Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[suzihawk]

Careful about reposting this, as this does not show the date corrections that he made in the updated version.

I know. I believe all the June 16th dates were changed to June 23rd.

It's the only cached version I could find. Maybe someone who is a bit more computer savy than I am can find the updated version.

 

[grandmaj]

Well after this Bradly will be less valuable as an expert witness. He had no idea what happened in court and it was wrong for him not to have the professional courtesy of calling a member of the Prosecution to ask before going public. I think this stinks the high heaven just like much of what happened in this trial.

 

[JWG]

Folks, put the news story in some context before you light your torches. And if you decide to light them, come after me.

On July 11, the NetAnalysis developers blogged on their website about the difficulty of parsing the Firefox 2 history file. They also essentially bragged about how their latest release (which they noted was NOT used by OCSO) could parse the file but a competitor program (obviously CacheBack) could not.

On that same day, Mr. Bradley of CacheBack responded with a "press release" detailing his own pin-ball trip through the Anthony case and the fact that his program contained bugs similar to the earlier NetAnalysis program. He points out that those bugs could have easily been identified and fixed if only OCSO had told him there were discrepancies.

Mr. Bradley's "press release" was not actually sent to anyone in the press, so effectively it was nothing more than a blog entry seen by the 4 or 5 people around the world that read those things.

Yesterday morning, for whatever reason, I wondered if Mr. Bradley had ever fixed his program and what he said about it on his website. If you recall, BAEZ gave him a hard time because he had a "news release" stating that his software was being used in the Casey Anthony case. It was at that point I stumbled upon his "press release".

I exchanged emails with Mr. Bradley asking if I could quote his release in the Hinky Meter post I planned to write. He said yes. I offered to let him proof-read my post and he accepted.

The dates Mr. Bradley used in his timeline - erroneously recalled from memory - seemed to indicate the State must have known of the error when they crossed Cindy Anthony. I did not point this out. Mr. Bradley did not. Neither did Val. Mr. Hornsby noticed it.

If this had fallen on the "Casey is guilty side" there would have been accolades and high-fives all around. Because it did not fall on that side, it should have been sleuthed more closely by Richard, me, others. It was not.

In the meantime, the NYT ran across the story. I don't know if it was dumb luck, if they saw it on the Hinky, or if Mr. Hornsby's connections to WESH alerted them to the story. Whatever happened, "real journalists" took hold and the true facts were sent through a food processor.

Because the story became big news, the State was compelled to respond. In preparing their response they contacted Mr. Bradley and informed him that part of his timeline was exactly one week off. It happens to the best of us. He corrected it.

The State is absolved.
The press did not do its homework. Including me.
The defense looks (once again) like pile divers.
The computer forensics lab at the OCSO looks like they dropped the ball.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

I turned it when LKB came on yelling about KC needs to sue the State.

Full disclosure is needed whenever a part of the defense team is interviewed.
Yuck!!!! Linda kenny Baden and her husband Dr. Michael Baden are up to there eyeballs with the DT. Puleese---getting an objective comment out of them is useless. Furthermore it has been discussed that this article and their self righteous indignation is part of a defense strategy to keep Casey in the public eye--along with her "Sighting" in Orlando earlier in the day.

THE MORE CONTROVERSY, the more "her" story is worth. They are playing the press, and guess the press is falling for it. I TRULY think the worst thing that could happen to this defense team and the little witch is to be IGNORED and irrelevant. A fate worse than the death. Literally:loser:

 

[grammieto5]

May I make note that although the burden of proof of guilt is a matter entirely set for the State to hold and own it does not mean that the level of ethics is different for any counsel inside the Courtroom. Both sides are held to the same level and standard of ethics. The State does not have a higher standard in terms of ethics. All the attorneys in the Courtroom passed the same bar and are held to the same standard, no matter what table they sit at.

I really am having a hard time seeing this in the FCA's trial. I saw no standards from the DT. I saw lies, and disrespect from the DT.

 

[pcrum12]

I wrote the blog entry, not Valhall. So if you have a beef, take it up with me.

Mr. Bradley spelled out a timeline for when he learned things and took action. Unfortunately, part of his timeline was spelled out as one week earlier than what actually happened. Nowhere in that timeline does he accuse the state of wrong-doing - he simply says what he told the state.

Now, because his timeline had that one-week error, folks looked at it and said that the State must have known of the problem before they crossed Cindy on June 23, but did nothing about it.

Once the one-week error was corrected (which was done today) it became obvious the State did not commit fraud of any sort, because neither Mr. Bradley nor the State knew of the problem during the cross of Cindy Anthony.

Wish I had reviewed this thread earlier. I've been harping all over another thread stating the were informed before Cindy's cross on the 23rd. Guess I have some crow to eat. As always, love your post and blog.

 

[JSR]

Folks, put the news story in some context before you light your torches. And if you decide to light them, come after me.

On July 11, the NetAnalysis developers blogged on their website about the difficulty of parsing the Firefox 2 history file. They also essentially bragged about how their latest release (which they noted was NOT used by OCSO) could parse the file but a competitor program (obviously CacheBack) could not.

On that same day, Mr. Bradley of CacheBack responded with a "press release" detailing his own pin-ball trip through the Anthony case and the fact that his program contained bugs similar to the earlier NetAnalysis program. He points out that those bugs could have easily been identified and fixed if only OCSO had told him there were discrepancies.

Mr. Bradley's "press release" was not actually sent to anyone in the press, so effectively it was nothing more than a blog entry seen by the 4 or 5 people around the world that read those things.

Yesterday morning, for whatever reason, I wondered if Mr. Bradley had ever fixed his program and what he said about it on his website. If you recall, BAEZ gave him a hard time because he had a "news release" stating that his software was being used in the Casey Anthony case. It was at that point I stumbled upon his "press release".

I exchanged emails with Mr. Bradley asking if I could quote his release in the Hinky Meter post I planned to write. He said yes. I offered to let him proof-read my post and he accepted.

The dates Mr. Bradley used in his timeline - erroneously recalled from memory - seemed to indicate the State must have known of the error when they crossed Cindy Anthony. I did not point this out. Mr. Bradley did not. Neither did Val. Mr. Hornsby noticed it.

If this had fallen on the "Casey is guilty side" their would have been accolades and high-fives all around. Because it did not fall on that side, it should have been sleuthed more closely by Richard, me, others. It was not.

In the meantime, the NYT ran across the story. I don't know if it was dumb luck, if they saw it on the Hinky, or if Mr. Hornsby's connections to WESH alerted them to the story. Whatever happened, "real journalists" took hold and the true facts were sent through a food processor.

Because the story became big news, the State was compelled to respond. In preparing their response they contacted Mr. Bradley and informed him that part of his timeline was exactly one week off. It happens to the best of us. He corrected it.

The State is absolved.
The press did not do its homework. Including me.
The defense looks (once again) like pile divers.
The computer forensics lab at the OCSO looks like they dropped the ball.

With all due respect JWG, I hope you realize that since most stations and news agencies have a tendency to not print retractions or point out factually incorrect information that many in the public will believe this to be totally and completely truthful and will never hear of the real truth.

And a good, honest and hard working SA named LDB got trashed today who has spent 20+ years working her off for victims of crimes (many of them murder victims), because people didn't take the time to go back and double check things and spout them out as truth.

Her reputation took a hit today and much of the public is not as informed as WS'ers are and now many will somehow think Casey got somehow railroaded by LDB.

 

[Wescott]

I wrote the blog entry, not Valhall. So if you have a beef, take it up with me.

Mr. Bradley spelled out a timeline for when he learned things and took action. Unfortunately, part of his timeline was spelled out as one week earlier than what actually happened. Nowhere in that timeline does he accuse the state of wrong-doing - he simply says what he told the state.

Now, because his timeline had that one-week error, folks looked at it and said that the State must have known of the problem before they crossed Cindy on June 23, but did nothing about it.

Once the one-week error was corrected (which was done today) it became obvious the State did not commit fraud of any sort, because neither Mr. Bradley nor the State knew of the problem during the cross of Cindy Anthony.

My concern was that by the time the error was corrected the damage was already done. People jumped to conclusions based on articles that were posted using that timeline.

I just read your long post near the end of this thread and thank you for clearing everything up. I was going to ask you if you had corresponded with the original article writer. On the bright side, nice that major newspapers are reading your articles.

 

[JSR]

My concern was that by the time the error was corrected the damage was already done. People jumped to conclusions based on articles that were posted using that timeline.

I just read your long post near the end of this thread and thank you for clearing everything up. I was going to ask you if you had corresponded with the original article writer. On the bright side, nice that major newspapers are reading your articles.

Correct the damage has already been done and none of the news agencies will run with a correction of what really happened and when.

As a result the reputation of a really fantastic SA has been tarnished to some degree.

 

[BiancaS]

I know. I believe all the June 16th dates were changed to June 23rd.

It's the only cached version I could find. Maybe someone who is a bit more computer savy than I am can find the updated version.

I created a pdf of the one with the changes. I never lost faith in the Prosecution and I suspected things would be changing all over again!!!

I just copied the text and emailed it to the illustrious Mr. Bradley. Said I think you lost something. Here it is. I didn't even need your software to find it.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

I wrote the blog entry, not Valhall. So if you have a beef, take it up with me.

Mr. Bradley spelled out a timeline for when he learned things and took action. Unfortunately, part of his timeline was spelled out as one week earlier than what actually happened. Nowhere in that timeline does he accuse the state of wrong-doing - he simply says what he told the state.

Now, because his timeline had that one-week error, folks looked at it and said that the State must have known of the problem before they crossed Cindy on June 23, but did nothing about it.

Once the one-week error was corrected (which was done today) it became obvious the State did not commit fraud of any sort, because neither Mr. Bradley nor the State knew of the problem during the cross of Cindy Anthony.

JWG,

I read that blog, and it was very well written and informative. I just think this case has hit a lot of raw nerves in people, and the public is looking for an "I told you so" moment. The prosecution team took the first hit, and now it is Mr. Bradly. Too bad the frustration over this case has so negatively influenced all of us. We just don't know who to trust. If not a Court of Law, than....Who or What!. JMO

 

[JWG]

With all due respect JWG, I hope you realize that since most stations and news agencies have a tendency to not print retractions or point out factually incorrect information that many in the public will believe this to be totally and completely truthful and will never hear of the real truth.

And a good, honest and hard working SA named LDB got trashed today who has spent 20+ years working her off for victims of crimes (many of them murder victims), because people didn't take the time to go back and double check things and spout them out as truth.

Her reputation took a hit today and much of the public is not as informed as WS'ers are and now many will somehow think Casey got somehow railroaded by LDB.

I have a file 12 meters thick of press inaccuracies on this case, and lives destroyed. The inaccuracies have not been fixed, and the lives remain in shambles.

Neither Val nor myself went out of our way to trash the State on this. The press and, more importantly, BAEZ, took that ball and ran with it. I looked at it and said "hey, this is kind of interesting."

There are some posts I have made on this site with 50 or 60 "thanks" because I posted a theory that seemed to nail Casey Anthony to the gurney. Yet looking at those old posts I see glaring flaws given the discovery released afterwards.

Don't get me wrong. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey is guilty of premeditated murder and that 12 lazy jurors did not do their job. But that fact alone will not stop me from poking at evidence and sating my curiosity.

 

[JSR]

I'm certainly very disappointed in todays events. It seems no one in this case has been unscathed, and to date the only one who has left this case smelling like a rose is Casey Anthony herself.

Unbelievable.

 

[JWG]

My concern was that by the time the error was corrected the damage was already done. People jumped to conclusions based on articles that were posted using that timeline.

I just read your long post near the end of this thread and thank you for clearing everything up. I was going to ask you if you had corresponded with the original article writer. On the bright side, nice that major newspapers are reading your articles.

I cannot do anything about people jumping to conclusions. Everyone does it, including everyone on this board. I do it all the time.

 

[yllek]

Folks, put the news story in some context before you light your torches. And if you decide to light them, come after me.

On July 11, the NetAnalysis developers blogged on their website about the difficulty of parsing the Firefox 2 history file. They also essentially bragged about how their latest release (which they noted was NOT used by OCSO) could parse the file but a competitor program (obviously CacheBack) could not.

On that same day, Mr. Bradley of CacheBack responded with a "press release" detailing his own pin-ball trip through the Anthony case and the fact that his program contained bugs similar to the earlier NetAnalysis program. He points out that those bugs could have easily been identified and fixed if only OCSO had told him there were discrepancies.

Mr. Bradley's "press release" was not actually sent to anyone in the press, so effectively it was nothing more than a blog entry seen by the 4 or 5 people around the world that read those things.

Yesterday morning, for whatever reason, I wondered if Mr. Bradley had ever fixed his program and what he said about it on his website. If you recall, BAEZ gave him a hard time because he had a "news release" stating that his software was being used in the Casey Anthony case. It was at that point I stumbled upon his "press release".

I exchanged emails with Mr. Bradley asking if I could quote his release in the Hinky Meter post I planned to write. He said yes. I offered to let him proof-read my post and he accepted.

The dates Mr. Bradley used in his timeline - erroneously recalled from memory - seemed to indicate the State must have known of the error when they crossed Cindy Anthony. I did not point this out. Mr. Bradley did not. Neither did Val. Mr. Hornsby noticed it.

If this had fallen on the "Casey is guilty side" their would have been accolades and high-fives all around. Because it did not fall on that side, it should have been sleuthed more closely by Richard, me, others. It was not.

In the meantime, the NYT ran across the story. I don't know if it was dumb luck, if they saw it on the Hinky, or if Mr. Hornsby's connections to WESH alerted them to the story. Whatever happened, "real journalists" took hold and the true facts were sent through a food processor.

Because the story became big news, the State was compelled to respond. In preparing their response they contacted Mr. Bradley and informed him that part of his timeline was exactly one week off. It happens to the best of us. He corrected it.

The State is absolved.
The press did not do its homework. Including me.
The defense looks (once again) like pile divers.
The computer forensics lab at the OCSO looks like they dropped the ball.

Thanks for the background information; much appreciated and, imo, this whole issue is ready to be put to bed.

Last thought before I tuck it in: I think Mr. Bradley is being let off easy in your synopsis; maybe deservedly so. But from where I sit, with no agenda for or against a State's expert witness, Mr. Bradley belongs at the top of your list of those with culpability.
- His software made the original errors (bugs happen, but you bet I'm checking my own results before I get up and testify to their validity as a key piece of evidence to be presented in the Casey Anthony trial);
-He gave erroneous dates with significant implications (dates that he could easily have checked as they coincide with widely published trial dates, if not his own personal calendar);
-He claims to have sent very important evidence-related communication to a wrong email address;
-His published statements very much implied wrong-doing on the part of LE and LDB (questionable doings/not-doings that would have happened before what we saw disclosed in open court, if his dates were accurate...) - either he was implying wrong-doing or those reporting his statements skewed them that way, imo. It wasn't just his initial mistake in the dates that he reported the errors to the SA (which made the whole issue much more salacious), but also the language of the (published) statements themselves that seemed accusatory, imo.

Doesn't matter much now; only those who should be negatively impacted by this fiasco will be, imo...

 

[beach]

Folks, put the news story in some context before you light your torches. And if you decide to light them, come after me.

On July 11, the NetAnalysis developers blogged on their website about the difficulty of parsing the Firefox 2 history file. They also essentially bragged about how their latest release (which they noted was NOT used by OCSO) could parse the file but a competitor program (obviously CacheBack) could not.

On that same day, Mr. Bradley of CacheBack responded with a "press release" detailing his own pin-ball trip through the Anthony case and the fact that his program contained bugs similar to the earlier NetAnalysis program. He points out that those bugs could have easily been identified and fixed if only OCSO had told him there were discrepancies.

Mr. Bradley's "press release" was not actually sent to anyone in the press, so effectively it was nothing more than a blog entry seen by the 4 or 5 people around the world that read those things.

Yesterday morning, for whatever reason, I wondered if Mr. Bradley had ever fixed his program and what he said about it on his website. If you recall, BAEZ gave him a hard time because he had a "news release" stating that his software was being used in the Casey Anthony case. It was at that point I stumbled upon his "press release".

I exchanged emails with Mr. Bradley asking if I could quote his release in the Hinky Meter post I planned to write. He said yes. I offered to let him proof-read my post and he accepted.

The dates Mr. Bradley used in his timeline - erroneously recalled from memory - seemed to indicate the State must have known of the error when they crossed Cindy Anthony. I did not point this out. Mr. Bradley did not. Neither did Val. Mr. Hornsby noticed it.

If this had fallen on the "Casey is guilty side" there would have been accolades and high-fives all around. Because it did not fall on that side, it should have been sleuthed more closely by Richard, me, others. It was not.

In the meantime, the NYT ran across the story. I don't know if it was dumb luck, if they saw it on the Hinky, or if Mr. Hornsby's connections to WESH alerted them to the story. Whatever happened, "real journalists" took hold and the true facts were sent through a food processor.

Because the story became big news, the State was compelled to respond. In preparing their response they contacted Mr. Bradley and informed him that part of his timeline was exactly one week off. It happens to the best of us. He corrected it.

The State is absolved.
The press did not do its homework. Including me.
The defense looks (once again) like pile divers.
The computer forensics lab at the OCSO looks like they dropped the ball.

JWG, thanks so much for the clarification.

 

[JSR]

I have a file 12 meters thick of press inaccuracies on this case, and lives destroyed. The inaccuracies have not been fixed, and the lives remain in shambles.

Neither Val nor myself went out of our way to trash the State on this. The press and, more importantly, BAEZ, took that ball and ran with it. I looked at it and said "hey, this is kind of interesting."

There are some posts I have made on this site with 50 or 60 "thanks" because I posted a theory that seemed to nail Casey Anthony to the gurney. Yet looking at those old posts I see glaring flaws given the discovery released afterwards.

Don't get me wrong. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey is guilty of premeditated murder and that 12 lazy jurors did not do their job. But that fact alone will not stop me from poking at evidence and sating my curiosity.

Understood.

I'm just terribly disappointed that everyone was so quickly ready to string up LDB.

I would be lying if I didn't say I was disappointed that you didn't go an extra mile to verify when stating something might possibly be hinky with the one of the two Caylee warriors.

JA and LDB have done what Caylee's own blood relatives have failed to do in life and in death, be her voice and attempt to bring her justice. JA put off retirement for 3 years for this case. I just wish before hitting send and knowing this might be something that could discredit Mrs. LDB and her sense of ethics that you had taken the time to verify just a little more.

But I understand that you're not the only one that took part in today's events.

I'm just disappointed that it even happened at all. And that one of Caylee's warriors took a hit and that most of the public will never know that it was all a lie.

 

[mrsu]

I cannot do anything about people jumping to conclusions. Everyone does it, including everyone on this board. I do it all the time.

If this new info was such a huge story had the potential to do such damage to the State's reputation. If it was the 'scoop' and had the potential of other journalists taking and running with it, why in the world wouldn't the dates be double checked??? Isn't that journalism 101? Instead I feel like someone was so eager to drop a bombshell that simple fact checking was over looked. Wow.

:/

 

[JWG]

Thanks for the background information; much appreciated and, imo, this whole issue is ready to be put to bed.

Last thought before I tuck it in: I think Mr. Bradley is being let off easy in your synopsis; maybe deservedly so. But from where I sit, with no agenda for or against a State's expert witness, Mr. Bradley belongs at the top of your list of those with culpability.
- His software made the original errors (bugs happen, but you bet I'm checking my own results before I get up and testify to their validity as a key piece of evidence to be presented in the Casey Anthony trial);
-He gave erroneous dates with significant implications (dates that he could easily have checked as they coincide with widely published trial dates, if not his own personal calendar);
-He claims to have sent very important evidence-related communication to a wrong email address;
-His published statements very much implied wrong-doing on the part of LE and LDB (questionable doings/not-doings that would have happened before what we saw disclosed in open court, if his dates were accurate...) - either he was implying wrong-doing or those reporting his statements skewed them that way, imo. It wasn't just his initial mistake in the dates that he reported the errors to the SA (which made the whole issue much more salacious), but also the language of the (published) statements themselves that seemed accusatory, imo.

Doesn't matter much now; only those who should be negatively impacted by this fiasco will be, imo...

His software was not the only "buggy" software. NetAnalysis was buggy as well. It just happened to not be buggy in the same, critical spot.

He testified about a report he did not produce and was seeing for the first time.

I sent an email today to an address for a reporter at WESH that I have used in the past, yet it bounced. Does that make me sloppy?

He clearly implied sloppiness on the part of OCSO, and I whole-heartedly agree. As for the state, I did not read it that way, unless I went further and confused witness testimony dates.

 

[JWG]

If this new info was such a huge story had the potential to do such damage to the State's reputation. If it was the 'scoop' and had the potential of other journalists taking and running with it, why in the world wouldn't the dates be double checked??? Isn't that journalism 101? Instead I feel like someone was so eager to drop a bombshell that simple fact checking was over looked. Wow.

:/

I don't know. I just posted on an obscure blog which some feel has a particular bias (one I have been unable to figure out). I guess the New York Times needs to answer this one, since they started the maelstrom roughly 12 hours after my post. :innocent: