Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

Status
Not open for further replies.

dunlurken

New Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2005
Messages
1,119
Reaction score
1
No, she didn't.
Yes, she did. Seriously. why would that number stick in the back of my brain for ever? I watched the examination of Cindy and that number was mentioned quite a few times.............. but the relevant point here is the manufacturerer of the software said the software was not credible. Shot himself, and LE, in the foot, IMO. :floorlaugh:
 

Aedrys

If justice doesn't get you, karma will.
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
6,719
Reaction score
17
Wow, watching HLN, imo, the State is in trouble. I predict LDB's resignation shortly.

Dramatic much? What happened to talking about provable facts? When did we move into pure hearsay and slander? Like HLN is the be all end all in the legal field. Please. They just want a story like every other news station and probably haven't checked their facts, like most news outlets. How many times did the media get things wrong in this case in the last three years? And now they are gospel since it's an accusation against the SA?
 

Horace Finklestein

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
1
Not only that but how is throwing baseless accusations against the DT different from someone accusing the State of willfully withholding this stuff without anything to back it up other than what this guy is saying?

The DT has a record of lying and misleading the court from the beginning, the SA does not.
 

everyoneneedsavoice

Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
1,811
Reaction score
9
I don't think this is a big deal either, but the DT/Casey/CA/GA have nothing to do with this story. This is the computer expert who came forward with this. I think we should stop spreading misinformation.

WOW...although I'm not sure why this is in response to Oakley, considering that post was clearly his/her opinion. But...I would certainly say there's a whole lotta misinformation in this entire thread....that's not labeled as opinion...this is "bump worthy"...if only for that last sentence.:waitasec:
 

BiancaS

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
468
Reaction score
0
Is it me or has the world suddenly gone crazy? This person that no one knows makes a claim that does not seem to make sense, but everyone is taking him at his word. Do you remember how you felt at the end of the closing statements? I was worried after hearing Baez and Mason ("remember, what would Mr. Mason do?" Sheesh), but Jeff Ashton and LDB were FLAWLESS in how they tied it all together. They were brilliant throughout the trial. A defense witness would have me concerned, the prosecution ripped them to shreds. REMEMBER???

Do you honestly believe that JA and LDB INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD EVIDENCE???? I don't and I won't unless someone shows me cold hard proof!!!!!! 12 jurors did the wrong thing, that doesn't mean the prosecution loses their hero status. They did their best, I believe they were completely honest in all respects, and if Bradley can prove otherwise I will eat my words, but until then....JA and LDB are the ones that earned my trust!
 

TexanMom

New Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2011
Messages
503
Reaction score
4
Dramatic much? What happened to talking about provable facts? When did we move into pure hearsay and slander? Like HLN is the be all end all in the legal field. Please. They just want a story like every other news station and probably haven't checked their facts, like most news outlets. How many times did the media get things wrong in this case in the last three years? And now they are gospel since it's an accusation against the SA?

No kidding!!!!!
 

suzihawk

New Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
3,618
Reaction score
2
Dd LDB mention 84 searches in her closing arguments?

Yes, she did. Seriously. why would that number stick in the back of my brain for ever? I watched the examination of Cindy and that number was mentioned quite a few times.............. but the relevant point here is the manufacturerer of the software said the software was not credible. Shot himself, and LE, in the foot, IMO. :floorlaugh:

The question was, "Did LDB mention 84 searches in her closing arguments". (See above)

No, she did not. Nor did she bring up chloroform at all. Please go back and watch her closing argument before putting out misinformation.
 

Chablis

Inactive
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
2,358
Reaction score
104
Do you honestly believe that JA and LDB INTENTIONALLY WITHHELD EVIDENCE???? I don't and I won't unless someone shows me cold hard proof!!!!!! 12 jurors did the wrong thing, that doesn't mean the prosecution loses their hero status. They did their best, I believe they were completely honest in all respects, and if Bradley can prove otherwise I will eat my words, but until then....JA and LDB are the ones that earned my trust!

Well, the world have picked up on this case and the legal heads think the Prosecutors could have done something wrong. Hopefully we hear from the State very soon because now people are asking questions. jmo
 

askfornina

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
1,876
Reaction score
29
Read back to my post that you quoted and you'll find my opinion there.

alright, i see your opinion there. now what i am saying, is that, the defense team did NOT put this out there. the cacheback guy did.
 

R.U.Kidding!

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
1,147
You do realize that one of the links you provided was to a BLOG!

Questions?---What has the SA office said with reference to this accusation?


Why would the prosecutor withhold this information from the defense, knowing if found guilty of "first degree" this info could result in a mistrial.
Wouldn't the defense team know there were no 84 searches and have sought out their own experts or at least review of the report?

I apologize if these question have been already been discussed--just point me to the posted comments on this subject.
 

JSR

Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
11
That is a good read for those who don't understand the merits of this situation.

Directly taken from RH's article

"But my question is how do we know the State Attorney’s Office didn’t know that the computer search was flawed. If they did, they not only had a duty to disclose it to the defense, but a duty to disclose it to the court, and more than likely a duty to correct it in front of the jury."

The important point above is that we DON'T know the SA's knew the computer search was flawed. And we don't. And tossing out accusations until we know is just as bad as the DT opening statement accusing GA and LA of molesting FCA without any proof of the molestation.

And the SA did disclose it to the defense once they knew the error. The DT could have asked for a instruction to the jury and they didn't. And HHJP didn't decide to make one. End of story.
 

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
29
Aren't we all assuming that this was not brought to defense's attention whenever LDB was notified and defense may have agreed the chloroform searches should not be mentioned in the closing statement.

If I were defense the last thing I would want is SA bringing in this witness in right before rebuttal to verify that only one search was done when Cindy admitted to searching more than once on that site. And if this computer expert claims to have been wrong, notifying the court there would have been an error would be more approriate than telling the jury there was an error without checking it out first. jmo
 

Oakley

New Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
3,990
Reaction score
0
alright, i see your opinion there. now what i am saying, is that, the defense team did NOT put this out there. the cacheback guy did.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Please stop. IMO this mistake is being capitalized on in an attempt to soften Casey's public image IMO. That is all!!!
 

Hexxgurl311

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
If the SA said she searched for how to make chloroform and she really didn't that would be HUGE. But she did search for how to make chloroform, whether it was once or 204 times she searched for it. That one time search is enough.
 

annalia

Active Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
1,931
Reaction score
1
Well, the world have picked up on this case and the legal heads think the Prosecutors could have done something wrong. Hopefully we hear from the State very soon because now people are asking questions. jmo

My bolding

Could have?

And from "could have" you got that that state is is trouble and you predict LDB's resignation shortly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top