Anthony's Computer Forensics

[ladylurker]

i think post 531 in this thread, by JWG, is worth a re-read!!!! explains a lot about user accounts, who usually used what sites, other very interesting info and some interesting conclusions. now i have to find the post JWG posted on valhall's blog that is referenced here.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4793742&postcount=531"]link[/ame]

found it while digging around in search of info on chloroform searches and when they were done and who was home at the time... which i am still looking for. i am really bad at conducting searches, what can i say.

 

[Chewy]

Okay, to prove it, I just Googled Chloroform- none of the suggestions were for Chlorophyll!!! All of the suggestions contained the exact spelling of Chloroform-including reference to the Casey Anthony trial!

Grrr angry lady. :blushing:That's if you spelled it correctly.


If you go to Google right now and type in clorof

The first drop down suggestion is chloroform

Showing results for chloroform. Search instead for clorof

try it.

 

[chicklet]

I respectfully disagree. The evidence and testimony in this case absolutely matters to most people that post here. It's just that none of the evidence or testimony has come anywhere close to disproving the state's case....and people say Cindy lied because she DID. She blatantly changed her testimony on the stand today from what she has said previously regarding whether or not she was at work or home during those internet searches.




jmo

I have to disagree with you. I only followed this case for the first few weeks and did not obsessively follow it or form any opinions about what occurred. I have been watching this trial as someone who is completely unbiased. I don't feel the state has proven their case and there are more holes in their case than swiss cheese. I also strongly feel that the judge is showing clear bias against the defense and that his rulings has seriously nerfed the defense from being able to adequately defend their client. I also feel that JA is over the top, has repeatedly badgered witnesses, behaved entirely inappropriately. I don't think KC will be convicted and if she is I am 100% certain it will be reversed for the reasons I stated above.

 

[Turnadot]

Because to most people who post here the testimony and evidence don't matter in this case unless it supports burning KC at the stake, at least that is my observation.

No. The evidence and testimony are all that matters, everything else is speculation.

Cindy stated earlier wrt the searches that she was at work during those hours, now today she says she must have been home, because if there were searches done, then she made them.

It can't be both. Her work records put her at work.

Either she lied back then, or she's lying now. It's hard to tell anymore.

And when asked before, she claimed to have searched for chlorophyll and perhaps chloroform was auto-filled. However, the search was actually: how to make chloroform.

That indicates a deliberate search, to me. I find Cindy's testimony suspect - all of them.

Others may have a different opinion.

If the State screwed this up and it was Cindy who made the searches, then that should come out. I hope this can be cleared up and put to bed.

 

[GennyMac]

Because to most people who post here the testimony and evidence don't matter in this case unless it supports burning KC at the stake, at least that is my observation.

I very respectfully disagree with the above assertion. Having read every single transcript of every single LEO interview, FBI interview, Deposition and having watched and re-watched every single Media interview given by CA I could find - I feel confident in saying CA in fact did lie on the stand today.

CA has consistently misled, restated, altered or tried to mangle every statement she has made which could be used to indicate potential guilt of ICA. You cannot in on breath say I Did Not Do ......... then turn around 3 years later and say I Did Do ............. You cannot alter history when it has been documented through your own words.

Her statements are a matter of public record.

The evidence of all the above can easily be located within the following thread and can also be located on several of the local Orlando TV station websites: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=233"]Resource Links, Case Calendar & Time Lines - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

WFTV: http://www.wftv.com/news/23080678/detail.html

In support of your opinion, however, I will totally agree ICA is innocent until proven guilty.

One additional thought - MSM does present their commentary to increase ratings and today's testimony is definitely fodder for them.

 

[TxLady2]

She reverted to the Cindy Anthony that I have loathed for the past three years. I felt compassion for her when she was first on the stand, but she showed her true colors today. I think its possible that she will say that George did molest Casey, she did leave the ladder out, "please let my child go so I can put her back out there to create a new "Caylee" for us to fight over". She is a disgusting mother, a disgusting grandmother, and a disgusting human being. She deserves to be sitting side by side with her lying daughter in jail.

No, she's just a desperate mother who is trying to save her daughter from being put to death.You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but that's kind of stretch, that she wants Casey to have another Caylee to fight over. There will never be another Caylee. And Casey will be locked up until way past the time she could reproduce, IMO.
Cindy's words won't save Casey from the guilty verdict, but they might ensure that she gets life in prison rather than death.
Sorry, no offense intended at you... I'm just shocked that people can judge her so harshly when they have not been where she's at right now.

 

[qtc]

Grrr angry lady. :blushing:That's if you spelled it correctly.


If you go to Google right now and type in clorof

The first drop down suggestion is chloroform





try it.

But the spelling that cindy testified to doing did not contain an "F" did it?

I believe CHLOROPHILL or Chloraphill was the spelling. Trying to find the exact spelling she used...

 

[bdawk20]

I have to disagree with you. I only followed this case for the first few weeks and did not obsessively follow it or form any opinions about what occurred. I have been watching this trial as someone who is completely unbiased. I don't feel the state has proven their case and there are more holes in their case than swiss cheese. I also strongly feel that the judge is showing clear bias against the defense and that his rulings has seriously nerfed the defense from being able to adequately defend their client. I also feel that JA is over the top, has repeatedly badgered witnesses, behaved entirely inappropriately. I don't think KC will be convicted and if she is I am 100% certain it will be reversed for the reasons I stated above.

I am certainly not going to argue with you over this, we are all entitled to our own opinions, but I still believe you are incorrect in making a blanket statement that "Most people that post on here are not interested in evidence and testimony unless it burns ICA at the stake."



jmo

 

[darnudes]

With witness Sgt. Kevin Stenger on the stand today as a defense witness:

I think that the 84 visits to the Sci-spot.com site to learn how to make chloroform that's on the report made with the Cacheback software and the 84 visits to Myspace and 1 visit to Sci-spot.com from the Net Analysis sofware needs to be explained. Why don't those reports generated with 2 different software programs match?

LDB never did ask John Bradley who developed and wrote Cacheback when those 84 visits to the Sci-spot.com site that you can learn how to make chloroform occurred during direct examination when he was on the stand as a prosecution witness.

John Bradley stated on the stand that he wrote the code for cacheback and he developed the software, it is his company. Don't you remember Baez trying to say he was making money of the case because he had a blurb on his website? The State will, I believe, clarify the computer forensics when the put on their rebuttal case.

 

[GeekyGirl]

Because to most people who post here the testimony and evidence don't matter in this case unless it supports burning KC at the stake, at least that is my observation.

That might be a little harsh. I don't necessarily agree with everyone who thinks that the states case is rock solid, but those people who came into the trial believing Casey was guilty are going to interpret the evidence presented in the way that best fits their conclusion. It's not even something they do on purpose, our brains are wired that way.

 

[Turnadot]

I have to disagree with you. I only followed this case for the first few weeks and did not obsessively follow it or form any opinions about what occurred. I have been watching this trial as someone who is completely unbiased. I don't feel the state has proven their case and there are more holes in their case than swiss cheese. I also strongly feel that the judge is showing clear bias against the defense and that his rulings has seriously nerfed the defense from being able to adequately defend their client. I also feel that JA is over the top, has repeatedly badgered witnesses, behaved entirely inappropriately. I don't think KC will be convicted and if she is I am 100% certain it will be reversed for the reasons I stated above.

Interesting insights.

Are you a lawyer? I'm not, so all my opinions are lay and to be taking with a huge helping of salt.

But if you're a lawyer, I'd like to hear on what grounds Judge Perry's rulings have been clearly biased.

 

[Bunkie78]

One thing I just wanted to mention regarding Google and autofill.
I'm pretty sure Google didn't have autofill in '08.
The drop down box only contained previous searches.

 

[Hot Dogs]

IIRC, Cindy's testimony was that her search for chlorophyll was related to a pass-along email that she got saying that it was dangerous for dogs.

Her search for chloroform (and acetone, etc.) was related to some news that hand sanitizer was dangerous for children.

So her search for chloroform wasn't derived from her search for chlorophyll. They were different topics.

 

[chicklet]

I very respectfully disagree with the above assertion. Having read every single transcript of every single LEO interview, FBI interview, Deposition and having watched and re-watched every single Media interview given by CA I could find I feel confident in saying CA in fact did lie on the stand today.

CA has consistently misled, restated, altered or tried to mangle every statement she has made which could be used to indicate potential guilt of ICA. You cannot in on breath say I Did Not Do ......... then turn around 3 years later and say I Did Do ............. You cannot alter history when it has been documented through your own words.

Her statements are a matter of public record, not opinion by members of this or any other forum.

The evidence of all the above can easily be located within the following thread and can also be located on several of the local Orlando TV station websites: Resource Links, Case Calendar & Time Lines - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

WFTV: http://www.wftv.com/news/23080678/detail.html

In support of your opinion, however, I will totally agree ICA is innocent until proven guilty.

One additional thought - MSM does present their commentary to increase ratings and today's testimony is definitely fodder for them.

None of that stuff matters unless it has been admitted into evidence. Every person is entitled to a FAIR trial and sorry, but KC has not gotten one, not by any stretch of the imagination. Even if she gets convicted there is a virtual 100% chance of reversal.

 

[LinasK]

Grrr angry lady. :blushing:That's if you spelled it correctly.


If you go to Google right now and type in clorof

The first drop down suggestion is chloroform





try it.

That is how I did it. I searched "Chloroform", not Chlorophyll. And if you do do it the other way, Chloroform doesn't come up until the 3rd choice, so there's no way it was auto-fill, or she accidentally clicked on it. She:liar:.

 

[chicklet]

One thing I just wanted to mention regarding Google and autofill.
I'm pretty sure Google didn't have autofill in '08.
The drop down box only contained previous searches.

If you go to google.com and type in "chloro" in the search box you see BOTH chlorophyll and chloroform as well as a few other options. And yes, that feature was there in 2008.

 

[Turnadot]

None of that stuff matters unless it has been admitted into evidence. Every person is entitled to a FAIR trial and sorry, but KC has not gotten one, not by any stretch of the imagination. Even if she gets convicted there is a virtual 100% chance of reversal.

You're wrong there. It does matter, because past statements can be used to impeach a witness.

The most frequent ways to impeach a witness is through the use of their prior inconsistent statements or criminal records.

Citation: http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Whats-Impeachment-of-a-Witness.html

 

[SevenSeas]

None of that stuff matters unless it has been admitted into evidence. Every person is entitled to a FAIR trial and sorry, but KC has not gotten one, not by any stretch of the imagination. Even if she gets convicted there is a virtual 100% chance of reversal.

Uh, Judge Perry would repectfully disagree....

JMHO

 

[GeekyGirl]

Grrr angry lady. :blushing:That's if you spelled it correctly.


If you go to Google right now and type in clorof

The first drop down suggestion is chloroform





try it.

just food for thought, the google autocomplete suggestions may not be the same now as they were in March of 08....

 

[Wysteria]

I'm very confused.

To try and help me and clarify for me re: Cindy's testimony, suppose she was not lying? How important do you think these computers searches are? If she was lying, do you think that the SA will be able to prove it? I payed very close attention to the computer forsenics today. Also, would Cindy lie just so that the defendant did not get the death penalty? That does not make any sense to me personally. The thing is, Cindy sounded believable to me.

What I got out of LDB's cross was that whomever did those computer searches, visited MySpace in the same exact time frame. Cindy testified that she did not have a MySpace account at that time. If Cindy saw that the defendant was on the computer and wanted to use the computer( see or view testimony), she stated she'd ask the defendant for a turn.

Is it possible to switch seats in less than four (4) seconds? I'm using common sense here...when hubby is on the computer and it's "my turn", I ask first then prepare. I have a system... I get a bottle of water, my lemondrops, a cloth to clean anything on our desk, I check my desk clock to make sure it's set for my medication time...etc...

I will tell you that I got sick to my stomach when I heard Cindy testify. I did not have a mirror handy, but I betcha I turned white as a ghost.
After the OJ trial I was so distressed I promised myself I would stop following crime cases, even though my Dad introduced me to true crime and I was fascinated with all aspects of crime especially the detecting part. I didn't follow my promise and here I am again, getting ill at the thought of this defendant having a "hung" jury or walking away free.

I still and probably will feel sorry for Cindy. It's so clear she completely and absolutely adored and loved Caylee. Her precious Caylee was found in a dump site in a heavily wooded area and mostly all that was left of her beloved granddaughter was bones. Add to that her one and only daughter was charged with first degree murder and faces a punishment of death. How in the world does one cope with that?