Will Computer Experts Cause for Appeal?

kathyn2

Active Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
3,031
Reaction score
26
I am confused about the mistrial that Jose Baez asked for today concerning the computer experts and those 2 different programs. One program showed one search for chloroform and 1 program showed 84 searches. Baez contends the program was really pointing to 84 searches to Myspace.

Does anyone understand this and think that if there is some error in the experts tests or testimony that it could cause a mistrial and this whole case to be redone? I noticed LDB nor Ashton mentioned the 84 searches in their closing nor referred too much to chloroform. All I heard was Ashton state he hoped it was used to put Caylee out before she died. Anyone have any opinons on this?
 
I am confused about the mistrial that Jose Baez asked for today concerning the computer experts and those 2 different programs. One program showed one search for chloroform and 1 program showed 84 searches. Baez contends the program was really pointing to 84 searches to Myspace.

Does anyone understand this and think that if there is some error in the experts tests or testimony that it could cause a mistrial and this whole case to be redone? I noticed LDB nor Ashton mentioned the 84 searches in their closing nor referred too much to chloroform. All I heard was Ashton state he hoped it was used to put Caylee out before she died. Anyone have any opinons on this?

I think the state stayed away from it in closing for this very reason, but the jurors will notice it. I suspect that if they come back with first degree it will be based on the duct tape alone, not sure about the mistrial angle, but maybe it could be an appellate issue? We should probably ask the experts.
 
It will be very interesting to hear from the jurors how much credence was given to the whole chloroform issue. I think it is not significant in terms of premeditation, and what evidence there is, is tainted / suspect. If the IT guy on the jury is savvy enough, they are gonna pick up on that the report is <modsnip>.
 
At this point, the only person who can declare this a mistrial is Judge Perry, and IMO he won't.

It might become an appellate issue if ICA gets the DP.


If she gets the DP, the most likely outcome to a successful appeal would be a reduction from DP to LWOP.

If she doesn't get the DP, her appeals will go to the bottom of the pile.

IMO, this doesn't rise to that level. I'm not too worried about it.
 
Yeah, what's the deal??? Can someone explain the problem??
Apparently the one computer search showed she only visited the chloroform site once. Baez claims that it showed she visited Myspace 84 times and not the page for chloroform.
 
Yeah, what's the deal??? Can someone explain the problem??

The problem as I understand it is that the original forensics and report from the home computer conducted in 2008 showed a google search of "how to make chloroform" one time after having been to myspace 84 times. The report ran in June 2011 with a new software program showed "how to make chloroform" 84 times. In closing, JB stated and it was widely known that the producer of the new program could not get it to run correctly and it took several days to get straightened out and produce a report. The big issue is that the latter report was the only one entered into evidence. JB is saying why did the state not admit the original report into evidence?..obviously because the second one [which is more than likely false] paints the worse picture of his client. The other issue is that Sgt Singer testified to a report created by the vendor of the program - not something he created himself.
 
I am confused about the mistrial that Jose Baez asked for today concerning the computer experts and those 2 different programs. One program showed one search for chloroform and 1 program showed 84 searches. Baez contends the program was really pointing to 84 searches to Myspace.

Does anyone understand this and think that if there is some error in the experts tests or testimony that it could cause a mistrial and this whole case to be redone? I noticed LDB nor Ashton mentioned the 84 searches in their closing nor referred too much to chloroform. All I heard was Ashton state he hoped it was used to put Caylee out before she died. Anyone have any opinons on this?

I am concerned about this as well. I was confused after JB's closing, and thought there really is some inconsistency with this testimony. I would have thought that JA or LDB would have included something in the rebuttal, especially since this was really the only viable point for the DT, IMO. When they didn't offer a clarification today it gave me pause. I hope that it doesn't cause a mistrial or apellate issue. :twocents:
 
I can't see it causing a mistrial. I can see it causing issue on appeals. I am hoping that this is all covered by that portion of instructions that said that they could believe or dismiss the experts based on their judgment. I wish I knew for sure. Everything I have ever volunteered on was post conviction. :(
 
The only way there can be a mistrial at this point is if there is a problem within the jury or the jury cannot reach a unanimous verdict.
 
I edited the title of this from "cause for mistrial" to "cause for appeal". It is too late for a mistrial regarding any evidentiary issues. :)
 
Thanks Beach!! That makes alot more sense now.
 
IMHO yes we will see this raised in an appeal.
 
The whole Chloroform part confuses me. I understand that it's VERY dangerous to make and the affects only last 15 minutes.

What do you all think about it....did she make it, was it part of the murder, etc?

Thanks
 
I think it will be an appellate issue for sure. Evn if there were a new trial, I don't believe any it would exhonerate ICA; she will receive yet another conviction because the State would simply abandon the chloroform issue (which was the weakest angle, in my view) and focus elsewhere. They will achieve a conviction in any case.

The report never rang true. I have loads of IT experience (from my former position as an IT Admin), and it wasn't making the kind of sense it should have. So what, say I? Lots bigger fish in the sea for the State.

;cow:
 
I think it would only be appealable if the jury said that they convicted her because of that testimony. I think there is plenty else to convict her on.

I trust Judge Perry tho. I think he if thinks it would have a chance of appeal that he will do something.

I don't think she is going to get the DP anyway.
 
Seriously, I don't understand... so there WASN'T a search for chloroform 84 times?
 
There will be appeals on many points. Nothing will stick.

Baez is wrong. Again.
 
The whole Chloroform part confuses me. I understand that it's VERY dangerous to make and the affects only last 15 minutes.

What do you all think about it....did she make it, was it part of the murder, etc?

Thanks

I was iffy on the whole chloroform thing before the trial started and even disregarded the internet searches completely. But after learning that the "how to make chloroform" and neck breaking etc. searches were the only thing found deleted on the computer it raised new suspicion IMO

and then when Ashton brought it home that chloroform is volatile and evaporates it was astonishing to think actually how much chloroform would have been found in the car had they tested it sooner. I absolutely think chloroform was involved in Caylee's death in one way or another now.
 
I wouldn't put too much weight in to what the DT alleges. They are known liars. Just another attempt to halt the trial by taking information out of context.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
849
Total visitors
967

Forum statistics

Threads
589,929
Messages
17,927,795
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top