84 searches for chloroform – NOT! Give OCSO its CacheBack, please
It was much ado about nothing.
The brouhaha today regarding the initial dramatic testimony given by State witness John Dennis Bradley, the designer of the software “CacheBack,” that there were 84 searches for Chloroform, was a big story today.
But, this is a non-story. It is neither an admission or a State error; nor was it an attempt to hang on to exculpatory evidence, as many reporters and bloggers have recently said.
Granted, this WAS dramatic testimony originally – it would have been damning evidence – had it been true.
The State of Florida corrected this in its rebuttal case. Additionally, you may remember, it was never referred to in their closing arguments. Why? Because in its rebuttal case, the correct number of searches for the word Chloroform, using the UPDATED CacheBack software, was only ONCE.
One time. One search. Not 84 searches. And this was made, although not abundantly clear by Linda Drane-Burdick, it was clarified when another expert computer witness testified during the State’s rebuttal case.
Casey Anthony, searched for chloroform ONE time – perhaps once is not enough to establish premeditation. And that is the sticking point, too. If the jury had considered 84 searches in their deliberations, it would have been a serious problem. (The jury never considered any evidence, so we know this is a moot point, anyway.)
Oh, and although the chloroform search was singular, she also searched for:
- Internal bleeding,
- Ruptured spleen,
- Chest trauma,
- Household weapons,
- Hand to hand combat,
- Neck Breaking, and
- Internal Bleeding.
Might she have had murder on her mind?
Regardless, the State of Florida protected the record, I believe, by the testimony of the witness who said that when CacheBack had upgraded its software and analyzed the same data with the new and improved software, there were NOT 84 search instances. There was only one.
It is in Mr. Bradley’s best interest to make hay out of this story to market his company and software. Perhaps he was getting unfavorable press as a result of the error that was exposed?
In deference to Mr. Bradley, he makes a good point when he stated that although it was the Orange County Sherrif’s Office (OCSO) that had used his software to find the 84 Google searches, he points out that the OCSO should have validated those findings another way, but they did not do so.
Aha! Now, he owns up. Blame it on the OCSO. How conveeeenient!
Uh, well, the OCSO was convinced this software was reliable! They did not realize it would give back FALSE data.
When the software was updated, the test was rerun, and it was then discovered that his software, the earlier version, was not correct.
Isn’t it convenient for Mr. Bradley to blame the OCSO now?
I am not a lawyer, but it appears that had Casey Anthony been found guilty (of something) and convicted, this would NOT be reversible error because the truth of the matter is on the record in the rebuttal case.
And, if this was really an issue, Jose Baez would have made some comment about it, but I believe he has been largely quiet on this non issue.
Granted, Cheney Mason was quoted in the NY Times article as being appalled at this. “Outrageous!” said the nimble-fingered Mr. Mason. (I don’t think Mr. Mason caught all the testimony in this case, frankly.)
Mr. Bradley, the computer expert, believed that the State and the police were negligent in its work by not correcting the record.
The record was corrected. It truly was much ado about nothing. Kind of like Mr. Todd Macoluso having fun with the media by dressing a woman up in the same clothes that Casey Anthony wore in her release from jail, and running this “decoy” with a coat over her face, until she was out of sight on Orlando’s Executive airport.
It drove the news outlets into a tizzy! All of a sudden the headlines began to sing: “Casey Sighting in Orlando!”
Todd will have a good laugh over this for days to come!