1066 users online (213 members and 853 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 44 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 651
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    855

    Prosecution withheld evidence

    If it's good for the goose...

    Those 84 searches for cloroform? http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/07...hy-it-matters/

    Pre-emptively, if you consider that blog biased take a look at these blogs from the somewhat unhappy software developers

    http://blog.digital-detective.co.uk/...ies-casey.html

    The Cacheback blog is very interesting http://www.cacheback.ca/news/news_re...20110711-1.asp

    Debunking the 84 was one of the few times Jose was on and "won" a witness. Of course he had to brag he knew so much abouit computers when everything is photo shop and a blog, right?

    I'd be interested if anyone thinks this could have gotten a conviction overturned. They made such a point about the number of searches. SA messed up badly focusing so much on the searches.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    4,319

    Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

    "The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.

    The finding of 84 visits was used repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, who was found dead in 2008. Ms. Anthony, who could have faced the death penalty, was acquitted of the killing on July 5. "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=1
    "Life is life's greatest gift. Guard the life of another creature as you would your own because it is your own. On life's scale of values, the smallest is no less precious to the creature who owns it than the largest..." Lloyd Biggle, Jr.

    Let's bring Michelle Parker home: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ichelle+parker

    All statements made by me are based on my opinion.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,160
    And if it isn't wrong his company gets a lot of exposure. We know chloroform was looked up on 17th and 21st. We know someone looked up how to make chloroform. Twice to me would be too much.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Hill Country, Texas
    Posts
    1,610
    Twice would have been to much for me too! Actually, looking up "how to make chloroform" would have been enough for me.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    79
    Bringing over from another thread....

    I think it could have been a huge issue if FCA was found guilty, and could have caused a mistrial. I'm not sure if I believe Bradley 100% though. I haven't went back and watched, but he testified that he was told his program wasn't working right and he went back and "fixed" it. Stenger said he only asked him to fix a problem with the daylight savings time. But after Bradley went and fixed Cacheback that is when it came up with the 84 times result. If in his deposition he told the state that his program wasn't working before but he reprogrammed it and now it was right, then I'm sure they believed that.

    As soon as they found out what really happened they should have made it clear to the jury. The 84 times came as a surprise to everybody here. But did the state really withhold any information? The defense brought the report that had only 1 result for sci-spot.com Maybe they just had 2 reports and they really didn't know which one was correct. They disclosed both to the defense but used the one they wanted to. Which is also wrong because they had plenty of time to get another opinion on it or figure out which one was right. Or Is it not any different than having two witnesses up on the stand who are saying completely different things? "The duct tape was on before decomposition.... I believe the duct tape was placed on after the body was skeletonized."? I have to think about this one a little more.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    654
    IIRC, at the time that the state provided the evidence of 84 hits on the chloroform web page (sci-spot) the CacheBack analysis was incorrect, yet not known to be wrong. It was not re-tooled and fixed until after the prosecution rested. (The Pros. rested on June 15. They were informed of the fix on June 25). I believe that LDB touched on this discrepancy in their rebuttal. It was at this time that it was pointed out that the 84 number may have been wrong. I don't think they could have done it any earlier.
    (Note that there is a difference between the "search" for "how to make chloroform" and the "number of visits to a web page").
    FWIW, it makes no difference to me whether that site was visited once or 84 times. It does not take but one visit to print off the directions to the printer. Also, the search for "how to make chloroform" says a lot more to me in that it shows an intent of more that simple curiosity about what chloroform is.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,332
    Wow, could Jose Baez have actually gone through the huge volume of computer files he received more closely than he originally let on and wanted this error to come into play? He possibly let the State go on and on about "84 times", anxiously waiting to pounce and prove it was only once. Or, did he and the DT really examine the search reports closely after the State's witnesses testified and discover the massive blunder. Guess it doesn't matter.

    One search for "how to make chloroform" would have been incriminating in itself and a point towards premeditation. But, when the State claimed "84 times" it was very damning. By comparison, the jury may have figured "only 1 time" is no big deal (and worse, assumed the State exaggerated on purpose and didn't trust the experts about it at all).

    This error in fact presented to the jury seems somewhat minor compared to the complete fiction presented by the defense in opening statement imo. But, this error was presented as evidence of premeditation. This error also played a role in the State's (rightful, imo) impeachment of its own witness. This was a significant error by the State and shouldn't have happened if the software developer's statements are true that LE was fully aware of the error in the report. I could see it being cause for reversal if Casey Anthony had been found guilty of premeditated murder; the chloroform searches were used as a pivotal point in their case.

    I hope this was truly an oversight by OCSO and that the prosecuting attorneys believed in good faith that there were 84 searches; I trust they were operating in good faith. I just don't understand how it didn't come up in witness prep when OCSO had to know that the state was relying heavily on the chloroform searches to establish premeditation (and the duct tape to establish homicide).

    I believe Casey Anthony is guilty of murder whether there was 1 search for chloroform or 84. This snafu is really bothering me though; it makes me wonder about other things the State hammered on and whether other oversights or exaggerations resulted in misrepresentation of the evidence. I hope there is more to this story; right now it seems that LE and/or the State attorneys either didn't properly vet their information or chose to incorporate erroneous evidence to bolster their case; I so don't want to doubt the elements of the case the prosecution presented (but still no doubt about Casey's guilt based on evidence found within her own lies and actions)...
    My opinions only, with respect to all those whose opinions differ

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,780
    Was the initial search that was typed into the searchbox "how to make chloroform" or "chloroform"?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,358
    And its not even about being wrong about the number. Its that NG and other media picked it up and said to the public, 89 times! 89 times she searched for how to make chloroform!!! Well, 89 times would make anyone believe she was murderous and serious about killing her child in this matter. That is terrible, no wonder so many people who didn't follow the case so close and relied on the media were baffled when Casey got acquitted! And then if the State knew the 89 times were not accurate and used it anyways........jmo

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Actually, it was a huge issue. To say she had gone on it 84 times was huge and to find out it was not true was also huge. IMO.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,807
    Quote Originally Posted by Chablis View Post
    And its not even about being wrong about the number. Its that NG and other media picked it up and said to the public, 89 times! 89 times she searched for how to make chloroform!!! Well, 89 times would make anyone believe she was murderous and serious about killing her child in this matter. That is terrible, no wonder so many people who didn't follow the case so close and relied on the media were baffled when Casey got acquitted! And then if the State knew the 89 times were not accurate and used it anyways........jmo

    For once I agree with you Chablis. (Although I still feel she killed Caylee - but this is a huge error).

  12. #12
    OOkay, like I said on the other thread, I am not a CFCA sympathizer. I believe that she killed her daughter on purpose and that it was no accident. I also do not believe that the searches were for Caylee, but for her parents and I believe that she was 100% guilty and should be in prison for the rest of her life. I am on Caylee's side. I cannot stress this enough. But I am going to bring over a couple of posts below from the other thread to explain why this is a problem. Hopefully AZlawyer or Richard H can pop in and explain it better and correct anything that I may not have 100% correct.

    From the other thread:

    When the state takes someone to trial on something, they are required to turn over to the defense any information that could help the defendant. They are also not allowed to present anything at trial that they do not believe is 100% true. The state's witness is now coming forward and saying that before trial was over, he realized that there was a glitch in his program that made the results seem as though CFCA had searched and visited the chloroform website 84 times, when in truth, she had only gone there once. He is claiming that he went to the state and told them about the error and he was told that they already knew this long ago, but continued to say at trial that she had been there 84 times and did not disclose to the defense that the original report was in error. This was a violation of CFCA's Constitutional rights.

    Had CFCA been convicted, her defense team could have presented this evidence to the court on appeals and her conviction could have been overturned and she could have sued the state for violating her rights. It does not matter in the least how important the evidence was or how much weight the jury could or would have given to it. The problem is not necessarily with the evidence or how important it was. The violation of her Constitutional rights pretty much trumps everything else. Now, if this is proven to be true (like if this man still has the emails or recorded the call) CFCA can sue the state of Florida and could possibly win. Especially since she was found not guilty, this makes it even easier for her to do so. If she wins that case, the state of FL will be paying her for violating her rights.

    Case law explaining why it doesn't matter how important the evidence was. (I for one, gave no weight to the computer searches and still felt she was as guilty as the day is long, but this is why it is important):

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

    @@@I would start here:

    "This ruling is an extension of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 294 U. S. 112, where the Court ruled on what nondisclosure by a prosecutor violates due process:

    "It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a state has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which, in truth, is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a state to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation."

    @@@And read to at least here:

    "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. . . . [i]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. . . . "

    As long as I am not attacked, I will try to answer any questions I can about this, because it is important and I do not believe that this will be the last that we hear about this.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    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:
    Expert: I Warned Prosecutors Casey Anthony Didn’t Do 84 ‘Chloroform’ Word Searches
    Casey Anthony didn’t do 84 searches for the word “chloroform” and prosecutors didn’t correct the error, a computer expert says.

    John Bradley, who designed the CacheBack software used to support the 84-search assertion, now says Anthony visited the suspect website only once, the New York Times reports.The website, sci-spot.com, gave information about the use of chloroform in the 1800s.

    Bradley redesigned CacheBack after he testified for the prosecution and learned police used a different software in 2008 that found Anthony had visited the website only once.

    Bradley says he notified prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick and sheriff’s police when he learned of the error, but jurors were never told about it. One of the defense lawyers, Cheney Mason, says they were never told either. “If in fact this is true, and the prosecution concealed this new information, it is more than shame on them. It is outrageous,” he told the Times.
    http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...hloroform_wor/

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Solace View Post
    Actually, it was a huge issue. To say she had gone on it 84 times was huge and to find out it was not true was also huge. IMO.
    Is there any proof that the prosecution knew it was not 84 times when they entered it into evidence?

  15. #15
    The other issue is that on July 1st (I believe), long after they were aware that the numbers were wrong, when Cindy was put on the stand for rebuttal, LDB asked her if she went there 84 times when she said that she did go there. If she knew, as this man is claiming, and then continues to push the 84 searches, then she is continuing to perpetrate something that was untrue.

    I don't know if any of these articles or this man's statements are true. I am only saying that if it can be proven that is was not true and the state knew, this is very bad.

Page 1 of 44 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Prosecution of Casey Anthony movie discussion thread
    By raine1212 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 338
    Last Post: 01-27-2015, 03:18 PM
  2. Where did the prosecution go wrong?
    By JenniferTx in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: 07-22-2011, 04:51 AM
  3. Casey Anthony team says Judge Belvin Perry got facts wrong
    By Steely Dan in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 03:32 PM
  4. Casey Anthony’s Defense Misses Deadline-Blames prosecution
    By Tulessa in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 02-12-2010, 09:40 PM
  5. Is the Prosecution brokering a deal with D. Casey?
    By Bittiness39 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 139
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 08:19 PM

Tags for this Thread