over backwards" and "sideways" for the Defense.

Remember this :

The State did NOT intentionally do anything wrong ...

But the JB and the Defense Team INTENTIONALLY made up a bunch of LIES for their Opening Statement, of which NONE of their LIES were PROVEN !

:banghead::maddening::banghead:

 

[SMK]

Oh how odd - cause I'm remembering that the SA came back in their rebuttal and said there were mistakes made in this information.....but haven't gone back to check the tapes - too busy counting Baez's lies in his OS and working to rebut the facts actually are...

Were the 84 searches specifically referenced? And would the New York Times run with a story which was not a story? It is in fact an expository problem which sheds a very bad light on this prosecution.

 

[logicalgirl]

Allegedly. We have not heard from Lawson Lamar or Linda Drane Burdick. Mr. Bradley sounds like he is :back: to me. :twocents:! Tis all...

Exactly - there is the future of this software at stake...

 

[Soju]

I think the difference is that the prosecution needed to prove premeditation in order to get a 1st Degree Murder conviction, and 84 searches sure sounds far more ominous and (they hoped) provided stronger evidence of intent than one search did.

Maybe this is the best demonstration of 'karma' yet? Prosecution does something dishonest, then they lose the whole case.

re BBM:

Not true. Felony murder would've gotten them there just as well.

 

[Talina]

Well, folks we are assuming that the prosecution did not inform the defense of what Bradley notified them regarding the error. I remember Baez saying that he did not have a computer expert on hire any more when the June 16 computer activity documents were presented to him that the SA intended to use in rebuttal. I have serious doubts that anyone on the DT would have know how to compare and parse these two reports on their own.

I have my own theory (whether or not true, who knows). I believe that the DT brought Stenger back on the stand to bring out the discrepancies in these two reports and point out that one said only one search for Chloroform while the other said 84. Where did he find this information from? I believe it could have very likely been from the prosecution disclosing to him the information they had received from Bradley. We do not, sitting here on this website today, know for a fact that Bradley's post testimony discussions with the SAO was not disclosed to the DT.

 

[SMK]

I think the difference is that the prosecution needed to prove premeditation in order to get a 1st Degree Murder conviction, and 84 searches sure sounds far more ominous and (they hoped) provided stronger evidence of intent than one search did.

Maybe this is the best demonstration of 'karma' yet? Prosecution does something dishonest, then they lose the whole case.

I agree. Had they been more honest, they may have had a different outcome.

 

[Mendara]

So is this an attempt to make her appear innocent so that people back off? YAWN. I am bored.

 

[JWG]

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

Sgt. Stenger produced the report on June 3. Baez objected to the state entering it into evidence, calling it a discovery violation because the state had just handed him a copy. However, LDB argued that the defense had had the hard drive in their possession for over two years and that the report simply reflected a summation of part of that hard drive.

Then, the state had Mr. Bradley read the report and describe what was on the report. This was the first time Mr. Bradley had ever seen the report. Again, Baez objected because the state was asking an expert to testify to another expert's report. He was overruled because one expert can testify to what he sees in a second expert's report.

When asked how many times the chloroform site was visited, Mr. Bradley said something to the effect that, "according to the report, 84 times."

Mr. Bradley learned of Sgt. Stenger's direct examination by the defense on June 16, where he read from a NetAnalysis report that the site was visited once. He contacted Sgt. Stenger and asked him about that, and was told OCSO had known about the discrepancy for a LONG time. That there, folks, is problem #1.

Mr. Bradley worked to correct his software and "liased" with LDB from June 16-19. On June 23 when Cindy tried to take the fall for the chloroform searches, LDB asked her if she made the search 84 times? By then, LDB had known about the problem and the correct figure at least 5 days. And that there is problem #2.

 

[askfornina]

BBM - Actually the search was done in March. My question is, did they ever really put into evidence WHEN RM posted that chloroform picture on his myspace? I never could find that out, and only heard the defense make the claim that the posting on myspace was right before the searches during their closing argument. Anybody know the real date of that myspace post?

IIRC RM testified that he posted the image "sometime in early 2008" and did not give a precise date

 

[JWG]

The nytimes article mentions that he informed the police and SA on June 25th:



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=3

Mr. Bradley said specifically June 16. He rewrote the software June 16 - 19.

 

[askfornina]

So is this an attempt to make her appear innocent so that people back off? YAWN. I am bored.

no. it is not.

 

[Psmith]

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

First off, in reply to others above, there is a time gap between Mr. Bradley's testimony of June 8 and his alleged communications with OSCO in late June.

I am scandalized if what is alleged by Mr. Bradley in the NYT article is true. But I find his claims somewhat dubious considering that he (1) seems to be saying he was "forced" to testify to matters other than CacheBack itself (as in the 84x chloroform search), and (2) is saying that it was OSCO's job to verify his verification.

[Bradley] said he had been called to testify by the prosecution about his CacheBack software. Instead, he was asked repeatedly about the Sheriff’s Office report detailing the 84 search hits on “chloroform,” which he had not seen.

“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.”

Still reviewing PattyG's videos, starting at Part 8 for June 8, 2011. Bradley's testimony seems to be well into things at this part....if anyone wants to join in...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHcXyFih_kA&feature=related"]‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 8 - 6/8/11‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

(I am thinking now, whatever might be discovered, that I would not be very likely to enlist Mr. Bradley's firm to do any kind of computer data retrieval or forensics....He might blame me for the faults in his software or say I made him find things that weren't there! lolol)

 

[cluciano63]

Seriously, if the state knew that no one had accessed the site 84 times, or even more than one time and they used the 84 anyway...that is okay? Isn't the state supposed to be above the "sleazy" defense? And wasn't their case supposed to be so strong, so detailed, so beautifully presented, that they would never need to stoop to JB's levels?
If the state did something wrong, it should be brought forward. Good grief...the outcome at this point is not the issue. This was a DP trial which probably should/could have gone the other way. You have to be able to know the state is playing 100% fair. JMO

 

[SMK]

So is this an attempt to make her appear innocent so that people back off? YAWN. I am bored.

Nooooo...:waitasec:...it is discussing a breaking story which has a lot of import regarding the State's conduct. Has very little to do with the defendant; just the case.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I was never impressed by the 84 times ... you only need to search once. You can either print that off, leave it open in another window or tab or go back to it in your history, you don't need to keep on searching with the same terms ... you change or refine them.

To me the point was that someone manually typed in "how to make chloroform" not got there by starting with "chlorophyll" or some auto suggestion from that.

I don't know why a big deal was made of the '84 times' although I seriously doubt that ICA actually made chloroform. Given the other searches in context it does make you wonder about intent but it wasn't clear what role chloroform played -- other than it was detected in abnormal volumes in the air samples.

The problem isn't with the number of searches. The problem is if the state lied and didn't turn it over to the defense that the report was wrong. Granted, the defense found out on their own, but the value of the evidence does not matter at all. It is the defendants Constitutional right that they be provided the information and CM has already come out swinging that they were not given this evidence and that LDB continued to say 84 searches/visits when, according to Bradley, she already knew this was false.

Maybe this is why the state decided not to pursue CA for perjury. Especially considering that the perjury was about the exact same subject matter. How are they going to charge her with lying about the searches if they did so also and did not turn the info over to the defense.

 

[Emma Peel]

ouch.

What a tough technical evidence case the prosecution had to deal with. ME Experts can't agree... Air experts can't agree. And now, we're told the PT were not even given reliable computer forensics?

No doubt, Casey's new PR program (whoever has put her under contract) is off and running.

:cow: