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.
>> and took much $#it for pointing this out
I hope you learned your lesson.
There is not one shred of evidence to support that theory.
That is true, although technically the fact that the child is dead does support the theory that she drowned. I’m not saying that the story is true, just that their story does, if true, answer the objections given here about why the mother didn’t report the child missing.
It is the story the defense told, so to the jurors, if they accepted the defense claim of drowning, they would not have any issue about why Casey didn’t report the child missing.
And apparently the body decomposed for so long that the medical examiner couldn’t rule out drowning as the original cause of death, just as he couldn’t prove there was chloriform, which was the Prosecution argument, backed up by a faulty web search analysis, as we now know from this article, and which the Prosecution knew before the trial ended but never mentioned.
Again, I’m not saying the defense wasn’t lying.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support that theory.
Which certainly explains the sick bitch partying hardy while her baby lay rotting in the swamp.
Which certainly explains the sick bitch partying hardy while her baby lay rotting in the swamp.
That proposition is laughable and believing it is evidence of a disordered mind.
BTW Charles, Cindy Anthony testilied that she searched chloroform multiple times. I suppose we should take that at face value since the jury has spoken and justice has been done.
Yes, I was being snarky; she is dead, therefore we know she died, therefore there is evidence that she died, and drowning is a type of death, therefore there is evidence that she could have drowned.
We have no idea how she died. The coroner could not determine the cause of death. So there is no evidence to support any particular theory of how she died. Traces of what was alleged to be chloroform, a heart-shaped-image on duct tape that nobody took a picture of and couldn’t be found later, a web search report now known to be false.
But they did own a pool, there was testimony about a drowning, and about how the child could get out of the house on her own. So you could also say that there was no evidence that she didn’t drown (meaning the prosecution didn’t have a good refutation of the drowning story).
It’s easy enough to lie, especially if you already killed. We’ll never “know” how the girl died. All we know is that 12 people who heard of a horrific death that shocked the country decided in the end that Casey had not be proven to have murdered her child.
Yes, although Cindy Anthony was not the one being charged with using chloroform, and the prosecution argued that she couldn’t have done the search because she was at work. Could she have been lying because she believed the prosecution evidence about the searches and was trying to cover for her daughter? Would she have claimed she did the searches if the prosecution hadn’t presented the apparently false evidence about searches?
I’m not going to argue the case — it seems clear people were lying, and there was no real evidence for the defense story. The problem was that apparently the prosecution didn’t have enough real evidence either.
My point was quite specific. The defense didn’t claim that the child was missing for 30 days. The defense claimed that the child was dead, and that Casey knew the child was dead.
That is “an” answer to the arguemnt that she must be guilty because she didn’t report the missing girl, when the story they tell is that the child wasn’t missing.
Of course, she did get convicted of lying to the police. As I said, there was a lot of lying. But you don’t have to believe the story to understand that the story was internally consistant.
On your first point, if they were trying to hide the fact that they let the child drown, they might well have wrapped the body and taped it in order to transport it to a remote location where they could toss it.
On the other hand, if they were trying to make it look like a kidnap/murder, you’d expect them to report the child missing, and it seems the plan was to hope nobody noticed the child was gone. But obviously people would notice, so that plan would be stupid.
If they had planned to murder the child, and were good enough at it to research and keep it hidden, you’d have expected them to be smart enough to report the child missing so the story would make sense.
As it was, when the body was found, they had no plausible explanation that would cover a kidnap/murder. If you believe they were smart, that might lead you to believe their story, as it is more reasonable for a smart person; if you believe they were stupid, then the drowning story is just what you would expect once they backed themselves into a corner and had no way to explain it other than to admit they knew the child was dead.
I’m not going to get INTO the case because nothing about it makes sense, logic doesn’t seem to apply, and so I don’t know how to rationally judge it. I feel that’s OK because I can’t think like crazy people. I can’t fathom a mother killing her child, I can’t imagine a mother doing so and then partying for a month, or having her child kidnapped and partying and keeping it quiet for a month.
Maybe that is why the jury was swayed by the drowning story. I think they could at least imagine a mother screwing up, letting her child drown, and being so afraid of being arrested for it that a mother could go along with an abusive guy’s idea to hide the drowning and keep it quiet.
That isn’t a good logical argument, and there’s no evidence for the drowning, and I would guess that some better evidence by the prosecution could have overcome that inclination of the jury.
It's called exculpatory evidence and prosecutors are legally required to disclose it to the defense, though it seems like they frequently don't.
I live in Florida - kids drowned in pools here - no one tapes their mouths shut and dumps their little bodies in the woods. No one sends the community out to search snake infested swamps when they know the child is dead.
That said, I didn't watch the trial until it was almost over... so their story might have been 'consistent' within that one frame of reality...
I hate these cases where they probably did it but there isn’t enough evidence or the prosecution bungled. I doubt I would have convicted her either.
I know the feeling. She’s clearly guilty of something, but I don’t know what she’s guilty of.
To me, the fact that 911 was not called after Caylee’s “drowning” is ample proof that it never occurred.
I would have convicted on the fact that she didn't ever report the death. Her mother did...
Not reporting the death and going out dancing is proof beyond a reasonable doubt...IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.