1129 users online (101 members and 1028 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 97 of 97 FirstFirst ... 47 87 95 96 97
Results 1,441 to 1,453 of 1453
  1. #1441
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    722
    It still gets me EVERY TIME like a knife in the gut that she googled the One Tree Hill ep100, about the crazy nanny kidnapping on the very day Caylee disappears - and the jury just ignored it. How? HOW could they not see the importance of that?

    *sigh* I am still not over any of this. Not by a long shot.

  2. #1442
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    9,980
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammiejam View Post
    It still gets me EVERY TIME like a knife in the gut that she googled the One Tree Hill ep100, about the crazy nanny kidnapping on the very day Caylee disappears - and the jury just ignored it. How? HOW could they not see the importance of that?

    *sigh* I am still not over any of this. Not by a long shot.
    Hello over the earth to you in Aussieland Sammiejam! I would like to hear f 3 folks that this week were going for jury duty. The only way we can influence............is to participate perhaps. I just wonder if any of us these days would be disqualified as I'm hearing that a question nowadays is do you watch NG/post on boards..........and then they kick you. (O/T...how is blue eyes? ................ swoon)..............

  3. #1443
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Northeastern US
    Posts
    1,787
    Quote Originally Posted by mattfz View Post
    I'm not a lawyer, so I do not know-- since the entire contents of the hard drive were not taken as evidence, that means they are not subject to the public records law? Why exactly, was the entire hard drive not searched?
    Just to add to what AZlawyer said, both hard drives IIRC were well over 100 GB in size. The process of going through the hard drives with a fine-tooth comb to find SSN #'s and other personal information - including bank accounts and possibly passwords - would be incredibly tedious. So I can understand the cost.

    As for the drives being searched, they were searched for the word "chloroform". They just were not comprehensively searched for other key words that might let them uncover other bits of internet history that would then lead them to other nefarious searches. If they had done that, the information would have been turned over to the defense and we would have been able to get a copy, just like AZlawyer did with the most recent history files.

    One might ask why the SO did not turn the entire hard drive over, and the answer is the defense did not ask for it. The defense knew that the SO had to turn over anything they found, so why go through the time and expense looking for things the SO may not ever find?

    The defense did ask for Ricardo's hard drive, but that was because the SO did not believe he was a suspect and therefore was not going to fish through his hard drive, so the defense was left holding that bag.

    At the end of the day, I believe there are probably other "searches of interest" between March 21 and June 16 on the Anthony hard drive and that they would not be difficult to locate. But, I don't see any reason why the SO would go looking for that information at this point.

  4. #1444
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by JWG View Post
    Just to add to what AZlawyer said, both hard drives IIRC were well over 100 GB in size. The process of going through the hard drives with a fine-tooth comb to find SSN #'s and other personal information - including bank accounts and possibly passwords - would be incredibly tedious. So I can understand the cost.

    As for the drives being searched, they were searched for the word "chloroform". They just were not comprehensively searched for other key words that might let them uncover other bits of internet history that would then lead them to other nefarious searches. If they had done that, the information would have been turned over to the defense and we would have been able to get a copy, just like AZlawyer did with the most recent history files.

    One might ask why the SO did not turn the entire hard drive over, and the answer is the defense did not ask for it. The defense knew that the SO had to turn over anything they found, so why go through the time and expense looking for things the SO may not ever find?

    The defense did ask for Ricardo's hard drive, but that was because the SO did not believe he was a suspect and therefore was not going to fish through his hard drive, so the defense was left holding that bag.

    At the end of the day, I believe there are probably other "searches of interest" between March 21 and June 16 on the Anthony hard drive and that they would not be difficult to locate. But, I don't see any reason why the SO would go looking for that information at this point.
    BBM-I agree, but I do see where The Sentinel might feel they should...they can request this info for the $6K price tag AZ mentioned, no?

  5. #1445
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,548
    OT but, if it's so difficult to find information on the hard drive why do I have two sitting in my garage- I can donate old PC's to charitable causes, but no one wants the hard drive because of 'liability issues' ? I assumed it was easy for thieves to access confidential data...?

  6. #1446
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    OT but, if it's so difficult to find information on the hard drive why do I have two sitting in my garage- I can donate old PC's to charitable causes, but no one wants the hard drive because of 'liability issues' ? I assumed it was easy for thieves to access confidential data...?
    Thieves have the time to do it!!!! Honest people would have to spend too much time and expense to delete any information that should not be public.

    I took mine out, beat them to death, then soaked in water for a long period.
    Don't know if that helped.

    JMO

  7. #1447
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    58
    I am not a One Tree Hill fan, but apparently Episode 100 (that she watched online) is about a crazy nanny and a "kidnapping"?

    (from wiki)
    It's Lucas and Lindsey's wedding day and Peyton must decide what to do about her feelings for Lucas. Nathan uses the occasion to attempt a reconciliation with Haley, and recently-paroled Dan shows up for the family reunion. Carrie kidnaps Jamie, but Dan steps in to intervene.

  8. #1448
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by ZsaZsa View Post
    OT but, if it's so difficult to find information on the hard drive why do I have two sitting in my garage- I can donate old PC's to charitable causes, but no one wants the hard drive because of 'liability issues' ? I assumed it was easy for thieves to access confidential data...?
    It's not hard to find things if you know what you're looking for. What's hard is to look through EVERYTHING if the computer is used with any regularity.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  9. #1449
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    17,905
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    You could never submit a hard drive as "evidence," because not every little thing on the hard drive could possibly be relevant to the case. And I can't possibly explain why the SO didn't go through the hard drive in more detail.

    But I think your real question is, why isn't the hard drive subject to the public records laws? The answer is, it IS--but the SO would have to go through every tiny bit of it (for the first time apparently!) in order to redact anything on there that falls within an exception to the public records laws. For example, there could be social security numbers sprinkled around in there.

    Here's the exact answer I got from the SO about the hard drives (I asked for the one from the laptop as well):

    I had an opportunity to speak with our computer people regarding your
    request. Unfortunately, we cannot fulfill it as worded. Specifically,
    you ask for "the Encase copies of the computers"; those copies cannot be
    copied and sent to you because the hard drives contain information that
    is not public records pursuant to Florida law. The nature of an
    "Encase" copy is such that one cannot redact and/or delete information.
    As such, information that you are not entitled to would be released in
    violation of Florida Statute.

    In theory we could make a copy of a non-Encase copy of the hard drives,
    however, before releasing that copy we would need to go through every
    bit of information on the drive(s) and delete non-public record
    information. Conservatively, that process would take a person working 8
    hours a day for 3 months to complete. Of course, we cannot devote the
    time of our forensic computer examiner in that manner, so the process
    will take considerably longer than 3 months. In addition, as provided
    by law, before something like that was even begun advanced payment is
    required. The law allows us to charge both the salary and the benefits
    of the computer analyst who will be required to perform the
    review/copying/redacting of the material. A conservative estimate is
    that figure will amount to something over $6,000.00.


    I didn't want to spend $6,000 and wait 6 months...or a year...or whatever, so I narrowed my request.
    Quote Originally Posted by JWG View Post
    Just to add to what AZlawyer said, both hard drives IIRC were well over 100 GB in size. The process of going through the hard drives with a fine-tooth comb to find SSN #'s and other personal information - including bank accounts and possibly passwords - would be incredibly tedious. So I can understand the cost.

    As for the drives being searched, they were searched for the word "chloroform". They just were not comprehensively searched for other key words that might let them uncover other bits of internet history that would then lead them to other nefarious searches. If they had done that, the information would have been turned over to the defense and we would have been able to get a copy, just like AZlawyer did with the most recent history files.

    One might ask why the SO did not turn the entire hard drive over, and the answer is the defense did not ask for it. The defense knew that the SO had to turn over anything they found, so why go through the time and expense looking for things the SO may not ever find?

    The defense did ask for Ricardo's hard drive, but that was because the SO did not believe he was a suspect and therefore was not going to fish through his hard drive, so the defense was left holding that bag.

    At the end of the day, I believe there are probably other "searches of interest" between March 21 and June 16 on the Anthony hard drive and that they would not be difficult to locate. But, I don't see any reason why the SO would go looking for that information at this point.
    Red bolded by me

    yeah, "At this point" sounds like the operative phrase to me.


    Realistically, and in hindsight, isn't this what should have been turned over to the FBI to do? They certainly had plenty of time between taking possession of the computers and trial to do it.

    I realize that is a lot of data and a lot of work, but it sure seems like something that should have been done considering how active Casey was on the computer.

    Or am I expecting just too much?

  10. #1450
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by JWG View Post
    Just to add to what AZlawyer said, both hard drives IIRC were well over 100 GB in size. The process of going through the hard drives with a fine-tooth comb to find SSN #'s and other personal information - including bank accounts and possibly passwords - would be incredibly tedious. So I can understand the cost.

    As for the drives being searched, they were searched for the word "chloroform". They just were not comprehensively searched for other key words that might let them uncover other bits of internet history that would then lead them to other nefarious searches. If they had done that, the information would have been turned over to the defense and we would have been able to get a copy, just like AZlawyer did with the most recent history files.

    One might ask why the SO did not turn the entire hard drive over, and the answer is the defense did not ask for it. The defense knew that the SO had to turn over anything they found, so why go through the time and expense looking for things the SO may not ever find?

    The defense did ask for Ricardo's hard drive, but that was because the SO did not believe he was a suspect and therefore was not going to fish through his hard drive, so the defense was left holding that bag.

    At the end of the day, I believe there are probably other "searches of interest" between March 21 and June 16 on the Anthony hard drive and that they would not be difficult to locate. But, I don't see any reason why the SO would go looking for that information at this point.
    BBM

    JWG, according to Baez the defense did (and perhaps still does) have the complete hard drive. After the SO imaged the hard drive, they returned the original to the defense (or perhaps to the A family, which turned it over to the defense--I can't recall).

    For the reasons you point out, though, I agree that the defense probably didn't go "fishing" through the hard drive (e.g., the unallocated space). But the internet history file containing "fool-proof suffication" was not in unallocated space--it was just a regular internet history file--and the defense would have been pretty negligent not to read through the undeleted internet history for the June 16ish time period.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94


  11. #1451
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    20,003
    I just can't friggin believe all this!!!!!!!!!!
    Unbelievable!!!

  12. #1452
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    17,905
    'g for a friend

  13. #1453
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
    Posts
    17,905

Page 97 of 97 FirstFirst ... 47 87 95 96 97


Similar Threads

  1. Sandra [Cawn] Osborne testimony (computer forensics)
    By Chiquita71 in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 04:35 PM
  2. Kevin Stenger testimony (Superviser, OCSO computer forensics)
    By wenwe4 in forum Witness Testimonies and Closing Arguments
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 04:12 PM
  3. Computer Forensics Discussion
    By Kimster in forum General Information & Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-24-2011, 02:06 AM
  4. Terri's Computer forensics
    By SurfieTX in forum Kyron Horman
    Replies: 81
    Last Post: 08-01-2010, 02:54 AM
  5. Ricardo's Computer Forensics
    By Woe.be.gone in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-27-2010, 07:11 PM

Tags for this Thread