Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[gxm]

Hope I don't get in trouble for this but here goes. Ya know, all this hand-wringing, hand-waving, shouting fire in a crowded room, smoke and mirrors turning a mole hill into a mountain performance is reminding me of JB's defense tactics. And that was the only positive outcome of this end of this trial: Not having to sit through his constant shenanigans anymore. (sigh)

 

[Mendara]

OK...call me a cynic....any bets on this guy making the "morning" info show rounds???

I am sure he is making money off this new claim.

 

[Shelby1]

I'm not clear on this--have never heard of a not guilty defendant being liable for the cost of a trial. State picks up the tab regardless, right?

I probably worded this poorly.

I'm talking about this:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_casey-anthony-caylee-marie-law-enforcement


Here is how it was explained to me by HRCODEPINK:


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.

 

[GhostCrab]

Okay - you go tell George and Kronk that. Good luck.

We can agree to disagree. Her civil rights were NOT violated. She is I am sure drinking a nice fat free vanilla lattte right now. Her daughter is still dead and her father is branded a child molestor along with her brother. I refuse refuse refuse to think of that woman anything other than what she is.

A murderer.

Thanks
mo

Withholding exculpatory evidence = violation of civil rights, no matter WHO the person is.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Folks, there seems to be a lot of confusion here regarding the numbers 84 and 1.

The specific page "chloroform.htm" on the "sci-spot.com" website was visited once. During trial, the CacheBack program incorrectly said it was visited 84 times.

That error aside, what is not in dispute is that Casey searched the word "chloroform" twice and "how to make chloroform" twice, both from Google. She also did searches through wikipedia for information on chloroform.

The sci-spot.com visit count is independent of her searches on Google and Wikipedia.

Thanks - let's hope the producers for JVM, Dr. Drew, NG and Joy Behar get their facts straight to keep this issue "fair and balanced" though I certainly wouldn't hold my breath. :banghead:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Establishing a financial interest is a basic cross examination technique that all trial attorneys use, prosecution and defense, when handling an expert witness.

I know that an "expert witness" can be questioned on the financial interest ...

My point is that I do NOT recall the SA questioning the expert witnesses about their FINANCIAL INTEREST as STRONGLY as Jose Baez did !

Jose really POUNDED the FINANCIAL ASPECT of the State's experts into the GROUND ! And he looked so "foolish" doing it !

It was OVERKILL ! Especially with Dr. Vass ! :maddening:

 

[HRCODEPINK]

2 things. First, if the prosecution was told this info is incorrect and LDB still emphasized it in rebuttal and closing, then that's a big deal because at that point you are intentionally misleading the jury to believe something that is factually not true.

Second, JB can say martians are responsible for Caylee's death and he is not responsible for proving any of it, only to show evidence that shows doubt, preferable to support his own theory.

Will anything come out of this? Probably not, she was aquitted. But if she wasn't, this could of been a much bigger story, one that perhaps could of gotten her off on appeal.

But they didn't get a conviction.

But she still has the right to sue the state for violating her Constitutional rights. And honeslty, can you see someone who would base their whole defense on the fact that they lied and then appeal the convictions on lying after paying for their defense with money she made off of pictures of her murdered daughter not suing?

I don't remember hearing LDB stating the number 84 times during her closing argument or after the 16th for that matter.

She mentioned it again when she questioned Cindy on rebuttal when CA tried to take the fall for the searches.

But here's the point: HER civil rights are the same as OUR civil rights. Free or not.

Amen!

This is exactly the way I recall it happening...I posted the jury foreman's comments about "1" Chloroform search earlier (pg 5, i think) for clarification because I was lost...am still lost and about to pull my hair out.

Here's my Q: If the jury knew there was 1 and NOT 84, then the DT knew...right? So, how would that still be problematic? Why would LDB be "in trouble"? TIA

Nothing that the jury knew matters. What matters in this issue is the actions of the state and if these allegations are true and the state violated her rights they were WAY in the wrong and CFCA has the right to sue them for this.

I totally understand and appreciate what you are saying. I guess I am questioning Mr. Bradley's credibility at this point. Bring on some docs and (alleged) communications with LE or State!

I would love to see some docs on this and a complete investigation. I believe the state would be wrong to not investigate this fully and prove that they did nothing wrong and that he is lying and if they can do so I think that would be fabulous! If they ignore it, it will not look good IMO.

I'm not clear on this--have never heard of a not guilty defendant being liable for the cost of a trial. State picks up the tab regardless, right?

Since she admitted to the lying and that the baby was never missing, the state has every right to sue for and recover the cost of the investigation that was in truth a wild goose chase. And they deserve every penny of that back.

I really don't remember LDB even mentioning the chloroform in her closing arguments, and she made them right after JB complained in front of everyone about the discrepancy about chloroform in the two computer forensics reports.

I remember Jeff Ashton bringing up chloroform in in his closing arguments, and that was based on Vass's findings in the trunk. He also told the jury they were free to dismiss any of the expert's findings.

I think the defense team are major hypocrites and will find any way to wiggle out of future lawsuits for Casey.

Hypocrites, yes. But the state has no right, under any circumstances to ever be less than truthful in court or violate the rights they take an oath to uphold and protect.

Bumping my post, sorry...but still seeing posts that jurors didn't know (maybe still behind) but, clearly, the jurors knew...

It doesn't matter if they knew. All that matters in this particular issue is the actions of the state and if they were on the up and up.

My response is largely personal--I find it hard to believe that LDB is the type of individual who needs to make up evidence or who would do anything to satisfy a vendetta of some kind. jmo

I hope you are right more than anything in the world right now.

I wish the SA Office would issue a response.

Me too. I think that by not responding they are making themselves look worse and allowing people to come to conclusions. I also want Bradley held responsible if he is lying.

 

[Mendara]

To me the problem with the searches was the post on facebook by the boyfriend saying win her over with chloroform. The 1 search came after the facebook posting which the DT claims is why FICA went to search chloroform. It might have put a dent in the prosecutions premediated charge but IMO the jury still had enough for 2nd degree which I think included the child abuse charge which still would have lead them back to 1st degree. It still doesn't change the evidence that there was a very large amount of chloroform found in the trunk of the car.

Exactly. She searched for it, she typed it in. Jose went through what he thought the number 84 meant in detail and I remember thinking he may be right, but he may be wrong, but it didn't change the fact that "how to make it" was searched and it was found in the trunk.

I am not going to call out the prosecution of doing something illegal just because this computer guy wants to sell a story. mo

 

[SMK]

...and therefore did not claim there were 84 visits to the site...

Right. But this is not good enough. The jury never had it explained to them by the Judge, that the expert witness had called to say the 84 was a mistake, and it should be stricken from their notes, and from their minds, and from the record. What if they had convicted her based in part on the 84? In any case, this is serious indeed.

 

[Psmith]

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.

Agree in that there were other factors that went to premeditation (at least 3 of them in fact, as in duct tape piece number 1, etc.) jmo

 

[Mendara]

Withholding exculpatory evidence = violation of civil rights, no matter WHO the person is.

YOU have NO PROOF that this happened. THat evidence did NOT prove she did or did NOT murder Caylee.

If she only searched one time vs 84 - it does not clear her or make her guilty.

 

[Chablis]

Okay - you go tell George and Kronk that. Good luck.

We can agree to disagree. Her civil rights were NOT violated. She is I am sure drinking a nice fat free vanilla lattte right now. Her daughter is still dead and her father is branded a child molestor along with her brother. I refuse refuse refuse to think of that woman anything other than what she is.

A murderer.

Thanks
mo

If her team sues the State for this, she will probably be drinking Dom and eating caviar. I am most mad at the State and worried how this will affect other cases that LDB and JA have tried. And JA may have suppressed evidence before. Not good. jmo

 

[Talina]

Withholding exculpatory evidence = violation of civil rights, no matter WHO the person is.

How is this exculpatory?

ex·cul·pa·to·ry
   [ik-skuhl-puh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
–adjective
tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt.

Correcting a software error testimony from 84 visits to 1 visit to a web site wouldn't be exculpatory. It does not prove her clear of fault or guilt. It would just say she went one time to that particular web site, not 84. It does not clear her. Why did she even go one time?

 

[SMK]

YOU have NO PROOF that this happened. THat evidence did NOT prove she did or did NOT murder Caylee.

If she only searched one time vs 84 - it does not clear her or make her guilty.

The 84 number was used as an incendiary piece of evidence, and there is a reason why Judge and Jury were not alerted to the call the expert witness made to correct that number. It is bad indeed, if you believe in ethics.

 

[LambChop]

Did this software designer disclose this email to defense? I'm assuming this is how he transferred the new information to them. jmo

 

[grammieto5]

My thanks wasn't enough. You said it perfectly.

Shelby1 hi WOW, thanks for that, it was very interesting. What I got from this is: Huggins was indicted in May, 1998, went to trial in Jan 1999, was found guilty in Feb 1999, and was granted a new trial in June 2000 because JA lied in his closing arguements, It's not about Huggins receiving a different verdict it's about Huggins receiving a fair trial. According to the Supreme Court, "while prosecutors may strike hard blows, a prosecutor in not at liberty to strike foul ones". Although I think it's sad JA lied in his closing argument, I think it's even more sad that a defense attorney can say/lie about anything and anyone and not be held accountable. I think because FCA was found not guilty she will not be able to sue, at least I hop she won't be able to. Thanks again, that was really interesting reading

 

[GhostCrab]

How is this exculpatory?

ex·cul·pa·to·ry
   [ik-skuhl-puh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
–adjective
tending to clear from a charge of fault or guilt.

Correcting a software error testimony from 84 visits to 1 visit to a web site wouldn't be exculpatory. It does not prove her clear of fault or guilt. It would just say she went one time to that particular web site, not 84. It does not clear her. Why did she even go one time?

It would be considered exculpatory because it disproved an accusation made by the state.

 

[Shelby1]

Shelby1 hi WOW, thanks for that, it was very interesting. What I got from this is: Huggins was indicted in May, 1998, went to trial in Jan 1999, was found guilty in Feb 1999, and was granted a new trial in June 2000 because JA lied in his closing arguements, It's not about Huggins receiving a different verdict it's about Huggins receiving a fair trial. According to the Supreme Court, "while prosecutors may strike hard blows, a prosecutor in not at liberty to strike foul ones". Although I think it's sad JA lied in his closing argument, I think it's even more sad that a defense attorney can say/lie about anything and anyone and not be held accountable. I think because FCA was found not guilty she will not be able to sue, at least I hop she won't be able to. Thanks again, that was really interesting reading

Thanks, Grammie (btw, I also call my grammie, grammie )

 

[elementary]

Right. But this is not good enough. The jury never had it explained to them by the Judge, that the expert witness had called to say the 84 was a mistake, and it should be stricken from their notes, and from their minds, and from the record. What if they had convicted her based in part on the 84? In any case, this is serious indeed.

Then it's within the judge's purview, isn't it?

 

[LambChop]

I probably worded this poorly.

I'm talking about this:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com..._1_casey-anthony-caylee-marie-law-enforcement


Here is how it was explained to me by HRCODEPINK:


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.

KC is being asked to pay LE back for giving false information which caused them to search for a missing child that her attorney now claims drowned and she covered it up. KC and KC alone mislead police and that is what she will be willed for. jmo