01:32 Jose BAEZ: "I'd like to direct your attention to the same web site at 15:16 hours and 13 seconds."01:41 Kevin STENGER: "Yes, sir."01:42 Jose BAEZ: "How many times does it show on the, well actually, what is this here?"01:46 Kevin STENGER: "This item is the report for CACHEBACK."01:51 Jose BAEZ: "And the report from CACHEBACK shows that it was visited how many times?"01:54 Kevin STENGER: "84."01:56 Jose BAEZ: "So there's a difference between the two softwares, is there not?"02:00 Kevin STENGER: "That is correct."
It is ABUNDANTLY clear here that Stenger tells the jury about the difference in the number of visitsto SCI-SPOT.com found by the Net Analysis and Cache Back programs. Stenger testifies that the NetAnalysis program found one visit to SCI-SPOT.com while the CacheBack program found 84.
05:20 Jose BAEZ: "So, Sergeant Stenger, what you just testified to was that the chemistry, the SCI-SPOTwas visited once, for chloroform, according to the NET ANALYSIS report, correct?"05:34 Kevin STENGER: "That is correct."
This exchange is pretty unambiguous. Stenger said that he testified that the Net Analysis softwareshowed ONE visit to SCI-SPOT. com, not 84 visits.
It is also pointed out in the testimony that the Net Analysis software found 84 visits to MySpace while finding only one to SCI-SPOT.com, which is more believable than the other way around. It is clear that theCache Back software had problems in parsing the information correctly while the Net Analysis softwaredid not. Regardless, the prosecution did not try to hide any evidence about the internet searches for chloroform. They presented the jury with the evidence gleaned from BOTH programs and did not hideanything from them. As finders of fact, it was the jury's job to decide which one was the most accurate.
Some have said that the prosecution should have informed the jury about the errors in
software. The first problem with this is that no one knows what the prosecution knew about this and when they knewit. Bradley testified in court regarding the results his CacheBack program because the OCSO detectives wereconfused by the results of his software, and they recruited the author of the software to testify to those results.Another problem is that when Bradley testified to the 84 visits to SCI-
SPOT.com in the prosecution’s case in chief,
all those who defend Casey Anthony said that he was not credible because he was trying to make money off his
software by testifying in this case, and that came directly from Baez’
s cross examination of Bradley; now, when he
says something they agree with, they quickly dropped their old criticism of Bradley’s bi
as. Furthermore, Bradley haspublicly stated that he was not implying that the prosecution told him to lie as a previous statement on his part some