Like everyone else I followed the Casey Anthony trial coverage live on TV. When I was listening to the testimony of Cacheback software developer John Bradley ,regarding 84 searches for chloroform obviously my ears perked up. But as a computer forensic examiner myself my first assumption was that it must be an error. It's just far too unusual for any person to sit down in front of a keyboard and type in 84 searches for one keyword. There's simply no reason to do it.
When I heard that Mr Bradley had created a custom fix on his sofware to examine the Anthony's computer I was convinced it was a glitch. It's far too common for a custom software patch to contain a glitch. This is perfectly understandable and common and no reflection on Mr Bradley or Cacheback.
After hearing that encase did not confirm the findings I was convinced the report was incorrect. I wanted for the defense to bring on an expert but by then it was lost in the cacophony of telephone talking heads all repeating the chant of 84 searches for chloroform.
Finally the record has been set straight by Mr Bradley and I commend his honesty and diligence in reporting to the prosecution and then his follow up press release.
No comments:
Post a Comment