There were so many places the mistake could have been spotted -- from the Wilkinsburg police officer who headed the rape investigation, to the criminal court clerk who never received the paperwork, to the prosecutor who never got the case file, to the victim advocate who never asked how the case was progressing, to the fail-safe that failed.

The dismissal of the rape case against David L. Bradford on a technicality could have been avoided at a number of steps along the way in the Allegheny County criminal justice system.

But it wasn't.

"It's very possible that there were multiple failures here," said Raymond L. Billotte, court administrator.

He has been tasked with figuring out where the process broke down and what can be done to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Mr. Billotte expects his investigation to be completed in 10 to 14 days, and he said it will be done in cooperation with a similar inquiry being conducted by the Allegheny County district attorney's office.

The case against Mr. Bradford, 30, of Wilkinsburg, was thrown out last month after a judge found that Mr. Bradford had been held in the county jail for more than a year.

Under Pennsylvania Act 600, a defendant cannot remain in custody for more than 180 days -- or be free on bond for more than 365 -- without a trial.

The DA's office has appealed, but if it loses, the charges against Mr. Bradford, which include rape, kidnapping for ransom, sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and terroristic threats, cannot be refiled.

It is unclear exactly what happened, but it's likely that a computer program offered by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts could have prevented it from happening.

Considered a fail-safe, the program is designed to show cases that have been held, waived or sent by the magistrates' courts to Common Pleas Court that have not been entered into the electronic system.

That way, said Steve Schell, a spokesman for the AOPC, if a case has gotten lost somewhere between the two entities, it can be found and addressed.

However, the only way for it to be effective is if the clerk's office runs it.

Mr. Schell could not say how often -- if at all -- the Allegheny County Department of Court Records runs the report. In some jurisdictions, though, it is produced monthly, he said.

In Mr. Bradford's case, District Judge Kevin E. Cooper held him for trial following a preliminary hearing on Oct. 9, 2008.

Typically, the paperwork from the magistrate court's office is to be sent to the Common Pleas Court system within five days.

However, records show that the paperwork for Mr. Bradford wasn't sent until more than six months later, on April 20.

And even then, the case was still not properly docketed.

Mr. Billotte could not discuss the specifics of what happened in this case -- whether the mistake occurred with the magistrate court, the Department of Court Records or elsewhere.

No matter what, court administrators said that the human factor -- having several people from the justice system involved in the case -- should have been enough to offset the glitch in paperwork.

Looking for more from the Post-Gazette? Join PG+, our members-only web site. You'll get exclusive sports content, opinion, financial information, discounts from retailers and restaurants, and more. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.