Anthony's Computer Forensics

Soulmagent · Jun 23, 2011

benjaminfpierce said:
I'm getting really tired of the misinformation.

Not everything is searched. Sometimes people bookmark pages or type them.

From the state's expert John Bradley made clear that the sci-spot page was not from a search, it was either typed in or pasted in the address or used from a bookmark.

Firefox history files do record counters for total number of times a site is visited. It maybe a coincidence it was both 84 julian date and 84 times in the counter. It may also be that he determined this incorrectly myspace/sci-spot.com but the data is still there and they will be able to tell.

The thing that I'm fairly certain of is that the sci-spot.com page was from a bookmark because there was no RERFER. It was not a link clicked from a previous page. This is what the experts said.

Was it opened in a new tab therefore skipping the rerfer making it appear typed in ?

benjaminfpierce · Jun 23, 2011

There are two utilities already available for parsing:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=241438

benjaminfpierce · Jun 23, 2011

Soulmagent said:
Was it opened in a new tab therefore skipping the rerfer making it appear typed in ?

She could have typed it in, unlikely. Or she could have copied a link from another page and pasted it in, also unlikely. She would have clicked on the link. Unless she wanted a new window and didn't know how to control-click for new tabs.

Or is was a bookmark she saved previously to her desktop or bookmark manager.

celticthyme · Jun 23, 2011

If the prosecution does not have the computer forensics from Cindy's work, they will, as well as her time sheet records. I'm sorry, but who has ANY searches for chloroform, neck breaking, household weapons??? It really doesn't matter how many times . . it should never have been there.

angeldust · Jun 23, 2011

84 days was monday 24th march 2008 not the days it was searched and not the days cindy remembers (ahem) searching so does this now knock all the 84 nonsense on the head just asking x

benjaminfpierce · Jun 23, 2011

benjaminfpierce · Jun 23, 2011

If any LE or anyone has the original data and needs help with this I'm a computer expert that has been a software engineer and web developer since 1995. Before that, I was in the USAF doing similar work.

Give me the original file or parse it yourself, it's really easy to do. You don't need Cacheback.

coloradoteacher · Jun 23, 2011

rhornsby said:
Its called a Julian Date. All the number 84 means is someone visited MySpace on the 84th day of 2008, which happens to coincide to same date of search.

The 84th day of 2008 was March 24 not the 17th or the 21st. I already looked that up....

Chilly Willy · Jun 23, 2011

technicalconfusion said:
Right now I've got the net analysis program running on my computer and I'm looking thru one of my history files.

This shows hits. It's got a column named hits. It's a very thorough program.
Shows all kinds of stuff.

This is one line from the file I'm looking at. Remember: it's the Net Analysis Program.

Look at the hits line. 333 hits. Now. In web terms, when you hit a web page- everything on that page counts as one hit.

So if you hit a page, say it's got 10 images, the html file itself, and a video, this will count as 12 hits. 10 for the images, 1 for the html file and one for the video.

The record below is for my google adsense account. This was at a time when I was literally sitting on it - kept it open and refreshed the page obsessively. This program is picking up everytime I refreshed the page over a period of time, which looks like the Last Visited [UTC]: Last Visited [Local]:

This is where I believe the 84 number is coming from. She didn't visit it 84 times, but the program is picking up the hits on the page - she could have been sitting there and refreshed it several times.

Am I making sense?

The hits column is somewhat deceiving. Counters on a web page are deceiving because of this. A computer person - who may be excellent at their job, may not have a clear understanding of how hits on a page works.
I've worked in web hosting for years and this is one of the first things we were taught.

Gonna see if I can check out the cacheback program.

That same exact thing went through my mind, however, it came out in testimony today that the "80" numbers were going up chronologically one per day. I don't recall what the numbers were exactly, but it was something like: My Space on the 17th = 80 times, on the 18th = 81 times, on the 19th = 82 times....see what I mean? That could not be explained by the number of different 'hits' on a page.

Soulmagent · Jun 23, 2011

celticthyme said:
If the prosecution does not have the computer forensics from Cindy's work, they will, as well as her time sheet records. I'm sorry, but who has ANY searches for chloroform, neck breaking, household weapons??? It really doesn't matter how many times . . it should never have been there.

I happen to have all 3.

I google everything. or yahoo it and before google I used ask jeeves and I asked him lots of things.

We cannot go arround making people guilty based on Computer searches , can you imagine the amount of people who could be wrongfuly convicted based on weird searches ?

coloradoteacher · Jun 23, 2011

Harmony2 said:
page 99

http://media2.myfoxorlando.com/documents/032310-anthony1.pdf

YOU"RE AWESOME!!!!!!!!:tyou:

Wysteria · Jun 23, 2011

chicklet said:
Nope, not a lawyer but I HAVE sat on a jury before. You all would hate my guts if I were on KC's jury because I would not convict her.

The judge should NEVER have let in that animation. Also, not allowing the defense to send a piece of that trunk liner to the touch DNA specialist to test was highly prejudicial. Not allowing Spitz to be present at the autopsy or giving the defense access to the site the remains were found, etc. All of this is very prejudicial.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My google searches would not in any way shape or form indicate that I was anything but who I am. A kind, loving and fortunate older women. Additionally, I do not and never have "hated anyone's guts", except maybe in the 2nd grade.

I'm not going to attempt to address the Spitz issue. Have you had a chance to view the hearing regarding this matter?

I welcome differing opinions. On this very thread I've stated that I feel terribly sorry for Cindy. Not a popular opinion, but why is it that not one person challenged my opinion? Your posts are repeated over and over this entire thread challenging what you are stating. You are entitled to your opinion, but kindly do not drag me into your opinions.

Thanks much.

GeekyGirl · Jun 23, 2011

Soulmagent said:
I happen to have all 3.

I google everything. or yahoo it and before google I used ask jeeves and I asked him lots of things.

We cannot go arround making people guilty based on Computer searches , can you imagine the amount of people who could be wrongfuly convicted based on weird searches ?

I shudder to think... I google the craziest things.

Soulmagent · Jun 23, 2011

For example ,say I google "local man dies in accident " because I heard from work someone local died.

Then a few days later I google life insurance because mine is expensive or a make a double payment on my life insurance.

Then susposed my hubby was run off the road in a hit and run accident and died, and my friend went and saw my searches and called in a tip.

Well I better have an alibi ,because I dont have a cell phone so no pings to help me out.

coloradoteacher · Jun 23, 2011

Ok- so the my fox orlando has Bradley's summary, but has the actual doc used in court been made public? The one with the numbers and the complete search, not Bradley's cut and paste of what he thinks is important?

Tuffy · Jun 23, 2011

Soulmagent said:
I happen to have all 3.

I google everything. or yahoo it and before google I used ask jeeves and I asked him lots of things.

We cannot go arround making people guilty based on Computer searches , can you imagine the amount of people who could be wrongfuly convicted based on weird searches ?

We can if other circumstantial evidence lends credibility to the computer searches, which I believe it does. If the person that searches for chloroform suddenly has a child die, and high levels of chloroform are in their trunk (along with the child's body.)

No one is making Casey guilty of murder based on a computer search alone.
Just like it's not about party pictures alone.
Or her lack of remorse alone.
Or the fact that she lies alone.

To insinuate that we are doing that, is disingenuous.

Turnadot · Jun 23, 2011

GeekyGirl said:
I shudder to think... I google the craziest things.

Me too.

I'm a writer, and as of right now, glancing at my search history: poison, snake bites, death via IV drip, neck breaking, smothering, blood spatter, MPD, lethal poisons, inducing cardiac arrest, beating the polygraph.

Boy would I be in a world of trouble.

Tuffy · Jun 23, 2011

coloradoteacher said:
Ok- so the my fox orlando has Bradley's summary, but has the actual doc used in court been made public? The one with the numbers and the complete search, not Bradley's cut and paste of what he thinks is important?

I think all we have is the summary report. It would be nice to have the actual file though.

coloradoteacher · Jun 23, 2011

Tuffy said:
I think all we have is the summary report. It would be nice to have the actual file though.

I want to know if Chlorophyll is in there. bad.

I have also googled Chlorophyll and chlorophyl and the only place that chloroform comes up is at the very bottom for related searches.

GeekyGirl · Jun 23, 2011

Tuffy said:
We can if other circumstantial evidence lends credibility to the computer searches, which I believe it does. If the person that searches for chloroform suddenly has a child die, and high levels of chloroform are in their trunk (along with the child's body.)

No one is making Casey guilty of murder based on a computer search alone.
Just like it's not about party pictures alone.
Or her lack of remorse alone.
Or the fact that she lies alone.

To insinuate that we are doing that, is disingenuous.

Again, I think most of us are just frustrated because we want to know the truth. If it was only one search (or set of searches) for chloroform, would LE even have tested the trunk? Are we sure there's no reasonable alternative explanation for the chloroform levels in the trunk? Is it possible chloroform isn't related at all? Those are the questions that I personally want to know the answers to.

Anthony's Computer Forensics

On Time Out

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

On Time Out

New Member

Member

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where

On Time Out

New Member

Not really that tough...

New Member

Not really that tough...

New Member

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics