Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by Mrs G Norris, Jan 4, 2013.
This isn't nice so please scroll on by if you don't like it as it's my opinion only.
Another waste of Florida tax funds and time on FCA. It wouldn't have mattered in the first place if it had been found because Ashton was way to focused on the chloroform stuff when he should have used the tech timeline stuff instead.
It was interesting to read the article and see that he isn't necessarily doing this because he has an axe to grind. I'm sure it's important if he is the States Attorney, to know that he can rely on the OCSD to do a more thorough job on computer forensics than they obviously did on the Caylee Anthony case.
The Florida taxpayers pay a huge bill to prosecute someone like FCA and I can understand he needs to be sure huge blocks of information aren't being missed for whatever reason, particularly when they are case breaking blocks like the "foolproof suffocation" search was.
Good for you Jeff!!!
Yes, ITA. It really is the first response from the State, if I'm not mistaken. Overdue, IMHO.
certainly reads to me like he wants to know if the computer experts are any good going forward rather than really anything to do with FCA
I would expect not only Jeff Ashton (as the new SA) but also OCSO to investigate how the evidence was missed and come up with solutions so that it does not happen again in another case.
The article quotes Ashton saying...If there is a problem it needs to be fixed
HAPPY NEW YEAR !!!!! :cheers:
I would expect this as I am sure they dont want a repeat in the future. I remember when I first got my puter most business and government had no place for your emaill address, it took some time for the government to catch up to the fast developing internet.
I met my hubby on a local BBS board way before anyone was chatting or even on the net. The government is always last to upgrade.
Here is another aspect to the puter age. The technology was changing so fast companies including the courts couldnt get a trained developer/analyst before the programs changed. Every 18 months the technology was changing so fast the colleges couldnt keep up. By the time they graduated a 4 year analyst the programs changed 4 or more times. This made it hard to get good people that knew the system and how to re coup data. it is still an issue.
This is just an example of the fox looking after the hen house.
It's interesting but if you walk into any county clerk's office in New Jersey, you're gonna find 1960s metal desks, ripped wallpaper hanging from the walls, drapes from the Rennaissance era and really bad plumbing. I wouldn't be surprised to find the computers are from the stone age as well.
I believe that Mr. Ashton is trying to make sure no one else gets away with murder due to missed evidence by the investigation team. Can't fault him for that.
JMO, but I do think it woud have mattered on several levels. #1, it would have been hard to have kept implicating George with this evidence. #2, the accident would have seemed more unlikely to be presented or believed and #3 as for Ashton's focus on chloroform, please remember that he was not the lead prosecutor.....
I would have liked to see a throughtly laid out timeline too and feel it would have been very effective. I don't think we can blame Ashton for that.
The title should read OCSO.
If I were to believe that this jury was open to the idea of convicting (which I have many doubts), then I would agree with you. I think the only way this info would have mattered to them would have been if it were spelled out in the most basic way, and presented in conjunction with the rest of the phone/computer records to prove that ... 1) the drowning never happened, 2) Caylee was still alive when George left for work, then 3) the search was done after George left, and Caylee was never seen again.
The prosecutors presented things to this jury as if they were intelligent, rational, thinking people with common sense who were paying attention, and I don't think those jurors 'caught on' to alot of what the prosecution was saying. For example, I think they missed the whole reason for cindy's boss's testimony. Didn't one of the jurors when questioned about cindy looking up the word 'chloroform' say "we considered that"? There was nothing to consider, she couldn't have done the search because she was at work.
On the other hand, they were easily swayed by baez and very willing to go down the rabbit hole, so if he insisted the time stamp was wrong, and it was George looking for ways to commit suicide, they might have bought it.
I still have my opinion that this jury was looking for doubt, and didn't want to convict, so it makes me wonder if it would have mattered either way.
I think the "fox" was voted out of office. lol Just as everyone else does, JA took directions from his boss. I would imagine if there were any orders to OCSC it would have come from the highest level. The fact JA is ordering an investigation tells us that he probably has no problems sleeping at night over this. jmo :jail:
As a native of the area and a former OC taxpayer, I say YES!, the fox was most definitely voted out and JA is doing what he can to make sure this never happens again!
I have FINALLY read Jeff Ashton's book. Better late than never.
Obviously the book was written before the info came out in Baez's later book about the computer searches the prosecution's "computer experts" never found.
I found Ashton's story to be good, but a bit myopic at times. It is obvious the prosecution "team" were certainly not all on the same page at the same time. But I don't work in Law Enforcement or Criminal Prosecution, so perhaps this is just the way it is. Or was.
In regard to the missed computer searches, this issue absolutely bears looking into. Perhaps an investigation will lead to funding for payment of up-to-date independent computer experts on important cases. Rather than relying on non-college graduate "computer experts" who got the job because they expressed an "interest in computers". Oh, and no one else wanted the job. And no one else knew much at all about computers. Except her boss. Who must have been very, very busy with other things. Or else totally non-curious.
In any case, Mr. Ashton's very measured recounting of "how things really went down" included a few very insightful revelations. Remember the heart-shaped outline reported to be seen by a Crime Tech (and her supervisor whom she called in to look at it) on the duct tape that covered Caylee's nose and mouth? Two or three very succint sentences Ashton explains the Tech's failure to photograph this with: 1.) The tech was new on the job 2.) There was no protocol in place requiring a photograph of non-fingerprint evidence.
Now, I ask you, if your job is to photograph things and you have a camera - likely on a tripod - all set up, and you see what appears to be the outline of a heart on duct tape that was covering the nose and mouth of a skelontized child, you mean to tell me you would NOT take a photograph of that?
And you would call your boss in to look at this and your boss would not direct you to photograph it?
Some of this stuff is beyone belief!
One point Ashton made that I do agree with. Baez won an acquittal in this case despite his own stupidity. Baez lucked out by happening upon one of the world's dumbest, I-want-out-of-here, I want-to-go-home-now juries. Examination of evidence? What's that? Look at exhibits? Nah, not us. Ask a questiom? Nope, not this jury.
The jury, according to Ashton, ordered up several children's videos during the course of the trial, even after having pre-sequestration selected some 200 videos to watch. Post-trial 3 jurors spoke, two of them anonymously. No "We The Jury" books here.
I wish Mr. Ashton the best in effecting change within the systen.
Oh, and I was a bit surprised to learn he was on his third wife and third set of small children at the time of the trial. Don't know why, I just was.
Its encumbent on Jeff Ashton to investigate what happened here. He's the head man now. This was no minor oversight. This was a clear case of one or more computer forensic analysts being out of their depth and the absence of any protocall employed by Orange County Sheriff's department to catch any incompetence. And lets be honest it wasn't the first time. Remember the 84 searches which turned out to be one. That incident alone imo should have prompted Orange County SD to look at their computer forensic resources and practices.
Back in the day people were very reluctant to criticize the OCSD investigation but it wasnt a perfect investigation. Roy Kronk's first three phone calls are testimony to that. OCSD and the DA's office should welcome this investigation, take their medicine, then assure the public lessons have been learned and outline what steps they have taken to ensure this doesn't happen again.
I agree, It is not an axe to grind but to insure mistakes like these do not happen again.
Separate names with a comma.