trackboy Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 According to expert witness, and creator of the soft ware used to track the Internet history of Casey Anthony's, chloroform was not searched 84 times as stated repeatedly by the prosecution, but rather only once, and the site was sci-spot.com, which talked about the use of chloroform in the 1800s, and not how to make chloroform as suggest by the prosecution. Mind you, this was used, as the main reason in theory why it was suppose to be pre-meditated murder. She was to have supposedly looked up how to make chloroform 84 times to experiment on little Caylee. This report says no ma'am, no such thing occurred! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
--- Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I dont believe this report (granted I havent read the article) But u dont go around making shit up in court...they not that desperate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I dont believe this report (granted I havent read the article) But u dont go around making shit up in court...they not that desperate I have a HARD time believing that too. Maybe somewhere more in the middle but to completely fabricate to that degree...that would be BEYOND ridiculous and stupid on their behalf. I would like yo think they're not that pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
--- Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I have a HARD time believing that too. Maybe somwhere more in the middle to completely fabricate to that degree...that would be BEYOND ridiculous. Not only that, Dayz The Defence woulda been all over this shit if they suspected it was fabricated Getting people to look into it... And they wouldn't perjure themselves in such a high profile case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trackboy Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 Well, if you guys watched the case, the defense DID go after the fact that it wasn't 84 times that the chloroform was searched. That was if not in their rebuttal case, then in their closing argument. And they did not completely fabricate information, which is why it's wildly important for you to read somethng before commenting on its veracity; rather there was an error in the software used to detect her computer activity. This error was reported to the prosecution who decided not to present the new information in court; but the defense DID! Can you imagine if the jury sent Casey Anthony to jail on pre-meditated murder based upon false documentation that she searched for chloroform 84 times?! Hello re-trial, hello more drain of tax payers money over a weak case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.