Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[askfornina]

Thank you. Seriously I feel like I am in a dream where now the defense wants to turn the tide and make us all belive he is the hero, Casey is innocent and the state is evil.

I expect more claims like this before Casey is crying with Barbara Walters or Diane Sawyer and the world now smiles at her when she walks by.

Sick.

this is what you are claiming. this is not what the defense is saying. this is not, to my knowledge, what anyone else is claiming.

 

[JWG]

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

Actually, it is not a claim, it is simply fact. And the reason he brought it up publicly at all was that the developer of NetAnalysis wrote a blog about the mistake on July 11. In that blog post they essentially poked CacheBack - a competing product - in the eye because the latest release of NetAnalysis correctly parses Firefox 2 history files. However, OCSO was using an older version of NetAnalysis which also produced an incorrect report. It was just that specific area relating to site visits that was correct while CacheBack got that part wrong.

So in order to defend his reputation and his product's reputation, he wrote his own blog post on July 11 in response, detailing what happened and what he did to correct the error. The NYT either stumbled across his week-old post, or they stumbled across the Hinky Meter post on the same topic yesterday. He did not go to the press.

 

[GhostCrab]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone please RE READ THE ABOVE DEFINITION!!!!!!!!!

What we have here is a MISINTERPRETATION of evidence! Not a willful Brady violation!!!!

There is NOTHING exculpatory about this evidence, absolutely NOTHING. And it would not have been overturned by a higher court because it would have had to show that the exclusion of this evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial, which IMO it wouldn't have, especially if she was convicted on a lesser charge than 1st degree murder. If that was the only evidence the state had then yes it could have been likely the conviction would have been overturned. Because really all the searches show are premeditation.

If I didn't know better I would think JA was the one on trial and not FCA. It's important to note that the defense was saying it was Cindy who did these searches so it's moot. And c'mon let's get real 84 or 1 time visiting this site? Even once is bad enough coupled with the rest of the evidence.

If you want to talk about misconduct I think you're criticism would be better leveled at the one counsel who was REPEATEDLY reprimanded in open court by HHJP for violating discovery rules. Not just once but REPEATEDLY!

You are completely and totally wrong.

 

[LambChop]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone please RE READ THE ABOVE DEFINITION!!!!!!!!!

What we have here is a MISINTERPRETATION of evidence! Not a willful Brady violation!!!!

There is NOTHING exculpatory about this evidence, absolutely NOTHING. And it would not have been overturned by a higher court because it would have had to show that the exclusion of this evidence would have changed the outcome of the trial, which IMO it wouldn't have, especially if she was convicted on a lesser charge than 1st degree murder. If that was the only evidence the state had then yes it could have been likely the conviction would have been overturned. Because really all the searches show are premeditation.

If I didn't know better I would think JA was the one on trial and not FCA. It's important to note that the defense was saying it was Cindy who did these searches so it's moot. And c'mon let's get real 84 or 1 time visiting this site? Even once is bad enough coupled with the rest of the evidence.

If you want to talk about misconduct I think you're criticism would be better leveled at the one counsel who was REPEATEDLY reprimanded in open court by HHJP for violating discovery rules. Not just once but REPEATEDLY!

I know. The irony of it all......pot meet kettle. :giggle:

 

[suzihawk]

Something doesn't seem right and I think he may be trying to save the reputation of his company and he is throwing the Prosecution under the bus. He has already corrected the dates. Like everything else in this ridiculous case, "There's something wrong!" as Cindy likes to say. http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp I'm going to say it. After three gut-wrenching years, I am officially tired of Casey Anthony and all of this. I don't care where Casey is, I do hope she is miserable, makes JB miserable, and makes her parents miserable. I pray no one gets rich, and they all just go AWAY.

Ding ding ding... we have a winner!

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Actually, it is not a claim, it is simply fact. And the reason he brought it up publicly at all was that the developer of NetAnalysis wrote a blog about the mistake on July 11. In that blog post they essentially poked CacheBack - a competing product - in the eye because the latest release of NetAnalysis correctly parses Firefox 2 history files. However, OCSO was using an older version of NetAnalysis which also produced an incorrect report. It was just that specific area relating to site visits that was correct while CacheBack got that part wrong.

So in order to defend his reputation and his product's reputation, he wrote his own blog post on July 11 in response, detailing what happened and what he did to correct the error. The NYT either stumbled across his week-old post, or they stumbled across the Hinky Meter post on the same topic yesterday. He did not go to the press.

Yes, and if his product was knowingly used erroneously in a trial then he does have a right to speak out about that and defend his product.

 

[Stargazer7]

It is 100% exculpatory. The state put forth their case and essentially listed why they thought she was guilty, duct tape, lying, partying, and so on. The 84 searches was part of their case that showed premeditation. If they received information that the analysis of the chloroform search was not correct, that info would be considered exculpatory and by not giving it to the defense they violated the rules of discovery but more importantly they violated her civil rights. She has the ultimate right to know any and all evidence that the state has against her followed with the right to know if that evidence is shown to be not true.

The defense already knew there was a discrepancy in the two reports during the trial. The defense pointed it out SEVERAL times during the trial. When the State got confirmation that the Net Analysis report was the more accurate, they informed the defense of this immediately. LDB left any mention of chloroform out of her closing arguments. But chloroform searches were done by Casey on those two dates in March and later MANUALLY deleted. That is NOT being disputed. Dr. Vass's findings about the unusually high amounts of chloroform from the carpet in the trunk still stands, and it was still the jury's choice whether to accept it or not.

Just like it was their choice to believe the lies the defense told and they did that too.

 

[Silver~Bell]

Forget Casey being "all over the map emotionally." I'm all over the map, too, and it's not about me, but there must be many who are "all over the map."

Emotions up and down, up and down, fear, worry, elation, more fear...UGH.

After fearing a mistrial, then praying for one when I thought the State was really looking weak, nope, she's found NG, and now there are serious things coming out, things that I find very shaking. Yes, I think she had something to do with Caylee dying. OD'd her to party, left her in hot car, etc. But I feel the State did a poor job and after roasting the jurors royally, now I'm too confused to really feel anything or be certain of ANYTHING presented, other than feeling LET DOWN, and seemingly EVERYONE let Caylee down. What a mishmash.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

(bold in original)

iirc, the potential perjury charges were about Gentiva records as to when CA was working and the phone call records as to whether CA called GA about the ladder being up.

jmo, State decided not to pursue perjury b/c it was a lost cause. During the trial itself, it would have caused issues with one of their key wits--making her entire testimony a wash. Hypothetically, after the murder trial itself, the jurors on a perjury case might have been swayed by sympathy for a mother trying to save her daughter from the DP (and thereby might have given CA a pass). No, I don't have any factual basis for this claim/hypothetical.

But her lies about Gentiva were to cover up the fact that she was work since she was claiming to be home making these searches. I have no idea why they decided not to go after her and I thought that they should have, because I do not agree with ANYONE lying under oath. I am just saying that if they had gone after her on this, it would not have looked good that they were not 100% truthful about the searches/visits and that may have played a part.

Honestly, I feel like I am going to throw up. I really am on Team Caylee. When the verdict was read I could feel the life draining right out of me and my knees buckled. I ended up going outside and sitting for over an hour in the rain and I remember thinking that it was Caylee's tears falling from the sky. I really wish they would just hold a press conference and respond to this so I can stop thinking about it. It makes me sick to think that they did anything that wasn't on the up and up and the last thing that I want to see is Casey being played as the victim in anything. And that is exactly what will happen if this turns out to be true. :sick:

 

[JSR]

You know what ticks me off.

Mis information that has been flying around in this thread. Like the fact that it was NOT typed in the search box "HOW TO MAKE CHLOROFORM". It most certainly WAS typed out. FCA did INDEED type out how to make chloroform and used google search under her password protected username.

Mis information will soon be thought of as absolute truth and some might think that gee maybe FCA didn't get away with murder. And then we feed into just what the DT did to this jury. They muddied the waters and hoped they confused the jury enough that they wouldn't convict her, and that's what happened. But in truth it wouldn't take much to confuse the likes of this particular jury.

Please if you haven't watched the entire trial like some of us please visit www.wftv.com before you post what you know to be "truths" and make sure you listen to the particular testimony before you post. Others will be looking at these posts in the coming months and years and take this mis information and interpretation as truth.

 

[GhostCrab]

The defense already knew there was a discrepancy in the two reports during the trial. The defense pointed it out SEVERAL times during the trial. When the State got confirmation that the Net Analysis report was the more accurate, they informed the defense of this immediately. LDB left any mention of chloroform out of her closing arguments. But chloroform searches were done by Casey on those two dates in March and later MANUALLY deleted. That is NOT being disputed. Dr. Vass's findings about the unusually high amounts of chloroform from the carpet in the trunk still stands, and it was still the jury's choice whether to accept it or not.

Just like it was there choice to believe the lies the defense told and they did that too.

Do you have a cite to your source that the state informed the defense that the cacheback report was wrong? Regardless, it wouldn't matter because if the state were to correct such an error it would not simply mean turning over a corrected report to the defense. There would have to have been a jury instructing giving the correct information, something that Judge Perry would have absolutely done had the court been given notice.

 

[CathyinTexas]

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:


Casey Anthony didn’t do 84 searches for the word “chloroform” and prosecutors didn’t correct the error, a computer expert says.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/computer_expert_i_told_prosecutors_casey_anthony_didnt_do_84_chloroform_wor/

Ryan on In Session and Jean Casaras discussed this but they said that the prosecution didn't mention the chloroform in closing arguments. To my recollection Jeff Ashton said that he hoped she used the chlorophorm before applying the duct tape. How might that effect sanctions for the prosecution? Do you think the defense will pursue this?

 

[JSR]

It is 100% exculpatory. The state put forth their case and essentially listed why they thought she was guilty, duct tape, lying, partying, and so on. The 84 searches was part of their case that showed premeditation. If they received information that the analysis of the chloroform search was not correct, that info would be considered exculpatory and by not giving it to the defense they violated the rules of discovery but more importantly they violated her civil rights. She has the ultimate right to know any and all evidence that the state has against her followed with the right to know if that evidence is shown to be not true.

BBM.

Oh surely you jest? No???

Please read what is truly a violation by the namesake case that started the "Brady violation". After you read it you tell me if there is any sort of common links to this 84 searches being "100% exculpatory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

 

[Psmith]

Mark Eiglarsh said on Dr. Drew that is is not unusual for the State to make a defendant liable for costs. According to him, it happens all the time.

I know this is slightly o/t but I thought KC was only being held liable for the investigative time and resources spent on searching for a "missing" Caylee. But to bring the point back on track, I am not following how the financial aspect has anything to do with this incident or the trial itself. Unless KC wants to sue? But how can she? (Obviously back to o/t lol)

 

[JBounds]

The jury didn't even consider the chloroform searches anyway. She was still guilty with all the other evidence.

 

[BiancaS]

Actually, it is not a claim, it is simply fact. And the reason he brought it up publicly at all was that the developer of NetAnalysis wrote a blog about the mistake on July 11. In that blog post they essentially poked CacheBack - a competing product - in the eye because the latest release of NetAnalysis correctly parses Firefox 2 history files. However, OCSO was using an older version of NetAnalysis which also produced an incorrect report. It was just that specific area relating to site visits that was correct while CacheBack got that part wrong.

So in order to defend his reputation and his product's reputation, he wrote his own blog post on July 11 in response, detailing what happened and what he did to correct the error. The NYT either stumbled across his week-old post, or they stumbled across the Hinky Meter post on the same topic yesterday. He did not go to the press.

Actually, Bradley sent out a press release dated 7/11 and then he corrected the dates of some of the occurrences in an updated press release today. http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_release-20110711-1.asp

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, July 11, 2011
(Amended 2011-JUL-19)


Computer Evidence in the Casey Anthony Trial - A Post Mortem

I don't trust this man.

 

[Emma Peel]

Sometimes you just have to sit back and remember Caylee's WS mantra:

31 Days​

(now, repeat again in your best NG voice)

feel better?

good.

no expert will ever undo or explain away those 31 days.

NOT EVER.

oh, and JWG - nice to see your light on - this is for you & valhall & the way you keep it sensible: :tyou:

 

[JSR]

You are completely and totally wrong.

Everyone has a right to their opinions. And I respect that you have yours. And I can respectively say that I believe you to be completely wrong. So I guess it's a let's agree to disagree.

 

[Stargazer7]

Ryan on In Session and Jean Casaras discussed this but they said that the prosecution didn't mention the chloroform in closing arguments. To my recollection Jeff Ashton said that he hoped she used the chlorophorm before applying the duct tape. How might that effect sanctions for the prosecution? Do you think the defense will pursue this?

Jeff Ashton talked about HOPING the chloroform was used to render Caylee unconscious before the duct tape was used based on Dr. Vass's findings of chloroform in the trunk. That is not being disputed here. They would never have concluded that based on the internet searches. They concluded that based on the inexplicable amounts of chloroform found in the trunk by Dr. Vass and Dr. Wise (who is a chemist).

 

[GhostCrab]

BBM.

Oh surely you jest? No???

Please read what is truly a violation by the namesake case that started the "Brady violation". After you read it you tell me if there is any sort of common links to this 84 searches being "100% exculpatory"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_v._Maryland

I'm familiar with that case, also with what is reasonably considered exculpatory and I stand by what I said.