Casey Anthony Trial Had Inaccurate Data, Software Designer Reports

nytimes.com:

Assertions by the prosecution that Casey Anthony conducted extensive computer searches on the word "chloroform" were based on inaccurate data, a software designer who testified at the trial said Monday.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[horrorfan1866]

03:25 PM on 07/21/2011

So what's the truth and what are the lies? Do we even know anymore?

[eehd]

05:13 PM on 08/02/2011

Nope. All we know is that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that she did...and they didn't have nancy grace ranting and telling them how they should vote because she is a lawyer and she knows what happens in all cases, even if she doesn't know all the evidence.

[jazabelz]

10:07 AM on 07/20/2011

The Prosecution let the Defense know immediately when this witness said his findings were wrong. Baez knew it when he put Cindy on the stand to cover for Casey and perjur herself. She said she did several searches for Chloroform -- not 84, but several. The IT guy said it was just one, so why did Cindy say she did several? Because she never searched for chlorophyll or chloroform. The defense knew this and just used one more lie to free a murderer!

[MamacitaOfLove]

07:26 PM on 07/20/2011

Facts are good :)

[MamacitaOfLove]

01:16 AM on 07/20/2011

The State responds:

"On June 27 th the discrepancy was discussed with Mr. Baez and both he & the prosecution agreed to use the Net Analysis return of 1 site visit count as the most accurate information available at the time. If additional information became available, the State agreed to disclose. Mr. Baez brought the discrepancy forward in court testimony and again at closing with his court exhibit. During jury deliberations Mr. Bradley admitted to sending additional report information to the wrong email address but was able to deliver information to prosecutors on the evening of July 4th
On July 5 th prosecutors prepared a Notice of Supplemental Discovery for defense but it was
never provided because the jury had reached their verdict.
Mr. Bradley never told prosecutors that the searches or the dates and times of the searches were inaccurate. The only inaccuracies discussed were the visit counts discrepancy and that each software program (CacheBack & Net Analysis) revealed a different number of total records.
Again, all of this information was disclosed to the defense in a timely manner.
We are dismayed at the suggestion made by the defense that prosecutors would withhold
exculpatory material. Court records show that the defense was completely aware of the issues,
utilizing these facts at trial."

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/CacheBack-errors-0719.pdf

[AnnfromCA]

09:33 AM on 07/20/2011

They should be red-faced.  And voters there should remember this, the cost to them for their grandstanding and, now, clear lack of commonsense and fair play tactics.......and remove the problem.

There are no excuses.

[MamacitaOfLove]

07:26 PM on 07/20/2011

Dislike facts? The computer guy now says the state did nothing wrong.

[zackeryrichards]

10:01 PM on 07/19/2011

Hey People: WHERE is your out-rage!! Jeff Ashton (the prosecutor) knew in advance
that this chloroform 'search' evidence was bogus. The State Attorney's Office issued
a statement that the defense knew about it, so it was O.K. and THEY supported it.
People this was INTENTIONAL fraud presented to a jury in a Capitol Murder trial by
the Florida State Attorney's Office. I find such un-ethical conduct by an Officer of the
Court to be totally unacceptable. Think of the innocent people who might be on death
row as you read this that may have been convicted by such unlawful conduct by a over
zealous Prosecution Attorney!!! We can not allow this to continue if we wish to preserve
our system of justice that has served us for two hundred years!! Call, send emails, post
on facebook, youtube . . . . . let's tell the world that our Constitution and system of
justice is still the best and MUST BE PRESERVED. The whole world watched this
trial, and will judge us by the conduct of the proceedings. KEEP our American pride!!!

[MamacitaOfLove]

11:11 PM on 07/19/2011

IF it's true, it's reprehensible. What is your source for the SAO statement?

[MamacitaOfLove]

12:14 AM on 07/20/2011

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/CacheBack-errors-0719.pdf

State's response here. Interesting!

[zackeryrichards]

01:35 PM on 07/20/2011

MamacitaOfLove: It was on the National News. But the post below you'ers
list a web sit that carries the story. I knew this during the trial (the defense
CAUGHT it and exposed it to the jury), it was presented as evidence by
Ashton with everything but the 84 seaches "blacked" out so the truth could not
be seen. We CAN NOT ALLOW THIS!!! YOU or I or one of our loved ones
could be NEXT. DO NOT think it could not happen to you!!

[AnnfromCA]

09:34 AM on 07/20/2011

Over-reaching prosecution backfired.

[MamacitaOfLove]

08:23 PM on 07/19/2011

She still searched for "How to make chloroform." Or did you forget that?

[audioenhanced]

09:15 PM on 07/19/2011

How do we know it was her foresure and once,how many times have we been on a site just on the spur of the moment checking something out,doesn't mean were guilty of anything.

[H McCoy]

10:43 PM on 07/19/2011

I know.. I hear stuff on the news or from friends and clients and I google odd things several times every day.

[MamacitaOfLove]

11:12 PM on 07/19/2011

The rest of the family was proved to be at work.

[H McCoy]

09:31 PM on 07/19/2011

She searched "chloroform", period

[MamacitaOfLove]

10:12 PM on 07/19/2011

Incorrect. Look what I found with a quick Google search.

""I found two results," Bradley told lawyers in his deposition. "One was for 'chloroform,' spelled 'c-h-l-o-r-o-f-o-r-m,' and that was dated March 17, 2008, at 14:43 p.m., 41 seconds. And there was one visit. And the second entry is for 'how to make chloroform,' and the same spelling on the 21st of March, 2008, at 3:16 p.m. and 30 seconds. One visit."

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/april/232153/

[MamacitaOfLove]

02:16 AM on 07/20/2011

McCoy said, “So why should I believe the portion you are desperatel­y trying to prove?”

Give it a rest. I have.

[very interested]

06:05 PM on 07/19/2011

It wasn't the jury that made a mockery of this case after all....

[alan7974]

05:30 PM on 07/19/2011

I wonder what Nancy Grace has to say about this? Any Comments.

[FathomTruePolitics com]

05:54 PM on 07/19/2011

Not sure what the content will be. But I can tell you this, she will have ALLLLLL the answers!

[alan7974]

06:51 PM on 07/19/2011

GOOD ANSWER

[MamacitaOfLove]

06:13 PM on 07/19/2011

Watch her tonight and see.

[williamabn]

06:55 PM on 07/19/2011

I wold'nt watch that trouble making bottom feeder if you paid me . She has made plenty off casey anthony , Plenty ,.3 years + of yelling and screaming .

[Barry Black]

04:48 PM on 07/19/2011

I told you people back when that the whole chloroform business was a red herring. Did anybody really believe that she could make chloroform in the kitchen and not leave a trace. The chemicals alone namely, acetone and calcium hypochlorite would be traceable. And the chemical reaction is exothermic which means it has to be cooled or the place will reek of chloroform. Only Walter White could have "cooked" it. And those of you who search the internet-----did you ever search something 84 times??!! Now it appears the DA was withholding exculpatory information-----and that is serious. But what is more interesting is that the defense knew of this and had it in their back pocket just in case there was a conviction and that would be enough to cause a retrial or even a dismissal. And one more thing Casey Anthony did do an internet search for chloroform once and that was in conjunction with it's use in sexual play. The prosecution really messed up this case, but they'll make a small fortune with book sales!

[Susan Shaffer]

05:37 PM on 07/19/2011

I told over and over that Casey couldn't have made chloroform or bought chloroform and was shouted down 'well she got it from somewhere, just accept"
I said since the cadaver dogs hit on the backyard she might have tried to bury the body in the backyard but the grass would have shown evidence of being disturbed and again was shouted down, it would grow back. Well it would, but before cindy and george arrived home for dinner?
For some people they will never let the truth get in the way of a good argument and Nancy Grace is one of those.

[The Lone Stranger]

06:03 PM on 07/19/2011

her other searches were about how to break someones neck and other methods of killing.

she could purchase Chloroform.

If the defense knew of this than it is not withheld.

[MamacitaOfLove]

08:20 PM on 07/19/2011

She also searched "How to make chloroform."

[Barry Black]

10:05 PM on 07/19/2011

Go ahead and try to buy chloroform. Yes, like I said the defense was aware of this, but it was not through proper channels and so it was in their best interest to keep it hidden until needed.

[zackeryrichards]

04:33 PM on 07/19/2011

WHY is the media just now reporting this??? They have known it since the trial.
Could it be they have managed to inflame the "lynch mob" frenzy enough to satisfy
their needs for sensationalism?????????????? Do you think they are 'ready' to
start covering some of the "supporters" of the jury in this case ?????????????
Up to now, they have not interviewed one person who "supported" the jury's verdict,
nor have they showed any of the signs held by 'supporters' of the jury. Do you think
they are satisfied that their sensationalism has succeded in corrupting our jury
system here in the United States???? Maybe Murdoch's news orginazations is
not the only one that should be investigated for wrong doing !!

[Hillbilly49]

04:17 PM on 07/19/2011

This whole trial demonstrated that even in the 21st century; some Americans have a lynch mop mentality. I am thankful the jury followed the law and the facts of the case.

[The Lone Stranger]

06:05 PM on 07/19/2011

If you read their comments it is clear that they did not follow the evidence, or the law.

hunches and implausible excuses are not at all the same thing as reasonable doubts.

[SteveSFM]

06:52 PM on 07/19/2011

Please identify what specific comments indicate that they didn't follow the evidence and the law, and why that is the case.

Thanks in advance!

[MamacitaOfLove]

10:12 PM on 07/19/2011

You are correct TLS.

[Leninist]

04:10 PM on 07/19/2011

charge him with attempted murder...actually, put him to death if found guilty of playing with someone's life like this for a career bump...enough...stick him...

[The Lone Stranger]

06:07 PM on 07/19/2011

he came forward when he had information.

how is that attempted murder?

[audioenhanced]

08:17 PM on 07/19/2011

Did the prosecution come forward? I got the impression that he didn't it was just the guy that testified to the computer investigation and when he speaking with the sergeant telling him he'd recant his testimony,the sergeant said that the prosecution already knew about it and it was the defense that brought it up?

[MamacitaOfLove]

06:14 PM on 07/19/2011

She.

[audioenhanced]

09:22 PM on 07/19/2011

Sorry misprint

[Hillbilly49]

04:09 PM on 07/19/2011

This whole trial was bogus and there was no evidence she purchased chloroform. One would need a degree in chemistry to make chloroform at home and the jury knew Casey wasn't a chemist.  All of her minor convictions may be overturned; this case never should have gone to trial; there simply wasn't any credible evidence that she committed a crime.

[MamacitaOfLove]

06:15 PM on 07/19/2011

People cook Meth; they can make chloroform.

[NewtGingrichGangbang]

01:49 PM on 07/28/2011

lol

[twigtrigtrack]

04:07 PM on 07/19/2011

I attended a meet-and-greet with Gerry Spence a couple of months ago. He claimed that in his his 50+ years of doing defense work there's not been on single instance when the prosecutor has played by the rules; not one single case in which the prosecutor has provided all the exculpating evidence to the defendant... I'm starting to believe that that might actually be true...

[AnnfromCA]

09:37 AM on 07/20/2011

They game the system, definitely.

[mimiyo]

03:42 PM on 07/19/2011

Having reviewed testimony from this trial regarding the chloroform searches conducted on the Anthony home computer, it appears the prosecutor did make references to 84 searches, but it is also clear the defense disputed that number in their case and given the verdict, they did so successfully. My question remains. There was clear evidence that Casey Anthony lied to her family and friends countless times regarding who was caring for her little girl as she partied, lived Bella Vita. There was testimony regarding Casey telling her friends her mom was caring for the child, when on the same occasion, the mom was told the nannie was caring for the child. Then there were occasions when that was reversed. The question is; Who was caring for the child when there was no nannie, or known baby sitter and the grandmother did not have the child? Where was the baby all those instances when neither Casey or the grandmother had the child, and there is no known nannie? I believe Chloroform was used to sedate the child allowing Casey to live her Bella Vita, and one night that all went wrong. When you give a child chloroform, that is abuse. When you give a child chloroform and they die from it, that is federal murder. Federal Murder, whether it was one computer search, or 84 computer searches.

[EmilyU]

05:05 PM on 07/19/2011

You really need to look up the federal laws regarding murder. The murder of a little girl, who is a US citizen, in any of the 50 states, is not federal murder and cannot be tried under federal murder laws. It is purely a state matter.

And the prosecution tried to prove that Casey murdered her child using exactly your reasoning and completely failed to prove it.

[MamacitaOfLove]

06:16 PM on 07/19/2011

They did prove it. The jury couldn't reason deductively.

[therightzwrong]

05:05 PM on 07/19/2011

you dont really get to say .. "Yea but..." after the verdict. There was no motive, no murder weapon, no witness, no nothing but a dead child. You need some kind of red meat to convict.. now that she has been acquitted I think we can stop accusing her and begin looking at what we do know as truth.. her pathological lying, her promiscuity, who was Caylee's father?? I believed Baez when he said she was the victim of sex abuse, that the child drowned and that George initiated the entire scheme while sitting there waiting for his child to get the death penalty. What a creep..

[MamacitaOfLove]

06:16 PM on 07/19/2011

You believe Baez?!

[Doobie Snacks]

03:36 PM on 07/19/2011

so there ya go proof the prosecution fudged this up and that the jury did what any rational jury would have done. trying a case in the media should be outlawed as well that way we don't have all these ignorant people running around thinking they know the facts. it doesn't f,ing matter what you think. it doesn't f,ing matter what you know, and it doesn't f,ing matter what you hope. It only matters what you can prove.