Anthony's Computer Forensics

I'd say so as well, and I think the only thing that staggers me at this point is why did we have to wait on you and JWG to hear about it? why did the state for some bizarre reason not use this very damning information at trial?

I never thought the state dropped the ball at all but now I really wonder.

maybe nothing could have ever swayed this jury anyways but this just is so wrong to me, foolproof suffocation search + caylee dead without a doubt 3 hours later + found with duct tape covering her ability to have breathed...????

am I a monday morning quarter back? am I wrong to think that of all other evidence, that search is the closest thing to a smoking gun? one the state didnt tell anyone about?

My sentiments exactly!!! You expressed my thoughts perfectly... :sigh:



:moo: MOO
 
BTW, the new internet history records show that someone (my money's on Cindy) was searching for child guardianship forms and info as early as October 2005 (when Caylee was only a couple of months old).
Thanks, AZ! Have these new records (in their entirety) been posted somewhere here?
 
i really think the case the prosecution had was so super tight that even though I initially felt there was a grossly negligent drowning and desperate and hollywood style coverup after the fact (don't anymore), I would have had no probs voting guilty based on what was presented by them. it was pretty much open and shut.
 
I just realized - weren't Jesse Grund and the Grund family still involved with FCA and Caylee in the first three months? Hmm - maybe Cindy thought they would keep her away from Caylee?

Jesse had no claims to Caylee. The A already knew he wasn't Caylee's dad.

I thought Lauren Gibbs kept Caylee until she was about eight months old and found out Casey wasn't working. Then Casey moved on to use the Grunds. Casey "found" her nanny when Richard Grund wanted Casey to stop dumping Caylee on them. Cindy may of had reasons from the get go in how good of a mother Casey was. George moved out two months later in December?
 
Jesse had no claims to Caylee. The A already knew he wasn't Caylee's dad.

I thought Lauren Gibbs kept Caylee until she was about eight months old and found out Casey wasn't working. Then Casey moved on to use the Grunds. Casey "found" her nanny when Richard Grund wanted Casey to stop dumping Caylee on them. Cindy may of had reasons from the get go in how good of a mother Casey was. George moved out two months later in December?

Yes, wasn't thinking of it from that point of view - I knew he wasn't the father. Just wondered what it was that got Cindy to file - maybe she was worried they would get married - or that the Grunds would manage to convert FCA...
And I believe Cindy was also involved with someone else while George was "away" so may have not necessarily wanted Caylee full time then.
 
Thanks, AZ! Have these new records (in their entirety) been posted somewhere here?

No. I obtained the raw internet history data from OSCO, which you would NOT want to try to read, believe me. ;) I did get through some of it, but thankfully JWG had a conversion program that transformed the data into Excel spreadsheets.

I'm sure there's some way to post the spreadsheets, but to be honest I would have misgivings about doing that, because (1) there's a lot of private information in there that I don't think GA and CA need to have floating around the Internet--and there's no practical way to "redact" that information, and (2) they are so easy to misunderstand.

#1 is the same reason I didn't want to post the full unredacted cell phone records way back when, BTW.

#2 is the reason that so many people incorrectly believe (from the partial records released previously) that someone did an internet search for ZFG before Caylee ever went missing. And look how twisted up the facts got when JB tried to read this information. :rolling:

I think JWG's method of posting sections of the records as needed to prove major points is a good one.
 
No. I obtained the raw internet history data from OSCO, which you would NOT want to try to read, believe me. ;) I did get through some of it, but thankfully JWG had a conversion program that transformed the data into Excel spreadsheets.

I'm sure there's some way to post the spreadsheets, but to be honest I would have misgivings about doing that, because (1) there's a lot of private information in there that I don't think GA and CA need to have floating around the Internet--and there's no practical way to "redact" that information, and (2) they are so easy to misunderstand.

#1 is the same reason I didn't want to post the full unredacted cell phone records way back when, BTW.

#2 is the reason that so many people incorrectly believe (from the partial records released previously) that someone did an internet search for ZFG before Caylee ever went missing. And look how twisted up the facts got when JB tried to read this information. :rolling:

I think JWG's method of posting sections of the records as needed to prove major points is a good one.
Thanks, Az! I understand perfectly.
 
BTW, the new internet history records show that someone (my money's on Cindy) was searching for child guardianship forms and info as early as October 2005 (when Caylee was only a couple of months old).

Cindy did mention guardianship papers and seeking advice from a lawyer.. but we learned that they did not file

Could it have been as simple as they did not know who Caylee's father was, the only family Caylee had was OCA, then Cindy, George and Lee...and if anything happened to OCA then they wanted to make sure they got guardianship of Caylee.
Not sure why they didn't move forward with guardianship.
 
I'd say so as well, and I think the only thing that staggers me at this point is why did we have to wait on you and JWG to hear about it? why did the state for some bizarre reason not use this very damning information at trial?

I never thought the state dropped the ball at all but now I really wonder.

maybe nothing could have ever swayed this jury anyways but this just is so wrong to me, foolproof suffocation search + caylee dead without a doubt 3 hours later + found with duct tape covering her ability to have breathed...????

am I a monday morning quarter back? am I wrong to think that of all other evidence, that search is the closest thing to a smoking gun? one the state didnt tell anyone about?

I somewhat agree with parts of your post, with the exception of the BBM.

Not that it isn't a valid question, BUT, that the State did put on a very strong case with a pile of valid, factual "damning information" and it didn't matter to this Jury.

Nothing in fact, would have mattered to this Jury, so no, the State did not drop the ball.
 
AZ Lawyer and/or JGW.. if you are so inclinded, can you look to see if anyone went online from the A's home computer to look at the CA's checking account or credit cards during the 6/16 through 7/15 dates (I don't believe that GA had a checking / savings account).

I've always been curious about OCA writing CA's checks and using her cards all over Orlando during this time period, when CA stated that she believed OCA was in Tampa, Jacksonville, Mars and where ever else. Basically, I wanted to learn if CA was checking her online accounts to see where OCA was by the account's activity.
 
AZ Lawyer and/or JGW.. if you are so inclinded, can you look to see if anyone went online from the A's home computer to look at the CA's checking account or credit cards during the 6/16 through 7/15 dates (I don't believe that GA had a checking / savings account).

I've always been curious about OCA writing CA's checks and using her cards all over Orlando during this time period, when CA stated that she believed OCA was in Tampa, Jacksonville, Mars and where ever else. Basically, I wanted to learn if CA was checking her online accounts to see where OCA was by the account's activity.

I don't believe there was any such activity 6/16/-7/15.

I recall, however, that the dates of the "chloraform" searches (March 17 and 21, 2008) were the same as the dates that Cindy was repeatedly calling Bank of America.
 
I don't believe there was any such activity 6/16/-7/15.

I recall, however, that the dates of the "chloraform" searches (March 17 and 21, 2008) were the same as the dates that Cindy was repeatedly calling Bank of America.
Well, isn't that interesting.
 
Well, isn't that interesting.

There just has to be a connection, right?? And Cindy closed the bank account Casey had been stealing from on or shortly after March 14, which must have ticked Casey off quite a bit. Especially since Casey's birthday was coming up, and I'm sure she was planning to use that account to get herself something nice. ;)
 
There just has to be a connection, right?? And Cindy closed the bank account Casey had been stealing from on or shortly after March 14, which must have ticked Casey off quite a bit. Especially since Casey's birthday was coming up, and I'm sure she was planning to use that account to get herself something nice. ;)

When did Cindy go see a counselor? Seems like Casey was in the driver seat and Cindy was trying to rein her in. I doubt Casey was looking at guardianship forms. She already had the power. Something made Cindy go looking to gain control of Caylee and maybe the possibility of her kicking Casey to the curb? The only leverage Casey had was Caylee.
 
In reading these posts, it is stunning (again) to me what powerful circumstantial evidence existed in this case. The dots so connect. But that isn't enough in our hi-tech world anymore. I wonder how in the world Scott Peterson got convicted in this same era?
 
When did Cindy go see a counselor? Seems like Casey was in the driver seat and Cindy was trying to rein her in. I doubt Casey was looking at guardianship forms. She already had the power. Something made Cindy go looking to gain control of Caylee and maybe the possibility of her kicking Casey to the curb? The only leverage Casey had was Caylee.

She claimed she didn't go see the counselor until the spring of 2008; maybe the counselor was the one who suggested that she close the account that Casey was stealing from lol. ;) The guardianship searches were in October 2005, not long after Caylee was born.

Of course, Casey might have been searching to find out about guardianship because Cindy had threatened to get guardianship of Caylee, and Casey wanted to see if that was really possible.
 
In reading these posts, it is stunning (again) to me what powerful circumstantial evidence existed in this case. The dots so connect. But that isn't enough in our hi-tech world anymore. I wonder how in the world Scott Peterson got convicted in this same era?

Location , location, location. SP had jurors who understood "Reasonable doubt". Looking at the demographics of Pinellas County...it was not looking good for the prosecution.

Same thing with the OJ case. If he had been prosecuted in Santa Monica instead of downtown LA, he would have been convicted.

Judge Perry made another mistake in rushing jury selection and not allowing the SA to strike that juror who didn't want to judge anyone. WTH? JP bent over backwards in selecting that locale. Frankly, he did way to much bending throughout.
 
There just has to be a connection, right?? And Cindy closed the bank account Casey had been stealing from on or shortly after March 14, which must have ticked Casey off quite a bit. Especially since Casey's birthday was coming up, and I'm sure she was planning to use that account to get herself something nice. ;)

I always thought there was a connection with the searches and Cindy cutting Casey off from stealing from her bank account.

Also, I don't remember where I read it but I am fairly certain it came directly from Cindy. Casey was not happy that she could not go out and had to stay home on Monday March 17th (St Patrick's Day) and take care of Caylee..Cindy said she works late on Mondays and usually got home around 7pm and would be very tired and not able to take care of Caylee.
And that it would be Casey's birthday in 2 days and she could celebrate then.

Anyone else remember that?

IMO...March 2008 was a pivotal month but the stealing and Cindy cutting off the money supply did not factor into the murder trial...
 
I'd say so as well, and I think the only thing that staggers me at this point is why did we have to wait on you and JWG to hear about it? why did the state for some bizarre reason not use this very damning information at trial?

I never thought the state dropped the ball at all but now I really wonder.

maybe nothing could have ever swayed this jury anyways but this just is so wrong to me, foolproof suffocation search + caylee dead without a doubt 3 hours later + found with duct tape covering her ability to have breathed...????

am I a monday morning quarter back? am I wrong to think that of all other evidence, that search is the closest thing to a smoking gun? one the state didn't tell anyone about?


Hi ALL!
The BBM statement made me reflect on just what I thought was the "smoking gun"/critical circumstantial evidence point: Caylee's teeth IN/held IN her mandible!:what: IIRC, that point was NOT hammered home by the prosecution, just presented as fact and the point of "hammering" was that one does NOT duck/duct tape a deceased individual's mouth AFTER a drowning scenario.:rocker::rocker:
I believe that with 20/20 hindsight the full impact of Caylee's post mortem was not explained :maddening: and than IMVHO was because Jan wasn't invite BACK to rebut the "shoddy autopsy" claim!:banghead::banghead:
 
...just want to add a thanks to JWG, AZL, et. al., for bringing this thread up again- the latest work really helped me fill in some blanks (and all the work prior too was invaluable is so many different ways).

Fist Bump!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
212
Guests online
1,772
Total visitors
1,984

Forum statistics

Threads
589,956
Messages
17,928,305
Members
228,017
Latest member
SashaRhea82
Back
Top