At least if this NY Times report that the prosecution failed to disclose that crucial computer evidence contradicted the prosecutors’ trial claims is true:
The Orange County Sheriff’s Office had used the software to validate its finding that Ms. Anthony had searched for information about chloroform 84 times, a conclusion that Mr. Bradley says turned out to be wrong. Mr. Bradley said he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June through e-mail and by telephone to tell them of his new findings. Mr. Bradley said he conducted a second analysis after discovering discrepancies that were never brought to his attention by prosecutors or the police.
Mr. Bradley’s findings were not presented to the jury and the record was never corrected, he said. Prosecutors are required to reveal all information that is exculpatory to the defense.
None of this sheds light on whether Anthony killed her daughter, but if the prosecution in a death penalty case withheld exculpatory evidence and presented false evidence at the trial, then there will be more fallout from this case.
If and when the prosecution responds, I’ll link the response (if you see a response, help me out by posting it in the comments).
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There is a good chance they lied on other matters. They said that cloroform was found in the trunk, or at least aspect of the drug. But look it up on line. Cloroform is bleach and acetone. These are very common and would be in most everyone trunk.
It’s a shame that overly zealous prosecutors throughout the nation undo so much of the good that law enforcement does. I can see their frustration with so many criminals getting off or never being prosecuted because the standards are so high to bring them in, but, when they go overboard, it just diminishes their credibility.
Sorry, off topic.
An interesting post on Wisconsin.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/19/wisconsin-recall-wars-continue-dems-aim-to-ensure-an-ideal-date-for-walker-recall-election/
I’ve said before that it’s not the defense that won this case but the prosecution that lost it.
Professor, I don’tknow i you are in contact with other bloggers, but if you are, you need to advise them that if they use the services of Disqus, as RCP does, conservative responses are being blocked.
In response to an article I defended Rick Perry against the smears of a left winger. I was polite but wham! I was blocked from posting another response and all my responses were deleted. And I was blocked from four other conservative sites that I frequent.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it seems odd that this is happening just a month after FaceBook announced it would no longer allow its site to be used for the efforts of the TEA Party to announce their rallies or promote “anything” political.
Just a head’s up.
I’m not that familiar with Disqus, but I thought any blocking or deletion would be on a blog by blog bais, and controlled by the blogger not Disqus itself.
Nope, when Disqus blocked me from RCP, it also blocked me from a number of conservative websites. That is not coincidence because it happened at the same time.
But Obama’s numbers are not looking good and the left has a lot at stake.
I see that Disqus is based in San Fran… Hmmmm? It’s probably nothing?
Looking at Disqus’ ‘Moderation’ help area in the ‘Knowledge Base’, I’m skeptical, too, that Disqus would/could be setup to blacklist commenters on a system wide basis over multiple blogs?
retire05? Just wondering how where you logging on at these blogs where your comments have disappeared? OpenID, Facebook, etc.?
.
FYI, I am a paleoconservative and neo-Confederate, the word on Perry from Texas is that he headed up Gore’s election effort. So he likely is a RINO. Be careful in pushing him. I am in Louisiana and we have a similar problem with Jindal, he does not live up to the hype.
This is not new: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-23/news/os-casey-anthony-trial-day-26-20110623_1_cindy-anthony-casey-anthony-chloroform Testimony from other witnesses Thursday — calling into question the accuracy of computer forensics done to date and quantify the chloroform searches — might have a greater impact on the jurors, Hornsby said.
The problems with the dates and times of searches not displaying correctly in a spreadsheet could allow the defense to argue “these guys can’t even interpret their own results right,” he said.
“It was clearly a good day for Jose Baez,” Hornsby said. “Once you call into question the computer searches, you call into question the pre-meditated aspects.”
“John Bradley, the owner of a computer forensics software company, previously testified that a site about chloroform was visited 84 times on the Anthony family computer. However, on Thursday, computer forensics expert Kevin Stenger said it was MySpace.com that was accessed 84 times, and not the chloroform website.”
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28330210/detail.html
[…] it helps boost the “Not Guilty” verdict; William A Jacobson of Legal Insurrection says if she would have been found “Guilty”, the verdict would have been overturned; Drudge Retort discussion in full swing; Doug Mataconis of Outside The Beltway informs us […]
I am wondering when are the law enforcement agencies going to start doing their jobs and investigate George Anthony. This ex-cop appears to have choreographed a good deal of the information and leads. One could recast much of the evidence into a very different and consistent story that explains a lot, including Casey Anthony’s behavior, Cindy’s recollections and testimony, and the seemingly strange defense. (Of course, it just made such better media to have an attractive young woman viciously hated and facing a possible death penalty.)
[…] it would be exculpatory, but on whether a reasonable person could find it to be exculpatory. As William Jacobson and Greg Pollowitz have both noted, this appears to be a major screw-up by the prosecution. Had […]
My God, look at the amount of Casey lovers. Makes me sick.
First off, this “revelation” isn’t new, the news broke during the trial and this Bradley never brought it up when he was on stand or contradicted it. Plus, late June in the heat of a trial is a pretty poor time to suddenly say, “oh, something is wrong.”
Second, as others have pointed out, this would not guaranteed any overturn of a conviction. As the good professor probably knows, the rules of appellate courts are often very strict. Hell, we had a case here where the prosecution attorney feel asleep during the trial, the accused was given the death penalty, and the verdict was SUSTAINED.
“There is a good chance they lied on other matters. They said that cloroform was found in the trunk, or at least aspect of the drug. But look it up on line. Cloroform is bleach and acetone. These are very common and would be in most everyone trunk.”
First off, spell chloroform right. Second, they didn’t “lie” on any matters. Third they didn’t merely say “cloroform” was found in the trunk, they said usually HIGH AMOUNTS were found and the defense own witness said he he was shocked at the amount of chloroform smell he found.
“It’s a shame that overly zealous prosecutors throughout the nation undo so much of the good that law enforcement does. I can see their frustration with so many criminals getting off or never being prosecuted because the standards are so high to bring them in, but, when they go overboard, it just diminishes their credibility.”
That’s all fine, but in this case the PROSECUTION DID NOT GO OVERBOARD.
“I’ve said before that it’s not the defense that won this case but the prosecution that lost it.”
Bullcrap. The prosecution gave a mountain of evidence and the defense gave nothing but wild accusations and fantasy stories. The reason Casey won was because we had 12 people with crap for brains as jurors.
I am so sorry that the h on my type board was not consistently hitting. I know you prefered to show your superiority, but things do happen.
As to lie, look up the definition, it is an attempt to deceive. Plus, I don’t recall any reference to the smell of chloroform. They did reference the smell of decay. But you find that in most cars driven by kids and it was not consistent among observers. Plus the smell of chloroform would be gone in one week. The only residue would be bleach, which is common to all cars and especially those driven by women.
Now if there are any mis-spelled words, then consider the fact that I don’t care and I am not writting a thesis.
This whole fake accusations about the number of PC searches being wrong is just the case of a few people wanting to grab unto the publicity around the case and get their 15 minutes.
It’s irrelevant, as you need is to look up chloroform ONE TIME to find the info you need. And by the way, *chlorophyll* was not found on the computer, so Cindy was lying and just trying to cover for her daughter. Yes, the mother instinct is so strong, mothers will even go to bat for their kids and get them off of murder charges. And she even mouthed “I love you” to her daughter during the trial. So her “backing” up Casey don’t mean squat.
“I am wondering when are the law enforcement agencies going to start doing their jobs and investigate George Anthony.”
Are you kidding me? There is not a SCRAP of evidence that George Anthony did ANYTHING wrong.
“This ex-cop appears to have choreographed a good deal of the information and leads.”
Bullcrap. Looks like we have another fool who bought into Baez’s goofy little fairy tales.
“One could recast much of the evidence into a very different and consistent story that explains a lot, including Casey Anthony’s behavior, Cindy’s recollections and testimony, and the seemingly strange defense.”
The defense was STRANGE because they had none, stupid. Casey was guilty as hell. And yeah, you could cast the evidence in a different light and make it all Georges fault, if you ignore all facts and common sense. And if Little Green Man had framed O.J, you could cast the evidence there in a different and consistent light too!
“(Of course, it just made such better media to have an attractive young woman viciously hated and facing a possible death penalty.)”
Yeah, and people don’t like Obama because of conservative talk radio and Fox News!
First off, she is not attractive. She looks like a freaking drunk monkey. Second, believe it or not, even “attractive” young people commit murders.
And yes, poor little Casey. It was all a media conspiracy! Her apathy and stonewalling when people were frantically searching for her daughter, her fake tears unless it was about her, her cold ass attitude for 31 days and partying after her daughter was dead, her past criminal record, her blatant dishonesty, her attacking everyone who tried to help and support her, that’s not why people viciously despised her. Oh, no! It was because the media wanted a good story and magically brainwashed everyone! You’re painting Casey as some innocent victim makes me SICK.
All you Casey lovers can go straight to hell. You’ll met your poor little “victim” Casey there.
The evidence was not there. It supports other scenarios, including one with a powerful family man alleged to have abused his daughter did it. (If he in fact abused Casey, could he also have abused, and perhaps killed his granddaughter? Could he have covered up reporting a “drowning” to avoid an autopsy? Could he have told his the daughter — used to pretending her entire life and fearful of him — to get out and once again act like nothing is wrong because no one would believe her and she would be blamed?) He’s alleged to have cheated on his wife, and he appears to have prevaricated in multiple ways. It would explain the contradictions in what could be his terrified daughter’s telling her ex-cop father who was pointing the finger at her (while she was in prison) what a great dad he was. Jurors themselves have said in interviews that they were bothered by his testimony. When Casey left the house, and what she supposedly told her “parents” could have come from his orders. Did he order his wife to say that she performed computer searches? (Where was he on these dates and times?) Interviewed jurors indicated intense dislike of Casey but nevertheless neutrally assessed the evidence before them. If another story line also works with the evidence, rendering it plausible, that’s “reasonable doubt”.
If you think you can “recast” the evidence (very Orwellian, evidence only says what the evidence says, you can’t “recast” evidence unless your either a liberal or a Casey apologist like you) and create a very different and consistent story is if you have no grasp on reality. The only consistent story that you can derive from the facts and evidence is that she offed her little girl.
Oh, but that’s right, you think the reason people hate Casey is because the media magically brainwashed them into doing so. Otherwise, we’d all find her just the most charming little lying murderess!
BTW, having Casey as the poor single mother who is a victim of the police and her evil father would have been a better story for the media and would have fit their ideology a lot better. So your point is crap anyway.
[…] least our buddies at Legal Insurrection are waiting for the other side … well here it is. Share […]
Here is the other side of the NY Times story from those that follow crime stories.
As we all know there are always 2 if not 3 sides to every story. The defense was told of the descrepencies.
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2011/07/20/casey-antony-murder-trial-ny-times-only-tells-half-the-story-software-designer-reports-error-in-anthony-trial-supressing-evidence/
After the results were mentioned in court on June 23rd, Mr. Bradley contacted the State the same day. He consulted as to a potential rebuttal to the defense regarding the error in his program and recommended using Net Analysis findings. All findings had previously been supplied to the defense in discovery.
On June 27th 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.
Many issues with the prosecution of this case. Top among them is the fact that the prosecution never established a cause of death, an indispensable requirement for a homicide charge:
http://www.centredaily.com/2011/07/20/2845396/cause-of-death-undetermined.html