As the nation watched the trial of Casey Anthony, captivated at every turn, everyone assumed that the evidence the prosecution was presenting was accurate. The only question was whether the evidence pointed strongly enough to Anthony being guilty or not. However, the evidence was not completely accurate. Are you surprised prosecutors are fabricating evidence?
We all heard on the news that there were 84 searches for chloroform on Casey Anthony's computer. However, this is not true. There was only ONE search. John Bradley is the developer of the software CacheBack, which was used to prove that there had been 84 searches for chloroform. There was a problem with the software, and when it was fixed that was when John Bradley discovered that it was only one search. He says he notified the prosecution and the police. As we all know, they did not correct the record.
Many people have said Casey Anthony escaping a conviction is a failure of the justice system. How could an awful murderer get away with such a heinous crime? This is a good question, but a better question is whether the evidence the prosecution used was not accurate in other areas of the trial. How much did they lie? It's not unheard of for a prosecution to manufacture evidence, as DNA testing has exonerated many that were wrongfully convicted. It seems as though the conclusion to draw from this may not be that the jury made the wrong decision, but that the prosecution was not completely honest.
No comments:
Post a Comment