Casey Anthony Murder Trial, NY Times Only Tells Half the Story … Software Designer Reports Error in Anthony Trial … Supressing Evidence?

A note to my fellow bloggers, when linking to stories from the New York Times, consider the source before you regurgitate as fact and if you did not follow a case in detail, you might want to defer to those who did.

The NY Times ran a story yesterday regarding the Casey Anthony murder trial and that the software designer reported an error in the trial and made the assertions that there was prosecutor misconduct. The issue at hand was how many time the word “chloroform” was searched on the Anthony’s computer, was it 84 or just once?

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.

The designer, John Bradley, said Ms. Anthony had visited what the prosecution said was a crucial Web site only once, not 84 times, as prosecutors had asserted. He came to that conclusion after redesigning his software, and immediately alerted prosecutors and the police about the mistake, he said.

Now comes the accusation …and the NY Times stated that the State did not respond to their calls. I would caution the many that linked to this NY Times article and who did not follow the Casey Anthony murder case closely, that there are always two sides, if not three to every story and how many times has the NY Times done a one sided article against the GOP? For those of us that follow politics, crime and missing persons … we might have a different take and some inside baseball knowledge on such issues.

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.

“I gave the police everything they needed to present a new report,” Mr. Bradley said. “I did the work myself and copied out the entire database in a spreadsheet to make sure there was no issue of accessibility to the data.”

Mr. Bradley, chief executive of Siquest, a Canadian company, said he even volunteered to fly to Orlando at his own expense to show them the findings.

Cheney Mason, one of Ms. Anthony’s defense lawyers, said it was “outrageous” that prosecutors withheld critical information on the “chloroform” searches.

“The prosecution is absolutely obligated to bring forth to the court any and all evidence that could be exculpatory,” Mr. Mason said. “If in fact this is true, and the prosecution concealed this new information, it is more than shame on them. It is outrageous.”

“This was a major part of their case,” Mr. Mason added.

Now before you believe everything you read … you might want to read from those who are actually experts and have a vast amount of knowledge with this case, enter crime blogger and one of the best in the business, from our sister blog, Blink on Crime. Suppressing evidence? HOLY AMNESIA BATMAN … the Casey Anthony Defense team acts like they were never told what happened and that there was a meeting discussing the discrepancy. REALLY? That appears to be hardly the case. Before one starts believing accusations of misconduct and that any guilty verdict against Casey Anthony would have been overturned or that you think the Florida prosecutots were unethical, consider the source, research the issue yourself instead of regurgitating news from the NY Times.

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.

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 5th 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. (read the full story at BOC)

At least our buddies at Legal Insurrection are waiting for the other side … well here it is.