Anthony's Computer Forensics

[3doglady]

No, I believe the testimony states those were searches that were actually done. There were a couple others on specific medical topics as well. None of which were related to anything to do with murder and so on.

You may be correct. I just remember JB got Bradley to admit that some of the "searches" were links that KC visited.

 

[leophoenix]

Maybe that page was open on the computer, and she was also accessing my space, facebook, email, anything else. If she clicked between the different pages, would that explain the 84 "searches" or clicks? Right now I have 8 windows open on my computer and I have in and out of them all day long...

Switching between tabs does not reload pages. She either left the page and returned or did a full refresh of that page.

 

[BigRedCat]

Yes I remember that as well. Some were just "suggested" links or whatever.

 

[Pink Panther]

I agree. I'm a martial artist and very into tactical firearms training, If the FBI looked through my search history I'd be done for! lol

I've listened to every police interview and been through all the evidence and I still don't buy that Casey planned this out. If she did this is the worst murder plan ever. By all accounts she was an overprotective mother. Her friends all say Caylee was her life. It doesn't add up. Even with Casey's personality disorders I still think she just screwed up somehow and the child ended up dead. I don't see enough direct evidence that says this was a planned out murder. It is certainly possible as she may have changed but its all so strange. Only Casey really knows the truth..and she will never tell.

This isn't just part of her search history, it's the only part of her search history (in 4 1/2 years) that was ever deleted.

moo

 

[Jolynna]

Its very easy to make with basic high school chemistry skills. Of course Casey isn't so bright so I really can't see her doing it but maybe she did. We'll never know for sure. Where would she have done this I wonder? In the garage? Seems unlikely she would do this herself.

If she did make it I don't think it was intended to kill, that isn't what its for - its to knock people out. There are more efficient ways to kill. That lends more to the accidental death theory in my mind.

A safe dose would knock somebody out for 15 to 20 minutes. Having to stand by Caylee's head administering safe drips of chloroform every 15 minutes would not give KC much of a night out.

That information about why chloroform was NOT used as a babysitter comes from the person owns the site KC visited 84 times (http://www.thehinkymeter.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1232) and from a regular Hinky Meter poster, KZ who is an anesthesiologist.

15 to 20 minutes is plenty of time to keep a child out and lying still while...?

On the discussion part of the 84 times link supplied in the above paragraph I specifically asked the owner of the "How to Make Chloroform" site if chloroform and neck breaking were recommended ways of humanely getting rid of animals. It IS. It is also the opinion of the owner of the "How to Make Chloroform" site that whoever did the searches found on the Anthony computer was researching killing someone or something.

Back in 2008 when you googled chloroform the main use of chloroform that would come up was how to use it to euthanize animals. Same with neck breaking. That is why I asked the owner of the "How to Make Chloroform" site the questions that I asked. I wanted validation to what I found on my own back in 2008. I've posted many links to neck breaking and chloroform sites here on Websleuths. Most of them detail ways to use those methods to kill animals.

Caylee was deliberately murdered. imo

 

[3doglady]

This isn't just part of her search history, it's the only part of her search history (in 4 1/2 years) that was ever deleted.

moo

Great point!

 

[octobermoon]

A safe dose would knock somebody out for 15 to 20 minutes. Having to stand by Caylee's head administering safe drips of chloroform every 15 minutes would not give KC much of a night out.

That information about why chloroform was NOT used as a babysitter comes from the person owns the site KC visited 84 times (http://www.thehinkymeter.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1232) and from a regular Hinky Meter poster, KZ who is an anesthesiologist.

15 to 20 minutes is plenty of time to keep a child out and lying still while...?

On the discussion part of the 84 times link supplied in the above paragraph I specifically asked the owner of the site if chloroform and neck breaking were recommended ways of humanely getting rid of animals. It IS.

Back in 2008 when you googled chloroform the main use of chloroform that would come up was how to use it to euthanize animals. Same with neck breaking. I've posted many links to those sites here on Websleuths.

oh how

 

[Hot Dogs]

Was there anything else that she searched for that was contrary to a murder motive? I mean this list here is only vaguely applicable to killing your child.

Will we never hear of searches that she did for say...

100 fun things to do with your child.
Getting prepared for preschool.
Mother daughter bond.
How to protect your child from strangers.

etc.

Did the prosecutors or computer forensic experts simply choose not to present searches such these if in fact they did exist? Is there some huge list of everything she searched for, or is this short list the only things she looked at?

 

[Chilly Willy]

Could Casey have been looking for a method of killing Caylee while Caylee was knocked out from the Chloroform, and finally settled on taping off her airways?

 

[sappysoul]

I think it just shows as one visit but I'm not a computer expert. Maybe someone with more knowledge than me can answer that for us.

I actually had a question about this earlier today so I reviewed Bradley's testimony. If you have several tabs open at one time your history only records the last one you opened or refreshed. The history doesn't tell you if the person actually left the site or just opened up another tab/site. So if she opened up the sci-spot site then opened another tab and logged onto Facebook the history would make it appear as if she left sci-spot although it is still available for viewing on the other tab. As long as she didn't refresh the page it would stay hidden in the history until she logged on again.

 

[3doglady]

Sappysoul, I like your avatar. Are you the artist?

 

[octobermoon]

Was there anything else that she searched for that was contrary to a murder motive? I mean this list here is only vaguely applicable to killing your child.

Will we never hear of searches that she did for say...

100 fun things to do with your child.
Getting prepared for preschool.
Mother daughter bond.
How to protect your child from strangers.

etc.

Did the prosecutors or computer forensic experts simply choose not to present searches such these if in fact they did exist? Is there some huge list of everything she searched for, or is this short list the only things she looked at?

IIRC, these were the only deleted searches on the computer for 4.5 years off of firefox which wasn't the normal search engine. That is what made them stand out.

 

[Hot Dogs]

Anybody could just simply search "How to kill somebody" and you will get stacks of stuff. You don't have to dance around reading about ruptured spleens or chest trauma. If you know you are going to delete your search anyway - just go for that one. Info about those specific things won't even tell you how to do it in order to kill someone. It's all backwards worthless reading if your focused intent is to murder.

 

[Jolynna]

If you are looking for a chloroform recipe you only need to visit the site once or twice. Shoot, you could memorize the recipe because it's relatively simple. Makes no sense at all.

Maybe ICA got a thrill from looking at the site and visualizing what was to come. Ideation (imagining or fantasizing about) is often a first step to an action.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Anybody could just simply search "How to kill somebody" and you will get stacks of stuff. You don't have to dance around reading about ruptured spleens or chest trauma. If you know you are going to delete your search anyway - just go for that one. Info about those specific things won't even tell you how to do it in order to kill someone. It's all backwards worthless reading if your focused intent is to murder.

You're right, I was just trying to come up with some way those searches might make sense. Wasn't there also a search for a certain kind of shovel? I don't recall the specifics, but it seems like I remember it had something to do with causing someone harm.

 

[Hot Dogs]

IIRC, these were the only deleted searches on the computer for 4.5 years off of firefox which wasn't the normal search engine. That is what made them stand out.

OK. I guess my point is a rhetorical question. Is there inherent bias in only showing these deleted searches and not showing ALL searches? I mean, there might have been 100 other undeleted searches that suggest the exact opposite of a young woman planning to kill her daughter. A list that when read would give you serious doubts that you have a scheming child killer at the keyboard.

 

[sappysoul]

Sappysoul, I like your avatar. Are you the artist?

No, not my work. It is my favorite author, David Foster Wallace, and I really liked the sketch. I'm working on sketching the human face but I'm not nearly that good...YET

 

[octobermoon]

Anybody could just simply search "How to kill somebody" and you will get stacks of stuff. You don't have to dance around reading about ruptured spleens or chest trauma. If you know you are going to delete your search anyway - just go for that one. Info about those specific things won't even tell you how to do it in order to kill someone. It's all backwards worthless reading if your focused intent is to murder.

BBM

LOL that is how she rolls....:innocent:

 

[cecybeans]

OK. I guess my point is a rhetorical question. Is there inherent bias in only showing these deleted searches and not showing ALL searches? I mean, there might have been 100 other undeleted searches that suggest the exact opposite of a young woman planning to kill her daughter. A list that when read would give you serious doubts that you have a scheming child killer at the keyboard.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the searches her parents did were the most benign, having to do with yard work, etc. And they are on the other browser. As were perhaps some of her own searches. I think we can imagine herswere mostly social network type things on both IE and Firefox.

But the logic here is not a matter of the volume of innocent searches outweighing the nefarious ones. It's the fact that searches involving ways to sedate people into unconsciousness in the same context as ways of inflicting bodily harm were all done simultaneously and exclusively on the browser she used and she deleted the entire browser immediately after YM left the house that first night. That shows she realized how they could be utilized to infer guilt even though they were done several months earlier, and at this stage of the game LE had been told her daughter was kidnapped. It was a calculated coverup, imo due to her complete cognizance of what they could represent. If they were that innocent, why would she have even remembered them to begin with, much less immediately wiped them off the computer along with the browser she used to search them?

 

[Chilly Willy]

OK. I guess my point is a rhetorical question. Is there inherent bias in only showing these deleted searches and not showing ALL searches? I mean, there might have been 100 other undeleted searches that suggest the exact opposite of a young woman planning to kill her daughter. A list that when read would give you serious doubts that you have a scheming child killer at the keyboard.

If there are warm and fuzzy mommy and daughter searches, the defense should have their own expert to tell us about them. I don't expect that to happen.