Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong

[Solace]

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.

SMK,

Lets not burn her at the stake yet.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Just to add to this... Her mother Cindy lying & saying she looked it up.
That to me confirms this was not an innocent search.
Her mother would lie to protect her for one reason only, because KC is guilty.

I absolutely agree that once was too many times and I absolutely agree that she is guilty, BUT it is wrong and a serious issue if LDB continued on July 1st to state 84 times if she already knew that it was not true. A violation of a person's Constitutional rights at trial...a death penalty trial no less is a HUGE deal that trumps conviction. And leaves the state open for suit.

 

[Talina]

The problem I have with this is that Bradley is saying in his blog or interviews (whatever he is doing) that he asked them what he was going to testify to and then when he was on the stand he ended up testifying to more than what he thought. He says he testified to results in a report that he hadn't prepared or analyzed. Well..he shouldn't have done that. He should have said "I do not feel comfortable testifying to a report that I did not prepare or analyze". He is saying that now in hindsight but I thought it was odd at the time that he was the one testifying to this report instead of the person that prepared it.

DH and I were talking about this at the time and I said I thought 84 was hard to believe but at the same time even one search for "how to make chloroform" was one search too many so I couldn't care less if it was 1 or 1000. There should have never been ONE search for that at all!!

 

[SMK]

SMK,

Lets not burn her at the stake yet.

No, do not want to do that, not at all. But do not want to minimize it, either.

 

[Chablis]

I absolutely agree that once was too many times and I absolutely agree that she is guilty, BUT it is wrong and a serious issue if LDB continued on July 1st to state 84 times if she already knew that it was not true. A violation of a person's Constitutional rights at trial...a death penalty trial no less is a HUGE deal that trumps conviction. And leaves the state open for suit.

And not only that, now how many cases she has tried, how many of these inmates are gong to use this to get a new trial appeal based on this, IF true?

 

[logicalgirl]

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

Didn't we hear all about these errors in the rebuttal from the SA?
What's the big deal?

 

[momtective]

I remember there being 84 myspace hits as well...when that nugget was discovered I pretty much decided there was a problem somewhere with the number of searches...but the fact remains...Chloroform was searched, how to make Chloroform was searched, neck breaking was searched, shovel was searched, etc. etc. etc.
Who really cares how many times it was searched? The fact that it was searched at all and Chloroform was detected in the trunk of the car, which by the way smell like there had been a dead body it ...that's enough for me.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

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?

The problem lies in the fact that they may have presented evidence that they knew to be false. And unfortunately, it does not look good that there was a case before (Huggins) where JA supressed evidence from the defense that got a conviction overturned and the defendant was retried. If the defense team goes ahead with this, they can cite case law where JA was wrong and had done something similar before.

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.

The costs that they are going after have NOTHING to do with this. You are correct about that. BUT, if they sue over this and it is found that they were not 100% truthful and did violate her rights, the amount of money that she wins could offset those costs and could even be higher than the investigative costs that they are trying to recover.

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

If it is true, I do think that she should be held accountable, but....

SMK,

Lets not burn her at the stake yet.

I agree, and I, personally and not burning anyone at the stake yet. But I do think it needs to be investigated fully. If LDB was wrong, she should be held accountable. And if this guy is lying he should also be held accountable for making these VERY serious charges against the state.

 

[logicalgirl]

No, do not want to do that, not at all. But do not want to minimize it, either.

What - you mean because the jury listened to this mistaken information, digested it, believed it and convicted ICA because of it?

 

[KarmaGet'em]

New York Times



This suggests the other.

Lets not confuse google search with visits.

Both my recollection of "how+to+make+chloroform" in the google search and your quote from the NY times article indicating 1 search for chloroform in google are not conflicting. Both imply one search was made.

Whether there were 84 VISITS to the sci-spot.com web page that had the recipe for chloroform on it or if there was 1 VISIT to that page is the discrepancy. Then again, it only takes one visit to access/print that recipe for use later on.

 

[SMK]

What - you mean because the jury listened to this mistaken information, digested it, believed it and convicted ICA because of it?

Has nothing to do with the outcome . Has to do with a representative of the State of Florida deliberately conveying information which was alerted as false.

 

[Chablis]

I remember there being 84 myspace hits as well...when that nugget was discovered I pretty much decided there was a problem somewhere with the number of searches...but the fact remains...Chloroform was searched, how to make Chloroform was searched, neck breaking was searched, shovel was searched, etc. etc. etc.
Who really cares how many times it was searched? The fact that it was searched at all and Chloroform was detected in the trunk of the car, which by the way smell like there had been a dead body it ...that's enough for me.

And the FBI said the level of chloroform was consistent with cleaning products, so..........

The search was in may, right after her boyfriend posted something about chloroform.

Anyways, I think the state is in trouble somehow.

 

[Chablis]

Has nothing to do with the outcome . Has to do with a representative of the State of Florida deliberately conveying information which was alerted as false.

Glad to see HLN picking up on the story!

 

[JWG]

Anybody know the answer to this question?

Both set of search terms were entered into Google. Manually typed into the search bar.

 

[GhostCrab]

The problem I have with this is that Bradley is saying in his blog or interviews (whatever he is doing) that he asked them what he was going to testify to and then when he was on the stand he ended up testifying to more than what he thought. He says he testified to results in a report that he hadn't prepared or analyzed. Well..he shouldn't have done that. He should have said "I do not feel comfortable testifying to a report that I did not prepare or analyze". He is saying that now in hindsight but I thought it was odd at the time that he was the one testifying to this report instead of the person that prepared it.

DH and I were talking about this at the time and I said I thought 84 was hard to believe but at the same time even one search for "how to make chloroform" was one search too many so I couldn't care less if it was 1 or 1000. There should have never been ONE search for that at all!!

Well, all I can say to that is that he probably put his trust in the state and it looks like he was manipulated to give incorrect information to the jury. Information that was fundamental to the state in asking for the death penalty. LDB knew that it would mean nothing if she got up there and said Look everybody! She searched ONE time for chloroform! And that is exactly what the NetAnalysis report stated. So instead the state sought out Mr. Bradley to see if he could deliver something more favorable. He then realized after he testified that he was being duped by the state.


I will be surprised if this is the last expert that opens up and says they were misled by the state.

 

[Americka]

Has nothing to do with the outcome . Has to do with a representative of the State of Florida deliberately conveying information which was alerted as false.

Allegedly. We have not heard from Lawson Lamar or Linda Drane Burdick. Mr. Bradley sounds like he is :back: to me. :twocents:! Tis all...

 

[cyberborg]

I was never impressed by the 84 times ... you only need to search once. You can either print that off, leave it open in another window or tab or go back to it in your history, you don't need to keep on searching with the same terms ... you change or refine them.

To me the point was that someone manually typed in "how to make chloroform" not got there by starting with "chlorophyll" or some auto suggestion from that.

I don't know why a big deal was made of the '84 times' although I seriously doubt that ICA actually made chloroform. Given the other searches in context it does make you wonder about intent but it wasn't clear what role chloroform played -- other than it was detected in abnormal volumes in the air samples.

 

[JBean]

I thought I heard one of the jurors state that one of the exonerating things was the fact that she did not have multiple visits to chloroform related sites, no follow up with purchasing items,repeat visits to sites that carried ingredients or any type of follow through on the chloroform. The fact that there was one visit seemed to be a persuasive point to this juror. I think it was the foreman?
If I have that wrong please let me know and I will remove post.
So, this issue could have been inculpatory as opposed to exculpatory, if the 84 searches had been taken to be the truth.

 

[MarthaM]

I don't see what it matters as long as she did visit the site . If she did indeed look it up whats the difference does visiting only 10 times make you less ok a killer then visiting 84 times no i think not she cant be more guilty then guilty so whats the difference.

I think the difference is that the prosecution needed to prove premeditation in order to get a 1st Degree Murder conviction, and 84 searches sure sounds far more ominous and (they hoped) provided stronger evidence of intent than one search did.

Maybe this is the best demonstration of 'karma' yet? Prosecution does something dishonest, then they lose the whole case.

 

[logicalgirl]

Has nothing to do with the outcome . Has to do with a representative of the State of Florida deliberately conveying information which was alerted as false.

Oh how odd - cause I'm remembering that the SA came back in their rebuttal and said there were mistakes made in this information.....but haven't gone back to check the tapes - too busy counting Baez's lies in his OS and working to rebut the facts actually are...