Lying by Omission is still lying, By allowing incorrect evidence & information by State of Florida, could have resulted in

A Verdict of Guilty on counts 1,2,& 3… by the jurors of the Casey Anthony trial.

Here is the full CacheBack Press release, including date of FYI to state of Florida.

The fact that the defense knew of this information isn’t really the issue is it? Isn’t it the fact that the state of Florida, Lawson Lamar, Linda Drane Burdick, Jeff Ashton and Frank George… Chose to not only object, that H.Judge Belvin Perry upheld their objection and allowed this incorrect Exhibit and testimony stand, that the information was not stricken from the records, that if was available for items in deliberation and that the jurors had this information. The fact that the defense used the same state’s witness as a witness on Defenses Direct case, offers the inconsistencies existed, why the evidence was allowed to remain is the most blatant example of premeditated-bias.

Advertisement

….. Just One look, Is all it took!

Original Press Release by SiQuest owners of CacheBack data recovery program used by OCSO Computer Investigators. 

 

(orig. Post July 5 2010)

15 days after the verdict was read into the records books by Honorable Judge Belvin Perry Jr, many stories still string up issues regarding the jurors verdict and how justice was not carried out.   I find this article the one that will always offer a valid reason why the death penalty itself  is not the correct answer, when the incorrect answer given by an expert witness, is invalid. 

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.”

The correct information is below-

Hits?   Sci-Spot  1        MySpace   84 !

How can this mistake happen, and how can the Judge allow this not to be clarifies in the Closing statements by Jeff Ashton?

revisited – See who’s cashing in – on the Casey Anthony case. Hint, it’s not the Anthony’s

Soup Du Jour – Alphabet & Crow Sandwich

and the verdict is….. Not Guilty

not guilty of count 1

not guilty  of count 2

not guilty of count 3

what 84 may really mean?

Georgie porgie puddin pie, Kissed a Girl and made her cry

Hey George Fess up, your in good company

Tiger Woods
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Jesse James
Charlie Sheen
Hugh Grant
Ethan Hawke
Jude Law
Sean Penn
Jon Gosselin
Bill Clinton
Josh Duhamel
John Edwards NC
Gov. Mark Sanford SC
Rep. Anthony Weiner
Chris Hansen
Jim Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart
Gary Chapman
Garth Brooks
David Beckham
Tiki Barber
Donald Trump
Frank Gifford
Peter Cook

“…like a little girl

“The day Jose Baez said, ‘You just screamed like a little girl”

Hal the TV Guy

Daubert

Pursuant to Rule 104(a), in Daubert the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that the following factors be considered:^[24]

1. Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions (and not just in a laboratory)? [e.g. fingerprinting has been extensively tested and verified not only in laboratory conditions, but even in actual criminal cases. So it is admissible. Polygraphy on the other hand has been well tested in laboratories but not so well tested in field conditions]
2. Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication?
3. What is the known or potential rate of error? Is it zero, or low enough to be close to zero?
4. Do standards exist for the control of the technique’s operation? [e.g. the use of penile plethysmography for sex offender risk assessment is being used by different workers according to their own standards. Thus penile plethysmography does not meet Daubert criteria]
5. Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community? [this test was earlier the only relevant criterion under Frye]

look-up  Daubert_Test

page 2 of 13 OC ME report by Dr G

Document #6452