Will Computer Experts Cause for Appeal?

[askfornina]

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.

can you/anyone give me a source of info that they were the only thing deleted? thanks

 

[mendz]

ICA was on myspace at the same time. more than likely, the chloroform search was on a different tab and her browser was either auto-refreshing or she was refreshing manually to keep tabs on her myspace.

 

[Nikki 01]

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 just googled how to make chloroform. It doesn't sound too difficult to make or that dangerous as long as you take some precautions.

To me it can't be a coincidence that she searched these terms and it was ultimately found in the trunk of her car.

Seriously, I don't understand... so there WASN'T a search for chloroform 84 times?

That is what Baez is alleging.

 

[BaileyandBella]

Maybe she mixed it in the Gatorade bottle and that syringe was involved somehow?

 

[kathyn2]

It was in the testimony of the experts that the data was erased. It was the only data that was deleted. All the stuff about how to make chloroform, neck breaking, household weapons, shovels, acetone (that goes into chloroform) etc. All this info was deleted off her hard drive but the experts could find it.

can you/anyone give me a source of info that they were the only thing deleted? thanks

 

[askfornina]

i remember them saying it was deleted, but i don't remember them saying the searches were the only things deleted. i guess i'll have to check the transcript. lol

 

[Previous Admonitions]

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.

BBM .... just to clarify, I'm pretty sure the Bradley report showed not the Google search 84 times, but the specific web page at sci-spot.com having been visited 84 times (the actual page with directions about how to make chloroform). In any case it always seemed a bit fishy to me ... even if the directions were used by ICA in some capacity, why would one ever need to go to it more than 5 or 10 times? There probably was a mixup in the counting mechanism, but in the end I don't think it makes much difference either way.

 

[Chilly Willy]

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.

I agree, if the jury doesn't give a lot of weight to the chloroform testimony in reaching their verdict it won't be a successful appeal issue. Plus the defense has pointed out that the testimony was incorrect so it's not as if the jury wasn't told. I think it's a harmless error that has been rectified.

 

[com n sense]

NOw it makes sense why Baez was so upset at the state for not using the chloroform as the murder weapon instead of the duct tape lol.
He honestly thought he had them on this.

 

[askfornina]

i remember them saying it was deleted, but i don't remember them saying the searches were the only things deleted. i guess i'll have to check the transcript. lol

i have checked the transcript and i cannot find any reference to these items being the ONLY things deleted, just that they were in the unallocated space. feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but i do not think these were the only deleted items on this computer.

 

[Chilly Willy]

i have checked the transcript and i cannot find any reference to these items being the ONLY things deleted, just that they were in the unallocated space. feel free to correct me if i am wrong, but i do not think these were the only deleted items on this computer.

I recall it being said that those searches were the only things ever deleted on the computer - maybe it was one of the talking heads that said it, rather than something that came out in testimony?

 

[askfornina]

I recall it being said that those searches were the only things ever deleted on the computer - maybe it was one of the talking heads that said it, rather than something that came out in testimony?

it's very possible i may have missed something, but i dunno. seems kind of unlikely.

 

[Cassata11]

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.

While I have no idea how appeals work, I think the defense had an opportunity to hire their own computer expert instead of chemists, and Sally Smirno-I forget her name. They didn't argue the testimony.

 

[Baznme]

Just my two cents but, as far as I'm concerned "how to make chloroform" is a whole other issue from just "chloroform" even if it was only searched for once. Also, my two cents on the trail from the computer search to the trunk, would be too much of a coincidence to just let it go. Since it could not be determined as the means of death, it was wise of the SA team to leave that out of the closing. They didn't need it. LDB had her nailed!

 

[Kat]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6748159"]Anthony's Computer Forensics - Page 42 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

this is being discussed at the above link as well.

 

[sparkysmom]

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:

BBM

I agree. I just never felt like the chloroform searches (and other strange searches) was as important as the other evidence. I think Baez had to bring it up so that it would be on record for appeal. I DO think that her best chance at an appeal would be ineffective counsel, but it would be a very long shot. Hopefully she will never be free.

 

[Cassata11]

NOw it makes sense why Baez was so upset at the state for not using the chloroform as the murder weapon instead of the duct tape lol.
He honestly thought he had them on this.

Just another example of the prosecution's brilliant team.

 

[Chilly Willy]

BBM

I agree. I just never felt like the chloroform searches (and other strange searches) was as important as the other evidence. I think Baez had to bring it up so that it would be on record for appeal. I DO think that her best chance at an appeal would be ineffective counsel, but it would be a very long shot. Hopefully she will never be free.

I don't believe her counsel was ineffective considering what they had to work with. Jose actually did a much better job than I expected he would. He even had a few people here wavering for a while.

 

[txsvicki]

Didn't they say that they could not tell if Casey had printed out the directions or not? All it takes, really, is typing in and looking up "how to make chloroform" one time, then jotting down instructions or printing them out. Lots of chloroform found in the vehicle by an expert, decomp odor in the trunk, and a deceased child along with even one computer search is enough. I don't know about any mistrial, but as far as the penalty and jury goes I'm more worried about Kronk moving the skull from it's place instead of getting down on the ground and looking to make sure what it was.

 

[Kat]

Lots of appellate issues in this case. Not saying I think she will win any of them. I'm just saying that IMHO yes there are more than one or two appellate issues to be put forth by KC once she has the luxury of being sentenced and a lot of time on her hands. JMHO


ETA: for some reason, I get the feeling she's going to profess her innocence to her last breath and fight tooth and nail and take every opportunity presented to her to fight her conviction. Not saying she'll win the appeals but by gosh she will fight it.