So they cut some corners....
The New York Times reports that John Bradley, a software designer who testified at the Casey Anthony murder trial that Anthony had visited a website regarding the use of chloroform 84 times, now says that he made a mistake, and that in fact Anthony only accessed the site exactly once. The finding of 84 visits was used by prosecutors repeatedly during the trial to suggest that Ms. Anthony had planned to murder her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.
The designer realized his mistake after reworking his software. Bradley told the Times that he immediately alerted a prosecutor, Linda Drane Burdick, and Sgt. Kevin Stenger of the Sheriff’s Office in late June to make them aware of his new findings. Yet the prosecutors never corrected the record or alerted the defense, as they are required to do under the law.
What does this mean?
- It probably means that even if the jury had convicted Casey Anthony of killing her daughter, the conviction would have been thrown out.
- It means that in their zeal to convict Anthony, the prosecutors were apparently willing to break the law and present false evidence to the jury while deceiving the defense, violating Anthony’s right to a fair trial.
- It means that the mob mentality fostered by press and media reports on the case infected the prosecution, which became willing to bend the law in order to achieve what the public and media would call justice. But convicting someone of a capital crime with lies and false evidence isn’t justice. It is more like attempted murder.
- It means that the prosecutors should be investigated for serious ethics violations, and if it is shown that they indeed withheld this information intentionally, they should be forced to find another line of work. Maybe John Bradley could teach them software design.
How many of raving bloggers, Nancy Grace fans and red-faced women waiving “Justice for Caylee!” placards would be willing to accept a guilty verdict and a death sentence that were fixed by prosecutors, as long as they were positive that the defendant did the heinous crime? I wonder.
And I wonder how safe liberty can be, with that mob so vocal and growing.
____________________________________________________________
UPDATE: The state has released a response to Bradley’s allegations, which you can read here. In essence, the prosecution disputes his account. The response is more than a little confusing, as you will see.
Ethics Alarms 
And will the prosecutors face any real punishment? History says: unlikely. Maybe a judge will have a strongly worded statement for them.
True and sad!
I dunno…Nifong got disbarred for less.
That’s part of why I didn’t say “no.” Unethical prosecutors do occasionally get seriously punished. It just doesn’t seem to be the norm. Connick vs. Thompson wasn’t even decided 4 months ago. Sure, there were serious and pervasive Brady violations, but nobody is civily responsible.
If individuals in lynch mobs reflected on their behavior then we wouldn’t have lynch mobs anymore. Great post!
Pingback: Something For the Casey Anthony Lynch Mob to Think About (via Ethics Alarms) « Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment, Real Solutions!
Why would this matter if she did in fact use chloroform on her daughter? It wouldn’t take 84 times to write down the ingredients and doesn’t change the fact that she still searched for this! Still doesn’t answer why she did either….
You’re all just blowing a lot of “hot air” over this.
It wouldn’t matter if I had 1 extramarital affair or 10,,,,,,,,,,,I’d still be a “cheater” either way……………………
I have searched for chloroform. If a kid dies in a pool around me, am I a murderer? This was part of the major circumstantial evidence. It looks completely worthless when it is one search.
I (and other people who are either curious or ill-informed) have searched for alot of pretty horrible stuff? Why? It came up somewhere, and we wanted more information, or didn’t know what something was.
The comparison to a cheater is beyond stupid. Searching for chloroform once does not make me a knockout gas creator. Searching for choloform 84 times makes it likely that I am severely interested in it or have some need of it.
Thanks, tgt—deft and accurate. I’m pretty sure the various things I have searched for once could make me look horribly guilty of the worst crimes and moral outrages imaginable. 84 times, however is serious, and as circumstantial evidence, fairly powerful.
The cheating example is one of the worst analogies ever—a good 10th grade essay question would be to enumerate the reasons why. Too easy?
It is amusing/ annoying/ funny/ sad when someone who is completely out to lunch on a subject rejects the opportunity to be educated as “hot air.”
Mostly sad, though.
If the shoe fits Jack……………writing a blog does not make you “educated” nor an “expert in this case”…………….you are a typical narrow-minded “liberal” who can’t spell common sense. I was merely pointing out that one search for a deadly chemical is enough for motive, doesn’t take 84………….but hey you know it all. As far as you tgt, owning a pool does not a drowning make. I live in AZ (drowning capital of the U.S.) and we’ve NEVER had someone cover up an accidental drowning – doesn’t happen. But you’re an expert too…………… both of you just add fuel to the fire for “lynch mob” mentality by having your heads up your ASS! Rumor has it the lil psycho may be Prescott……………..guess what we do to “snakes” that rear their ugly heads ……………
Wonderful! An authentic example of 21st Century self-parodying blog-gibberish! A true treasure for future historians asking the question, “How did the passionate ignorant express themselves in the absence of facts, perspective, logic, or rhetorical skill?” The answer: THIS!! I thank you; scholarship thanks you.
Jack a liberal? ROFLMAO . That has got to be dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone post here.
Well, the rest of that post was pretty impressive too.
If Jack’s a liberal, than I’m the ghost of Zelda Fitzgerald, Mr. Philling is a mullah at Tuscan Islamic Center, and tgt is a Inuit Scientologist from Germany.
I don’t know—people keep saying that….I’m beginning to wonder…
I’m from Austria, but 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.
Who killed Caylee, if Casey didn’t? You will never hear her speak of her daughter.
Who killed Dr. Borden? Who killed Nicole? Who killed JR and Cock Robin?
The lack of other suspects is not proof of guilt—the defendant doesn’t have to show who might have committed the crime, or even that he or she didn’t commit the crime, The defense has to show that the prosecution didn’t prove that the defendant committed the crime. Since the prosecution didn’t prove who killed Caylee or even how she died, your question is unimportant.
Hi,
While I respect your right to believe what you want to, I think the jury made the wrong decision. Big time. First off, when Jennifer Ford gave one of her interviews, she said something along the lines of “…it was easier for me to believe the accident theory, to get from point A to B that way…” this is not verbatim, but you can watch the interview. Here’s the problem with that: THERE IS NO MORE EVIDENCE TO POINT TO AN ACCIDENT RATHER MURDER! NONE. I mean really, ask 100 people if they found a decayed 3 year old in a swamp, with duct tape around the skull and how many of them would say, “yeah, i think that points to accident rather than murder” RIght. No one with more than an eighth grade education would say that. I don’t even think that mentally retarded people would reach that conclusion. And of course, that leads us to the duct tape itself. Why would anyone put duct tape over a body that’s already dead? Also, do have chloroform in your car? I wonder if you did a search of 100 cars in a mall parking lot, how many would have that? ANd the lies. People only lie unless it benefits them in some way, what is the motive to lie about something unless what you REALLY did was much worse? I honestly don’t see any ‘outs’ for the defense/CA in this case. The drowning in the pool story is BS, IMO. How could a 3 year old climb by herself into an above ground pool? The dolt Ms. Ford later embarrasses herself again by saying if you find a dead child in the trunk,it doesn’t prove how she died. (Again, not word for word) UM HELLO, IT ISNT”T YOUR JOB TO PROVE HOW SHE DIED! I honestly think this idiot jury didn’t even put a half-assed effort into this case while ‘serving’. Many people state they didn’t take a lot of notes.
I think that, while a good thing the bar is set high to convict someone of murder, in this case the bar was set TOO high. I mean, with overwhelming evidence, sometimes you have to live by the old adage, “if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…you know the rest”.
1. You weren’t on the jury, and have no idea what evidence it saw or didn’t see, or what the deliberations were.
2. I am certain that Casey Anthony had something to do with her daughter’s murder. I am also certain that on the charge of murder or manslaughter, the jury made the correct call.
3. All your rehashing doesn’t change the fact that there was no cause of death, there was no murder weapon, no convincing motive, and nothing linking Anthony directly to the death. Conduct after a death is never enough to prove guilt.That is reasonable doubt, any time.
4. Um, Hello, the prosecution DOES have to prove how she died, if it wants to make a case that somebody killed her.
5. Yes, I have chloroform in my car, in my attic, in my basement. Lots of it. I collect chloroform. Love it. So what? Is there a law against that? Does it prove I killed the next rotting corpse they dredge up?
6. My state doesn’t permit juries to take notes, because the notes then become the evidence whether it is right or not.
7. You have nothing new to add. You don’t get reasonable doubt. Too bad—it protects you. Write Marsha Clark a fan letter.
This wasn’t an attack on you, I was critical of the reasoning Ms Ford(and possibly the others) used to justify a not guilty verdict. How much goddamn proof do you need? Maybe you can add to the list, but in a murder case, what would constitute 100% ‘proof’? The only thing I can think of is a video tape with her in the act of killing her daughter. Period. Now, obviously, that doesn’t exist, but no one would be convicted of any murder. Let me ask you a question: Who is more likely to go out and party for 31 days after their daughter dissapears? A good, loving, mother, or a murderer? Who is more likely to take those actions? Would any ‘reasonable’ person say it was the former?(Apparently)
I Think this boils down to the jury just not wanting to beleive. IT’s that simple. A guilty verdict means this woman killed an innocent toddler. No, that’s too horrific. Ah yes, an accident, it makes us feel better.
As for point number 2, you imply she was murdered. So even there you’re agreeing with me the drowing story is complete BS. What do you think Casey’s role was? As for point number four, I think you misunderstood, I was referring to interview Ms. Ford gave where she seems to imply she and the others were trying to determine a cause of death. That is not their responsibilty. They were only supposed to determine guilty or not guilty as per the charge of murder. Period. Seems pretty straightforward to me. I mean, really, c’mon, Even it was an accident,(hey, maybe caylee had a heart attack!) Her callous behavior is an indication of severe problems and she doesn’t deserve to be a member of society. Regardless.
As I said, you don’t get it. Obviously it can’t be explained, either. We don’t lock up people because “everybody’ knows they are guilty. I repeat; How was Caylee killed? You don’t know. Who did it? You don’t know. Why? Ditto. Show me forensic evidence, eye witness evidence, anything. Lies and subsequent conduct may SUGGEST guilt, but they don’t prove it. Ford doesn’t have to prove a cause of death, but the prosecution does, Her severe problems DON’T MAKE HER A MURDERER. Jesus. Why is this so hard for you people?
You don’t get it. No one would allow you on a jury, and thank god for that. Your comment is an attack on logic and the justice system, not me, but I am a lawyer, and I care about those things. “Come on!” just isn’t a persuasive argument in the absence of proof, and that’s really all you’ve got.
You accused me of ‘rehashing’, yet you’re doing the same thing.
Yeah, yeah, no cause of death, no murder weapon, blah blah blah,
Let me try to ask you specific questions, if it’s easier for you to understand.
1. In your reply to my first post, you said’ ” I am certain Casey had something to do with her daughter’s murder”. Wow, you accuse me of nothing being certain, yet you are? Were you there? Again, if it’s murder, what role do you believe she played? Did she act alone?
2. I actually agree that some of the individual evidence may be weak, but in totality, it’s convincing. Partying, choloroform, duct tape, etc, etc, you know the rest, What do you think would be beyond a reasonable doubt to render a guilty verdict(Either for you or the jury)
3. How would you, personally, explain duct tape placed over a dead body?
Again, im not looking for the yearbook answer supporters seem to give, mainly “Oh that doesn’t PROVE anything, it looks bad, but…..” OK I GET IT
This is our system. Enough. Im curious as to what your PERSONAL OPINIONS on these matters. That is all.
Describing the holes in the necessary proof as ‘blah blah” proves my point 100%. What would be proof? Testimony that Anthony told someone she wanted to get rid of her daughter. Evidence of prior abuse. A clear, logical motive. A bullet in Caylee’s brain from a gun belonging to Casey. Medical evidence that chloroform was in her system. Evidnec that she died before the tape was applied.
If you are on a jury and have seen smoking gun evidence proving guilt, and the evidence is suddenly excluded (and there is no mistrial, which there would be)…and the judge says that evidence can no longer factor in your verdict, because it is not legal evidence—and without that excluded evidence, the prosecution has no case—you have to acquit….even though you know that the defendant is guilty. And that’s the right result, because you are there to determine whether the prosecution has proved guilt, not to make up your own mind about guilt. That’s the system. It worked in this case. The State over charged—it didn’t have proof of murder. My personal opinion as to Casey’s guilt, and yours, and the jurors’ are irrelevant.
Fair enough. I think you should have been her lawyer instead of Baez!
I must agree that the State overcharged, and sending someone to their death is a damn tall order. No question about that. But didn’t they have the option of manslaughter? Also, I heard a news report that they couldn’t have a negligence charge because there was no clear cut ‘guardian’ for Caylee. Wow.
There seems to be a sentiment about people these days living in CSI land, where there is always direct, concrete DNA evidence that is infallible and identifies the killer within a 45 minute show. I think not guilty has too wide a margin. But hey, that’s me. I think it’s clear she’s guilty of something, and Americans want retribution. I think it’s just as much an issue of ‘the system’ let us down and it seem extremely obvious this woman is a nutcase. Im not sure if you heard this theory before, but I also thing the “only men are evil” played into, and let’s face Casey when she wants to be is an attractive woman. Maybe that plays, at the very least, an unconcious role.
I can honestly say, I came here to debate a few things, and you did a terrific job of bringing up doubts, I try not to get too swept up in ‘crowd mentality’ but the death of an innocent todler sparks rage even among the most level headed, rational people. Hey, SOMEONE’S gotta pay!
I think the MAIN reason why this case sparked so much interest in me, and anger, in her aquittal, is that she seems so !@@#&% stupid, and still gets away with it. Im no expert on body language, but the ‘crying’ scenes seemed stage and unauthentic. And the celebrating and laughing at the end was digusting. And you know what’s weird, and, hey I could be wrong, not once did it seem that she asked the simple question of ” WHO KILLED MY DAUGHTER?” At least OJ pretended to ‘look’ for the ‘real’ killers.
I know this is another Ethics “oldie”, but I came across it and just had to jump in because I still feel very strongly about the modern Jury’s seeming inability to distinquish between “reasonable doubt” and a “shadow of a doubt.”
Everyone on the pro-Jury side in the Casey Anthony Murder Trial keeps asking for proof of how little Caylee died. They want something, anything, connecting the living Casey to the dead Baby’s body. Hard Forensic Evidence is required, they say.
My question is: WHO had control of the Forensic Evidence in this case?
Answer: Casey Anthony!
In their Opening, the Defense claimed that Caylee died in an accident on the very first day of her disappearance in June. By her won admission, then, Casey Anthony ALREADY knew in June that her Baby’s corpse was rotting in a dump just a couple of blocks away from the house where her frantic Grandparents were trying to locate her. For 31 days, Casey partied and shopped and hidout from her parents, all the while lying to others and telling them that Caylee was vacationing at the Beach with her “Nanny.”
When Cindy Anthony, the distraught Grandmother, finally caught up with Casey and tried to force her to tell where Caylee was, Casey redesigned the lie, now saying that the Baby had been “kidnapped” by her (later determined imaginary) “Nanny.” This story persisted in Casey’s version of events right up until that hideous day in December when Caylee’s remains were discovered, bound and gagged, and wrapped in plastic garbage bags, in her makeshift “grave”.
I agree with rygar that the duct tape is key to this case. It was directly linked to the Anthony household by torn string pattern testing which is extremely reliable. (The tearing pattern is unique, much like the unique patterns of fingerprints.) Granted, this does not mean that Casey was the household member who tore the tape– but she IS the only Family member who claimed that Caylee was: 1st) Not missing, 2nd) On vacation, and 3rd) Kidnapped. She is also the only one who at trial again changed the story, now claiming that Caylee’s death was an “accident.”
The Forensic Officer in this case testified that while the cause of death was “Unknown,” the manner of death WAS “Homicide,” and she based this conclusion on the very presence of the duct tape on the Baby’s face. (I paraphrase, but this is basically what she said): No matter how you look at it, there is no reason for duct tape to ever be on a Baby’s face– unless someone is trying to suffocate her, or to keep her from screaming out loud. She also stated that– until the Anthony case– 100% of accidental drownings were reported immediately to Authorities.
If the alleged “accident” had been reported in June, rather than the skeletal remains being discovered in December, there would have been forensic proof found in Caylee’s lungs of whether or not she had drowned in the swimming pool as her Mother claimed. Likewise, there would have been proof of whether she had instead been murdered by strangulation, or suffocation, or overmedication– all methods involving tissue damage– as suggested by the Prosecution’s case. The point is that only ONE PERSON had knowledge of the whereabouts of Caylee Anthony’s tissued remains. And THAT ONE PERSON saw to it that those remains were not discovered in time to provide the required proof that the Jury wanted to see.
There were many other connections between Casey Anthony and the Baby’s disposal site. Caylee’s bedclothes were inside the bag, wrapped around her, and the little sticker heart that had been placed over the duct tape matched a package of hearts in Caylee’s room at home. There were other things as well but, of course, because everyone in the Family had access to the house, this Jury just couldn’t connect the dots to Casey. Not only this, but the subsequent claim that the Baby’s death was the result of a tragic “accident” seemingly rendered all this circumstantial evidence irrelevent in the minds of these Jurors, who apparently could not walk and chew gum at the same time, either.
The reason Casey lied, and stalled, and hidout from her Family was simply because she did not WANT Caylee’s body to be found until she was reasonably certain that her daughter had decayed to the skeletal point. To any reasonable person, this is just classic incriminating behavior.
Think of that Philadelphia case where the murderer hid his dead girlfriend’s Body in a trunk in his closet. He wanted to KNOW where she was at all times, but when the Body was discovered, he claimed someone else must have killed her! At least that Jury was offended by the Defense claims of his innocence.
Casey Anthony also knew where her daughter’s Body was. She was keeping an eye on it, and I believe this foolish Jury played right into Casey’s evil hands. At the end of the day, for me, the Defense’s point that made the most sense in this case was this: “While a killer might stage a murder to look like an accident, NO ONE EVER stages an accident to look like a murder.”
One last thought, which I really don’t think was ever developed as a motive, and which I feel is probably the truth: Caylee was an extremely articulate little 2 year old. We have all seen the heartbreaking videos where she sings, and talks, and even seems to be reading to her Great Grandpa at the Nursing Home. Her Mother, meanwhile, had been lying for some 2 years about having a job, spending her days Heaven-only-knows-where, and her nights with various “boyfriends.” Meanwhile, she was telling everyone, day and night, that Caylee was with that “Nanny.”
So, where WAS Caylee, really?
We don’t know the answer to this question, but Caylee did know. And she was getting ready to TALK about it. At some point, someone– Cindy or George or someone– was going to ask her: “Did you have a good time at the Beach with Nanny today?” And, instead of looking vague and confused, like any other 2 year old, Caylee was going to become verbal enough to respond with: “What Nanny? Mommy doesn’t take me to a Nanny. Mommy puts me to sleep in the back of the car.” Or whatever the Truth really was. . . .
I sincerely believe that Caylee was killed to shut her up, and especially to keep her from blowing Casey’s cover. Ultimately, that Jury handed Casey the big Question Mark she needed to keep the Myth of Casey Anthony alive. Shame on them.
It is sad how people were treated back then