Cindy Anthony Says Someone Hacked Her Email Account *REVISITED*

New Posts

Janis396 said:
So what does your bolded part mean, that the "hack" originated from Orlando?
Click to expand...

OrgName: Embarq Corporation
OrgID: EMBAR
Address: 500 N New York Ave
City: Winter Park
StateProv: FL
PostalCode: 32789
Country: US

NetRange: 65.40.0.0 - 65.41.255.255
CIDR: 65.40.0.0/15
NetName: EMBARQ-GLOBAL
NetHandle: NET-65-40-0-0-1
Parent: NET-65-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS9.EMBARQSERVICES.NET
NameServer: NS10.EMBARQSERVICES.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2002-04-08
Updated: 2007-02-22

OrgTechHandle: ESC36-ARIN
OrgTechName: Embarq Services - CDS
OrgTechPhone: +1-407-741-0500
OrgTechEmail: ipsupport@embarqservices.net

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-12-01 19:10
 
zoey said:
anyone ponder the thought that perhaps the first e-mail released about the brush was kinda approved by feds like a semi-warning to CA????? and the others perhaps added more to the evidence of tampering?? jmo
Click to expand...
It's certainly possible that ol' Larry forwarded potentially-incriminating emails to both Kathi Belich and the FBI. Lord only knows what else Cindy may have confided to Garrison when he was still among the favored few.
 
Janis396 said:
Is there anyway to tell if it came from Cindy's computer??? Or is what you posted as detailed as the trace gets?
Click to expand...

I have a program on my laptop computer which can go to the origin and even the street address, but the screen went out on it and it is in the shop. As soon as they get it fixed, I will run it.
 
TURBOTHINK said:
I have a program on my laptop computer which can go to the origin and even the street address, but the screen went out on it and it is in the shop. As soon as they get it fixed, I will run it.
Click to expand...

Excellent! :)
 
SuziQ said:
And she also supposedly told that guy, that since OCSO has her laptop, that they used her computer to communicate with him. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You know, considering the source (and I don't mean Cindy) I am going to have to take this revelation with a grain of salt the size of Greenland. I find it difficult to believe much of, if anything, this person reveals even when they offer photoshopp...I mean, photographic "proof".
 
cocowiley said:
ummmm.....i meant that once this case does go to trial and all this stuff like the alleged hacking and obstruction, the cloud of doubt being raised over who did what to whom, the alleged sightings of caylee, the fact that there is no body, JB's inexperience..etc..it all adds up to a mistrial if you ask me.
i am no law expert though so what do i know? just stating my opinion like everyone else.
Click to expand...

I value everyone's opinions on this board, but it does help if those offering certain opinions in specialized and/or expert fields have the background / education / experience to be offering same to the rest of us in this forum.

For instance, I'm not a forensic entymologist, so you won't see me offering any opinion on said subject (with the obvious exception of any time I am provided with such an opinion by someone who holds themselves out as an expert in such a field and I'm happily quoting that opinion in connection with a theory of mine re: what happened.)

As far as posters being able to offer opinions on this case's facts and theories about what happened to Caylee Anthony, I'd say the amount of threads on this case alone is a testament to how wonderfully that works here at WS. :)

Having said all of that, I am an attorney and I also concur with the opinions of the several other WS posters re: there's no possibility for any mistrial at this stage of the legal proceedings as no trial has even begun and, therefore, nothing can have been said or done during said trial to merit any such ruling.
 
TURBOTHINK said:
I have a program on my laptop computer which can go to the origin and even the street address, but the screen went out on it and it is in the shop. As soon as they get it fixed, I will run it.
Click to expand...

THAT makes me sit up & take note! THANKS!!!
:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:
 
Chezhire said:
I value everyone's opinions on this board, but it does help if those offering certain opinions in specialized and/or expert fields have the background / education / experience to be offering same to the rest of us in this forum.

For instance, I'm not a forensic entymologist, so you won't see me offering any opinion on said subject (with the obvious exception of any time I am provided with such an opinion by someone who holds themselves out as an expert in such a field and I'm happily quoting that opinion in connection with a theory of mine re: what happened.)

As far as posters being able to offer opinions on this case's facts and theories about what happened to Caylee Anthony, I'd say the amount of threads on this case alone is a testament to how wonderfully that works here at WS. :)

Having said all of that, I am an attorney and I also concur with the opinions of the several other WS posters re: there's no possibility for any mistrial at this stage of the legal proceedings as no trial has even begun and, therefore, nothing can have been said or done during said trial to merit any such ruling.
Click to expand...

If the "hacked" emails contain damning information about where the body is or that casey killed her, could those be used in court. Or could the newpaper release them, say next week if they want. And if they do, will it damage the case?
 
tippytoes said:
From the Orlando Sentinel:


http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2008/12/casey-anthony-c.html

I think this is really funny:
Click to expand...

WFTV-Channel 9 reported that someone in Ocala could have hacked into the Anthonys' e-mail account over the holiday weekend.

"Channel 9's Kathi Belich knew something was wrong when those personal messages first appeared in her in box," anchor Bob Opsahl said Monday night. Belich passed the e-mails along to the FBI.

"There was something odd about Cindy sending these e-mails to me, especially because a couple of them were about me and not so nice," Belich said.
Click to expand...

Bold by me.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if CA included a couple of negative emails just to really make it look like a hacking that she had nothing to do with. Something about how her twisted mind works (or doesn't work). All those doc dumps that I'm sure she read over Thanksgiving. That shady spokeswoman. That incompetent (not to mention clueless) PI.

And the hairbrush email.

lttop3w_e0.gif


I'm not buying it.
 
Patty G said:
All Cindy has to do is turn her computer over to LE for them to check and see if Cindy received an acknowledgment email from Yahoo telling her the "Yahoo email password was changed." Yup, I tested it out on my own email account and you get an email from Yahoo.

Even if the "hacker" :rolleyes: deleted the acknowledgment email from Yahoo, it would still be there for LE to view! :crazy:
Click to expand...

So PG - if even we know that this is how it works, let's pray LE has already checked this today.
 
Well, her Email address was posted on a site over the weekend. I guess it's possible someone hacked it.
 
I think anyone who thinks you can trace an IP from an email generated from a Yahoo email account should create their own Yahoo email account, send an email to themselves and then try to track the IP.

Good luck.
 
shelbar53 said:
If the "hacked" emails contain damning information about where the body is or that casey killed her, could those be used in court. Or could the newpaper release them, say next week if they want. And if they do, will it damage the case?
Click to expand...

Typically speaking, any evidence used by the prosecution in court during the trial must have been lawfully obtained by LE. Anything that is not lawfully obtained is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and said evidence, along with any other evidence that the "fruit" led to, is, as a general rule, inadmissible at trial. (Note that a judge does not have any duty and/or oligation to ensure that things were legally obtained by LE, as it is the defense attorneys role to ensure same and, when appropriate, make objections thereto.)

When we are discussing evidence and/or information that is illegally obtained by a third party (NOT LE) and leaked to the general public, it does NOT preclude LE from attempting to obtain said evidence legally via a search warrant, subpoena, etc. If they are able to do so, then the information and/or evidence will be deemed admissible.

In this case, it seems that it would be quite simple for LE to get a search warrant for any computer that Casey had access to, and I'm pretty certain she had access to all of the computers in her parents' home... ;)

I note that if LE has obtained information and/or evidence via a confidential informant, well, that triggers a whole slew of issues that I won't digress into at this point in this case.
 
TURBOTHINK said:
OrgName: Embarq Corporation
OrgID: EMBAR
Address: 500 N New York Ave
City: Winter Park
StateProv: FL
PostalCode: 32789
Country: US

NetRange: 65.40.0.0 - 65.41.255.255 CIDR: 65.40.0.0/15 NetName: EMBARQ-GLOBAL
NetHandle: NET-65-40-0-0-1
Parent: NET-65-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS9.EMBARQSERVICES.NET
NameServer: NS10.EMBARQSERVICES.NET
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2002-04-08
Updated: 2007-02-22

OrgTechHandle: ESC36-ARIN
OrgTechName: Embarq Services - CDS
OrgTechPhone: +1-407-741-0500
OrgTechEmail: ipsupport@embarqservices.net

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2008-12-01 19:10
Click to expand...

Embarq Services looks to be an ISP and not the end point user involved in any e-mail hacking. It looks like they serve central Florida. So whoever sent the e-mails is a user of theirs in some form, and recieved an IP from their pool.
 
faefrost said:
Embarq Services looks to be an ISP and not the end point user involved in any e-mail hacking. It looks like they serve central Florida. So whoever sent the e-mails is a user of theirs in some form, and recieved an IP from their pool.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

That is exactly what it is. An ISP - Internet Service Provider.

The header on an email sent from Yahoo gives you the ISP only. And that gives you a general location of the sender.

It does not give you the IP (and, in turn, the exact location) of the sender themselves.
 
SeriouslySearching said:
Ah, OK! Thanks for clearing up the LG email for me. I was getting confused. LOL
Click to expand...


:wave::)

Cindy has NEVER denied she is the source of the email which unveils hairbrushgate. She has danced around on semantics and intentions, in her attempts to justify the content.
The ones which are in the second group of emails have not been made public and were apparently written in the Ocalonian language.

Once the Anthony's stray from "no comment" it often becomes a ball of confusion.
 
I think the most telling part of this hack story is I haven't heard CA saying "I didn't write those emails!!!" -- she's just saying she was hacked. Unless I missed something.

You'd think the first thing someone would say under these circumstances is "I didn't write them!!!" and then mention being hacked, not the other way around.

Anyway, I might be wrong, but from CA's past behavioral tics I feel she would've strongly come out with not writing them right off the bat.
 
Chezhire said:
Typically speaking, any evidence used by the prosecution in court during the trial must have been lawfully obtained by LE. Anything that is not lawfully obtained is considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and said evidence, along with any other evidence that the "fruit" led to, is, as a general rule, inadmissible at trial. (Note that a judge does not have any duty and/or oligation to ensure that things were legally obtained by LE, as it is the defense attorneys role to ensure same and, when appropriate, make objections thereto.)

When we are discussing evidence and/or information that is illegally obtained by a third party (NOT LE) and leaked to the general public, it does NOT preclude LE from attempting to obtain said evidence legally via a search warrant, subpoena, etc. If they are able to do so, then the information and/or evidence will be deemed admissible.

In this case, it seems that it would be quite simple for LE to get a search warrant for any computer that Casey had access to, and I'm pretty certain she had access to all of the computers in her parents' home... ;)

I note that if LE has obtained information and/or evidence via a confidential informant, well, that triggers a whole slew of issues that I won't digress into at this point in this case.
Click to expand...

thank you for answering but I will stick to the medical field, much easier to understand.

Did you listen to the LE tpaes of them interviewing casey {right before she was arrested the first time}.

I was kind of shocked at how poor the interviewers were, or maybe I was just monday morning quaterbacking. Is that a typical LE interview? I mean in your experience..is that considered a normal interiew or was it below par?
 
shelbar53 said:
thank you for answering but I will stick to the medical field, much easier to understand.

Did you listen to the LE tpaes of them interviewing casey {right before she was arrested the first time}.

I was kind of shocked at how poor the interviewers were, or maybe I was just monday morning quaterbacking. Is that a typical LE interview? I mean in your experience..is that considered a normal interiew or was it below par?
Click to expand...

As a layperson I don't think they were all that good, but I'll tell you, I bet even they had to struggle a bit to grasp just how much of a true liar KC was. Didn't they say they'd never seen anything quite like her? It probably spun their heads around almost as much as ours. So I cut them some slack. I'm sure they don't run into KC types everyday. But I have the same feeling as you, they weren't all that good. In real time it must have been revelatory, minute by minute, wow...
 
No worries Mama Sin. The FBI can trace whom had access to your Yahoo account. Yahoo themselves probably has records of which IP addresses have accessed your account. This is easily obtainable information by authoritie so they can tell exactly what server he person was on, contact that ISP and narrow it down to whom was licensed on using that IP at the time.

Of course if you are making this up they will know that as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 3,982 (members: 203, guests: 3,779)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
3,779
Total visitors
3,982
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,827
Messages
17,959,694
Members
228,620
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top