Skip to comments.Software designer says Casey Anthony prosecution data was wrong
Posted on 07/19/2011 6:27:00 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
Prosecutors cited a report prepared by a software program called CacheBack, which the state argued showed 84 web searches for chloroform being made on the Anthony computer.
The defense would later contradict the CacheBack report with a separate report generated by another program, NetAnalysis. That report returned only one search result for chloroform.
Last week, CacheBack CEO John Bradley posted a statement on his website, acknowledging that the 84-search result was an error, and criticizing the state for its use of flawed data.
It was Bradley who introduced those results as a witness for the defense. On the stand, he was asked to testify about a CacheBack report "that I had never seen before," he wrote on his website.
He was not told, he claims, that a NetAnalysis search had returned a different result, and did not hear about the other search until it was referenced by the defense under direct examination.
He realized that the CacheBack data was incorrect, and produced a corrected report, Bradley's statement said. However, he says his attempts to return to Florida to correct his testimony were rebuffed.
"Since the fate of woman's life could lay in this critical piece of information, I did everything in my power to remedy the situation, or at least mitigate the issue once I became aware of it," he wrote.
In his lengthy statement, Bradley, who could not be reached Tuesday evening, criticized sheriff's investigators who he said "selectively omitted" information about the NetAnalysis report.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an apology from all the morons, I wrote reports once upon a time, and took much $#it for pointing this out during the closing arguments.
Baez was right about this.
There are now charges that the prosecution kept Casey Anthony’s lawyers in the dark about evidence that could have damaged their case. Could charges of prosecutorial misconduct be next?
I wouldn’t be surprised.
It’s amazing how these mystical “forensic” results churned out by computers are considered to be oracles in high stakes cases, when they apparently don’t even produce traces explaining themselves. Software that might be suitable for helping a PC owner remember an item found on the web that was mistakenly deleted some time ago, might not at all give a quantitatively accurate accounting of what had been done on the computer in the past.
After they get done with the witness tampering investigation of the duhfense.
I am sure Nancy Grace will get right on it.
Don’t tell the Cult.
The only people more moronic than the jurors were the prosecutors.
When the Anthony verdict first came out and people were starting to clamor for state laws requiring the reporting of a lost child within a “reasonable” time, I suggested that before implementing this kind of ill thought out kneejerk, all prosecutors should have to pass an IQ screening test with a score of no less than 100.
Attorney: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
Witness: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.
Attorney: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
Witness: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Attorney: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
Witness: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
Attorney: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
Attorney: Did you check for blood pressure?
Attorney: Did you check for breathing?
Attorney: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
Attorney: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Attorney: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?
Witness: It is possible that he could have been alive and practising law somewhere.
Using Safari and doing a lookup for chloroform on an IMAC will give you lebenteenzillion and 57 reports for “Casey Anthony”.
from DENNIS MILLER, FOX News Contributor:
“Well, I think the system held up in one regard.
You’re guaranteed a jury of our peers and she’s a moron, and they found 12 other morons to form a moron baker’s dozen down there.
I think it should be like the NFL, where you get that red flag, and during the case if you hear something that you don’t like you can stop it right there and go, “I’m voting guilty right now.”
And I would have stopped it when they said her 2-year-old was lost and she waited 30 days to call the cops.
I would have just thrown my flag and said, “Guilty. I don’t even need to know what the rest of it is, give her some time.”
Because anybody who waits 30 minutes, much less 30 days, she’s guilty of something. I don’t quite know what it is, but something bad; something rotten in Denmark.”
Miller’s right on this - what kind of person waits 30 days to report a missing child? Really, something’s wrong ...
It's even worse. Her mother, NOT Casey, actually called 911 to report that the baby was missing.
I thought we knew what was wrong. According to the defense, the child drowned in the pool, George “took care of it”, and told Casey to keep quiet. Under that theory, since the child was already dead, there wouldn’t be any pressure for the mother to “report a missing child”, because she would know the child wasn’t missing, but was already dead.
I’m not taking the defense’s side on this, just saying that their story is consistant and would answer your particular objection.
Again, the defense story is internally consistant and answers your objection. Casey knew the child was dead, and went away for a month. Cindy didn’t know, and thought the child was with Casey. When Casey’s car was found, and Cindy found that the child was not with Casey, she then reported the child missing.
And again, under that story, Casey would have no reason to report the child missing, since she knew the child was dead.