2011.07.17 Casey Released From Jail

[jenniek]

I think the fact that Cindy lied to cover it up speaks VOLUMES! why lie about the chloroform?? makes no sense and frankly searching it ONE time is enough considering there was chloroform in the TRUNK! 1 + 1 = 2 people.

 

[rossva]

IMHO that also means she didn't believe the State either, hence the not guilty.

BBM

Let’s take a look at some of Ms Ford’s own words as to what she “learned”:

Quote:
Ford agreed that Anthony was a "pathological liar"

"I'm not saying I believe the defense," she said.

 

[everyoneneedsavoice]

Thank you to all the people who know how to use Twitter. I deleted my original post. PLEASE anyone who quoted my post, please delete it. I don't want to start any rumors...TIA

Oh...and I would never follow her, even if I did have a twitter.

 

[Shelby1]

http://yfrog.com/kfejcg

This page says it is fake.


The chloroform really never entered into it for me. So the idea that the case hinged on 84 searches or 1 is laughable.

I think many people have stated as well that they have searches that are quite odd in their browser history. Google searches are not evidence.

In my opinion people are acting like if it's not first degree murder then she must be innocent. But she was not there for her daughter when her daughter needed her. I don't care how disassociated you can be, she doesn't seem to care about her daughter at all even years later. That's enough for me.


The only thing I am still wondering about is who is Caylee's father. If it turns out that George is the father THEN I'll maybe consider what stories she's been pedaling. But otherwise no.

I'm not saying the case in any way "hinged" on the search count.

I'm saying this is troublesome because it's the second time this type of situation has occurred involving Mr. Ashton.

Like I stated above. I believe he's a good lawyer and a stand up guy. I don't understand why he would let this happen twice.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

I still don't completely understand the problem with the computer searches, but I did remember Baez addressing a problem with them right before LDB's rebuttal. It starts at 10:45 in this video. http://www.wftv.com/video/28440654/index.html

Okay, I am going to try to explain this again, because I DO want you guys to understand. Please bear with me, because my migraine is not gone, but I am willing to sit here and try to make sense of it for as long as it takes because I feel that it is that important.

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.

 

[rossva]

Pointing out again - it was the DEFENSE TEAM that requested a mistrial at that point for that reason, and were denied. Everyone laughed at "another baseless attempt" by the Defense then; now that it would have benefited the State, it's a different story.

A mistrial should have been declared when the jury requested to see the duct tape with the heart shape sticker residue -- what happened to heeding all the admonitions handed down by HHJBP. The case was only about one quarter way through when this occurred I think, but not a word was said. I thought Florida was a strict judicial state???

imo

 

[HRCODEPINK]

respectfully snipped

I wouldn't worry, HRCODEPINK. She was acquitted of the crimes related to this evidence, so I don't see how she could claim damages in this case.

She could claim damages because her Constitutional rights were violated. In addition, every news outlet in America and around the world claimed that she made 84 searches, when this is, according to the expert, untrue and is damaging to her character. While I could care less about her character, I truly am not a CFCA sympathizer, if her rights were violated, a case against the state alone, whether she wins or loses is still going to cost the stare more money. And most importantly, if people are not held accountable for their actions, if this is true, then it could happen again in other cases and puts a negative light on the state in future cases. Keep in mind that any time a violation of the Constitutional rights of one individual are infringed upon and that is deemed okay, by omission or otherwise, it could set precedent in future cases that the violation of these rights is okay in other cases. We have to keep in mind that everything in court happens not only at the direction of the Constitution, but also previous case law and decisions in other cases.

This is why HHJP was so careful to make sure that her rights were not violated. He was trying to avoid what may end up happening here anyway because of this.

 

[21merc7]

I thought the chloroform search errors were cleared up in trial. LDB came back the next day, I think but my memory is not that trustworthy, and went over it again with it being only 1 time and the myspace was more times. Heck, I can't remember, but I did think it was cleared up then, maybe it did not sound that way to some but I remember thinking wth? Now I know why that was done.

Not saying the State didn't make mistakes, I think they did as well as the defense did, I was saying it all along. But I don't think this was a cover up, I remember it being addressed.

 

[Chablis]

She could claim damages because her Constitutional rights were violated. In addition, every news outlet in America and around the world claimed that she made 84 searches, when this is, according to the expert, untrue and is damaging to her character. While I could care less about her character, I truly am not a CFCA sympathizer, if her rights were violated, a case against the state alone, whether she wins or loses is still going to cost the stare more money. And most importantly, if people are not held accountable for their actions, if this is true, then it could happen again in other cases and puts a negative light on the state in future cases. Keep in mind that any time a violation of the Constitutional rights of one individual are infringed upon and that is deemed okay, by omission or otherwise, it could set precedent in future cases that the violation of these rights is okay in other cases. We have to keep in mind that everything in court happens not only at the direction of the Constitution, but also previous case law and decisions in other cases.

This is why HHJP was so careful to make sure that her rights were not violated. He was trying to avoid what may end up happening here anyway because of this.

Great post.

 

[askfornina]

Okay, I am going to try to explain this again, because I DO want you guys to understand. Please bear with me, because my migraine is not gone, but I am willing to sit here and try to make sense of it for as long as it takes because I feel that it is that important.

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.

you (or mods) should post your posts on this subject in the designated thread that was just created so more people will see them

 

[HRCODEPINK]

http://yfrog.com/kfejcg

This page says it is fake.


The chloroform really never entered into it for me. So the idea that the case hinged on 84 searches or 1 is laughable.

I think many people have stated as well that they have searches that are quite odd in their browser history. Google searches are not evidence.

In my opinion people are acting like if it's not first degree murder then she must be innocent. But she was not there for her daughter when her daughter needed her. I don't care how disassociated you can be, she doesn't seem to care about her daughter at all even years later. That's enough for me.


The only thing I am still wondering about is who is Caylee's father. If it turns out that George is the father THEN I'll maybe consider what stories she's been pedaling. But otherwise no.

I think the fact that Cindy lied to cover it up speaks VOLUMES! why lie about the chloroform?? makes no sense and frankly searching it ONE time is enough considering there was chloroform in the TRUNK! 1 + 1 = 2 people.

This is what I am trying to explain. I never gave any credit to the computer searches. I am actually in the group that believes that Caylee's murder was not an accident and was done on purpose. I believe that 100%! And I believe that she should have been found guilty and spend the rest of her life in prison. I have always believed those searches were not for Caylee, per se, but for her parents. BUT it does not matter how important the evidence was. If her Constitutional rights were violated, that trumps everything. Below is the case law that I posted last night that explains this:

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. . . . 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. . . . "

 

[SMK]

Great post.

Do they have plans to bring a suit about this?

 

[Quiche]

Why are we even discussing the chloroform searches on this thread? Seems like a waste of good sleuthing, to me.

I want a KC sighting.

 

[Chablis]

you (or mods) should post your posts on this subject in the designated thread that was just created so more people will see them

It would probably be the most informative thread in this section!

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Great post.

you (or mods) should post your posts on this subject in the designated thread that was just created so more people will see them

Thank you! Really, honestly, I am on Caylee's side. I just want people to understand that this is not only bad for the state, but also for Caylee and for each and every one of us. When the state does something that violates your rights and it is deemed to be okay by the general public, you are also putting yourself at risk for it happening to you! Precedent is everything, as I am learning very quickly in my Criminal Law and Procedure class right now and as I had learned over 12 long years of volunteer work with the IP. This will not be the last that we will hear of this. It will be all over MSM before it is over with and looks really bad.

 

[pookie53]

I think the computer searches should have a thread of it's own. 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 any different than having two witnesses up on the stand that 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.

 

[Quiche]

It would probably be the most informative thread in this section!

:waitasec:

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Do they have plans to bring a suit about this?

As of this moment, I have not seen any suit that has been started. But this just hit MSM this morning, and with the way these people are about money, I would not be the least bit surprised if they do. Clearly, from the appeals on the 4 lying to LE convictions, they don't know when to sit down, shut up and thank their lucky stars.

 

[cluciano63]

If the state knew the report was faulty, shouting out "84 times" as I believe LDB did, was most certainly wrong, IMO.

 

[technicalconfusion]

[


The only thing I am still wondering about is who is Caylee's father. If it turns out that George is the father THEN I'll maybe consider what stories she's been pedaling. But otherwise no.

It's already been established that George is not Caylees' father, nor is Lee.