In their new latest blog post on the Huffington Post, Prof. Bennett Gershman and co-blogger Joel Cohen write about the prosecutors in the Casey Anthony murder trial seemingly ignoring an error in the testimony of one of their expert witnesses, as exposed in a July 19 New York Times story.
They explain: “In the story, software designer John Bradley, a former Canadian police sergeant who specializes in forensic computer analysis and was a key prosecution witness at the Anthony trial, reported that his trial testimony, in which he essentially asserted that the Anthony computer was used 84 times searching for the word ‘chloroform’ (claimed by the prosecution throughout the trial as the cause of death), was seriously mistaken. Bradley, having reconstructed his expert work and analysis of the issue after he testified, admitted that the analysis offered was wrong — there had been only one search for ‘chloroform’ on the Anthony computer. Moreover, according to Bradley’s post-trial interview with the prosecution, he made this acknowledgement of his error to the police and the prosecutor’s office while the trial was still in progress. And yet, astonishingly, according to the Times story, neither the defense, the judge, nor the jury was ever alerted to Bradley’s recantation.”
Gershman and Cohen argue: “But as we see it, the public simply won’t care about this dramatic revelation even if completely accurate. Why? Even though this disclosure might be quite relevant in determining Casey Anthony’s guilt, the public has already convicted her. To the court of public opinion, this is simply a situation of ‘no harm, no foul.’ Even without the extra 83 chloroform website views, and the implications of what the absence of that evidence means, Casey Anthony is guilty, guilty, guilty!”
Read the full blog post here.