Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[Chablis]

I think this is really important, even if one (me included) believes there was ample valid evidence to support the charges filed by the State. If Mr. Bradley's account is true, he was brushed aside when he repeatedly brought the error to the State's attention while the trial was still in progress.

The defendant got acquitted, true enough. Thus, the Defense may not jump all over it in the media (but they may well choose to exploit it for all its worth and try to influence public opinion that this is indicative of tactics used by the prosecution against their proclaimed innocent client; remains to be seen how big this will or will not become).

This is bothersome to me regardless of the outcome of the trial; just like Baez's disregard for court orders was bothersome to me. I wish the State's Attorney office would comment. They don't have to relive the trial to respond imo; just address the issue that has been made public by their expert witness and publicized by the media.

P.s. no jurors that have spoken have mentioned the search error as a factor in their verdict, IIRC. Wouldn't be surprised if it comes up in future interviews though.

JMO....

The Defense can most certainly do something about this and how it affected the media and the people who believed she looked 84 times. I have always thought this was a pool death but when I heard 84 searches, I thought, omg, I was wrong, its over State has this in the bag. The prosecutions actions were reported by the media as FACT!!

 

[Hot Dogs]

Can the narrow down the time spent on the site?

I don't know if they did, but the prosecution was working with the 84 visits theory.

Would they be able to tell if she cut and pasted it, then opened up notepad and pasted it?

Presumably, if they had that information it would have been brought out in the trial.

 

[Shelby1]

31 days.......enough said.

In no way am I disputing any part of that.


I'm worried that the defense will use this to get out of paying for their part of the trial expenses.

The debate is not whether 1 search or 84 searches occurred, the debate is whether KC will benefit from the incorrect information to the jury. If she does benefit, then that definitely is another blow for Justice for Caylee IMO and I don't want that to happen.

 

[yllek]

From what he is saying, he was not able to clarify because they only asked him on the stand what the report that he was holding said.

Yes, he claims in his interview that he asked the Prosecution if they wanted him to analyze the results in the report and was told they only wanted him to answer their questions based on what the report reflected...

 

[GhostCrab]

He had every opportunity to tell the jury that the 84 searches may not be correct because of his software. It sounds more to me as if he found out after the fact there was indeed and error and now is backpeddling.

I find it hard to believe that any of the SA would put their jobs on the line to encourage someone to bring false testimony if they knew this to be true.

Wasn't one originally discovered but there was a problem with the software and they consulted with this gentleman to fix the error and he is saying his software revealed 84. It was pretty clear he said on the stand his software showed 84.

I'm still thinking this was discovered after the fact and he is blaming SA to keep from being sued himself. If he had not testified I'd say it is possible SA is at fault, but he did of his own free will. Sounds way too far fetched to me. But it should be interesting to see how it plays out. jmo

It was posted in another thread that he discovered it on June 16th and immediately reported it to the OCSO.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Was the initial search that was typed into the searchbox "how to make chloroform" or "chloroform"?

My understanding is that the SEARCH in GOOGLE was of the phrase "how to make chloroform". I remember them showing the string "how+to+make+chloroform" which is a parameter that is passed in to the google search URL:


URL

 

[Aedrys]

I'm sorry, but I"m not believing a software designer over the stellar rep of the SA's office. I don't see this as a big deal, and I have way more respect for the SA than to think they would sink to Baez's level on a trial this big. They fought hard for Caylee in that courtroom, and it's inexcusable to take one mistake and let it take away from their hard, thorough, efforts in this case, way more effort than Baez could ever hope to put into it if he tried. He didn't even bother to look at the computer hard drive until it was almost too late. He never had computer experts lined up to testify. I mean seriously, like he has any ground to go after the SA. And this has nothing to do with the lying charges anyway. They are only trying to recoup on that. They can't recoup on charges she was acquitted on, and that's where this non-issue would have a chance of coming into play. It's moot. The defense is not going after it, and it was a mistake, not an intentional act on the state's part. And how many times did the defense withold things from the state until HHJP forced them to turn those things over?

 

[com n sense]

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.

Too bad it doen't call for a mistrial.
When I think of all the underhanded decieving the defence did in this case & got away with it.:sick:

 

[Talina]

Right, I totally get what you're saying, but there's a problem.

If the defense decides to go after this, KC could end up not having to pay a dime back for the trial and the state of Florida would have to pick up the whole tab.

I could be wrong but I thought that they are only going after KC for the costs of searching for Caylee between July 15 and Dec 11 when, according to the defense, Caylee was already deceased and they were looking for the baby based on on Casey's lies. They are not charging her back for the cost of the trial. Therefore, this computer search bad information would have nothing to do with those costs.

 

[BD1]

I am so confused about the chloroform internet searches. I was confused before trial, during trial I got even more confused and now?? Totally befuddled. Is it fact, according to both programs OCSO used, that on two different days, something related to chloroform was searched at least once, and at least 3 different sites were looked at? One being 'chloroform', one being 'how to make chloroform' (the sci spot) and one being the 1800's account of a chloroform user?

 

[KarmaGet'em]

It was posted in another thread that he discovered it on June 16th and immediately reported it to the OCSO.

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

Mr. Bradley, fearing that jurors were being given false information based on his data, contacted the police and the prosecution the weekend of June 25. He asked Sergeant Stenger about the discrepancy, and the sergeant said he was aware of it, Mr. Bradley said.

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

 

[SMK]

The Defense can most certainly do something about this and how it affected the media and the people who believed she looked 84 times. I have always thought this was a pool death but when I heard 84 searches, I thought, omg, I was wrong, its over State has this in the bag. The prosecutions actions were reported by the media as FACT!!

I know, on HLN, they kept holding up a placard that said "84" on it, so this was a colossal deception which occurred after LE and the State had been fully notified as to this honest witness' error.

 

[GhostCrab]

I'm sorry, but I"m not believing a software designer over the stellar rep of the SA's office. I don't see this as a big deal, and I have way more respect for the SA than to think they would sink to Baez's level on a trial this big. They fought hard for Caylee in that courtroom, and it's inexcusable to take one mistake and let it take away from their hard, thorough, efforts in this case, way more effort than Baez could ever hope to put into it if he tried. He didn't even bother to look at the computer hard drive until it was almost too late. He never had computer experts lined up to testify. I mean seriously, like he has any ground to go after the SA. And this has nothing to do with the lying charges anyway. They are only trying to recoup on that. They can't recoup on charges she was acquitted on, and that's where this non-issue would have a chance of coming into play. It's moot. The defense is not going after it, and it was a mistake, not an intentional act on the state's part. And how many times did the defense withold things from the state until HHJP forced them to turn those things over?

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

 

[SMK]

I'm sorry, but I"m not believing a software designer over the stellar rep of the SA's office. I don't see this as a big deal, and I have way more respect for the SA than to think they would sink to Baez's level on a trial this big. They fought hard for Caylee in that courtroom, and it's inexcusable to take one mistake and let it take away from their hard, thorough, efforts in this case, way more effort than Baez could ever hope to put into it if he tried. He didn't even bother to look at the computer hard drive until it was almost too late. He never had computer experts lined up to testify. I mean seriously, like he has any ground to go after the SA. And this has nothing to do with the lying charges anyway. They are only trying to recoup on that. They can't recoup on charges she was acquitted on, and that's where this non-issue would have a chance of coming into play. It's moot. The defense is not going after it, and it was a mistake, not an intentional act on the state's part. And how many times did the defense withold things from the state until HHJP forced them to turn those things over?

Well, there is a record of his notification, and LDB will be called to account for it. This was no error; it was intentional deception.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

:waitasec:

Jose Baez and the Defense Team better "look in the mirror" before they start to "accuse" the State of Florida of MISCONDUCT !

What a bunch of "whining hypocrites" !!!

:maddening::banghead::maddening::banghead:

The problem with this view is that you are not looking at the HUGE picture. Our system is guided by the Constitution and precedent set in previous case law. If the people were to one day decide that it is okay for the state to be less than truthful in the case of one individual, under equal protection, you are saying that it would be okay for the state to do it in your case. For example, eyewitness testimony is the WORST evidence there is. But say there were a crime committed by someone who resembled you and then someone who witnessed the crime saw you in your front yard and called the police and said that you were the person who committed the crime. Also assume that we have taken a what's good for the goose mentality and have decided it's okay for the state to tweak the evidence and they do so in this case against you and you end up in prison for it. It is a serious charge that this man is making, regardless of the actions of the defense and I hope the state will address it and it is looked into.

I was under the impression that the state was looking to recover costs for the 4 counts of lying in which she was convicted? Would the chloroform searches really have anything to do with that?

Also, I thought the number 84 was address by the pimp during his cross examination of the software designer? It was made rather clear that that site had only been searched once. We all understood that here???

The misconduct, if there was any, won't have any bearing on the case against her to pay for the investigative costs. BUT if in a separate suit against the state or a counter suit on her part, she wins because her Constitutional rights were violated, it could offset those costs some, or even end up with her winning more money from the state than she owes back and then the state would have to pay her.

He had every opportunity to tell the jury that the 84 searches may not be correct because of his software. It sounds more to me as if he found out after the fact there was indeed and error and now is backpeddling.

I find it hard to believe that any of the SA would put their jobs on the line to encourage someone to bring false testimony if they knew this to be true.

Wasn't one originally discovered but there was a problem with the software and they consulted with this gentleman to fix the error and he is saying his software revealed 84. It was pretty clear he said on the stand his software showed 84.

I'm still thinking this was discovered after the fact and he is blaming SA to keep from being sued himself. If he had not testified I'd say it is possible SA is at fault, but he did of his own free will. Sounds way too far fetched to me. But it should be interesting to see how it plays out. jmo

From my understanding, just like others were not allowed to expand on their answers and only answer the question asked, he was only asked what the report in his hand said. He was not asked to clarify. I can't remember all of the dates and when who testified to what, but if he knew beforehand, he is claiming he was not given the opportunity to clarify and if he found out after he testified he is MOST CERTAINLY claiming that he offered to come back at his own expense and clarify and was not given that opportunity. He is even stating in public that "Had OCSD informed me that NetAnalysis had indeed been able to parse the Firefox 2 history file in August 2008 (16 months earlier), I would have definitely asked for a copy of the results as a benchmark to my own work in December 2009. This information was selectively omitted in my discussions with OCSD."

I don't know if what he is saying is true or not, but the use of the words "selectively omitted" is a pretty serious charge in my eyes and I certainly hope that this is fully investigated so that people can be held responsible if it is true and he can be held responsible for false allegations if he is lying because these are VERY SERIOUS charges he is making against the state.

 

[Shelby1]

I could be wrong but I thought that they are only going after KC for the costs of searching for Caylee between July 15 and Dec 11 when, according to the defense, Caylee was already deceased and they were looking for the baby based on on Casey's lies. They are not charging her back for the cost of the trial. Therefore, this computer search bad information would have nothing to do with those costs.

I was not under that impression, but I hope you're right!

 

[LambChop]

I was under the impression that the state was looking to recover costs for the 4 counts of lying in which she was convicted? Would the chloroform searches really have anything to do with that?

Also, I thought the number 84 was address by the pimp during his cross examination of the software designer? It was made rather clear that that site had only been searched once. We all understood that here???

Well, we do know it was more than once because CA said she searched both days and obviously the jury believed her because the chloroform was thrown out by the jury as an issue. Maybe they were confused as we were why one program showed one search when we knew there was more than one and another program shows 84. The software designer was there to present facts not to lie. If he knew the spreadsheet he was given was wrong he should have said so.

If this software was wrong I'd have some serious issues with a witness who would get on the stand and agree that the information on that datasheet was correct. And he was on the stand twice, was he not. jmo

 

[Hot Dogs]

My understanding is that the SEARCH in GOOGLE was of the phrase "how to make chloroform". I remember them showing the string "how+to+make+chloroform" which is a parameter that is passed in to the google search URL...

New York Times

According to Mr. Bradley, chief software developer of CacheBack, used by the police to verify the computer searches, the term "chloroform" was searched once through Google.

This suggests the other.

 

[Chablis]

I am so confused about the chloroform internet searches. I was confused before trial, during trial I got even more confused and now?? Totally befuddled. Is it fact, according to both programs OCSO used, that on two different days, something related to chloroform was searched at least once, and at least 3 different sites were looked at? One being 'chloroform', one being 'how to make chloroform' (the sci spot) and one being the 1800's account of a chloroform user?

There was once search in May of 08 to a site about how Chloroform was used in the 1800's. Thats it. jmo

 

[Solace]

As I recall, when Linda questioned Cindy about her being on the site 84 times and she said to her are you saying in front of this jury.....etc. I believe it had been pointed out that the visit was only one time. In fact, I recall her questioning the computer expert after Baez pointed it out that the visit before the chloroform seach was MYSPACE so that she was showing that KC had done the search. It was her response to this revelation.

I recall thinking this is not good - but then recovering because I believed the jury would look at the complete picture, the 31 days, only KC using the Car, the lying to LE, KC texting Amy about a smell in the car and her father hitting a squirrel, her actions after June 16th - BUT, alas, they did not.