Anthony's Computer Forensics

New Posts

Originally Posted by Never4GetCaylee View Post
Appreciate a little help here. My brother doesn't follow the case, he calls me every day for a little update, but he isn't watching the trial or HLN or anything. So after I got done ranting about Cindy and basically explained what happened, he asked if there actually were searches for chlorophyl (sp?) on the computer? I can't remember ever hearing one or the other...so does anyone know if they found Google searches ... or I guess even Yahoo searches for Chlorophyl? And if so...wouldn't it show the date and time? And if not, wouldn't that negate basically everything Cindy said today? I would love to know...I hate when my brother comes up with something I didn't think of!
Click to expand...

I don't recall seeing any searches for "Chlorophyll" in the released documents.

Originally Posted by Never4GetCaylee View Post
I don't recall it either...so, isn't that all the SA would have to show? Next computer expert......"Were there any searches for Chlorophyl on the Anthony computer?" .... Answer: "No" ... SA: "Thank you I have no more questions."
Click to expand...
 
LOL, sometimes the obvious can stare us right in the face and we still don't see it... vey good question.
 
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.
Click to expand...

And it should never have been the only things deleted!
 
What about searches for bamboo leaves or poisonious plants or dog poisoning????? Sheesh! I cannot believe no one saw this coming!
 
I was wondering the same thing, if chlorophyll was searched because Cindy said that when she STARTED to google search chlorophyll it gave her the option to search chloroform. She told Linda that if they'd go back and find her chlorophyll search they'd find where she looked at chloroform, but what is she really saying. Is she saying that she started to type in chlorophyll, she either mistakenly or purposely went to chloroform instead?

I still wonder just what was wrong with that dog. It must have been a very tired and sleepy dog to make Cindy think that something had drugged it.
 
OneLostGrl said:
And it should never have been the only things deleted!
Click to expand...

One thing I realized when I listened again was this was a large file March 4-March 21. It is very unusual for a file that large to be 100% intact. Normally when files are deleted they are written over as we use the computer. Meaning no one used the owner profile browser Firefox much if any after the deletion. So while they can't tell us the date of deletion it had to be close to the time of KC's arrest. Yeah, I know JWG told us this years ago.
 
I'm no tech expert but it seems that Jose was pointing out the mistakes between 2 reports that showed differences between 84 hits for Chloroform and Myspace. Jose pointed out that each different day that Myspace was visited, that the number of 'hits' to that site increased as the date increased. (81, 82, 83, 84)

Wouldn't this mean that Myspace (or even search for Chloroform..whatever that site is called..I forget) would probably have been visited a TOTAL of 84 times in the time period that they were searching and not 84 times in the same day in a very short period of time????

This has been bugging me all day..none of the media (of course) is speculating on this. This just makes more sense to me...and if they could mess something like those two things up with the searches, then what else is wrong because of their parameters set in the two programs??????

Did I understand correctly or am I totally off track.?:waitasec:
 
 
momtective said:
Hoping maybe someone here can answer this question. Is there any evidence that the word "Chlorophyll" was ever searched on the A's computer? I don't remember seeing it in any of the released documents.
Click to expand...

Gotta ask JWG about that.
 
benjaminfpierce said:
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.
Click to expand...

We have the originals someplace.. don't we.. somebody? I know JWG had everything in order to get all the info he has.. maybe msg him and ask where he got it or if he still has it and would send it to you?
 
Soulmagent said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah but did you run and delete your search history for ONLY those items (leaving the previous 4 years history intact) after the police knocked on your door asking about your husband's hit and run? There's the difference
 
I'm just curious about this that I heard on the Joy B. show.

Well, look it all sounds very funny but there are some very legitimate reasons for that testimony. And then for the witnesses that followed and that was that the defense attorneys in this case believe that they have found a glitch in some of the software that was used to process these facts and numbers. And that is that perhaps the Web site Sci-Spot that was claimed in the prosecution`s case to be have been visited for chloroform searches 84 times was actually MySpace. That the columns didn`t match up in both of those programs.

One program might be right. One program might be wrong. But clearly one of those software programs shows that 84 visits to MySpace happened instead of 84 visits to Sci-Spot. So I think that`s actually very powerful testimony for the defense in this case.
Click to expand...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1106/23/joy.01.html

It makes no difference to me about her being guilty of murder. But I just want to know the truth of the matter. If this is accurate, we might see the defense bring this out in the next week or so. Anyone hear of this before? TIA.
 
OneLostGrl said:
It happens... more than most people know or like to admit to themselves. It's exactly why I stopped supporting the death penalty- I used to be a huge advocate for it.. no more.


http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/nc-crime-lab-accused-hiding-doctoring-evidence-doctoring-evidence-convictions-north-carolina-prosecutors-death-penalty-wronlgy-convicted-11432582


http://abcnews.go.com/WN/fbi-north-carolina-crime-lab-buried-blood-evidence/story?id=11431980

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/sfpd_crime_lab_dna_scandal/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/nyregion/18statepolice.html

http://voiceofdetroit.net/?p=7930
Click to expand...

I feel the same way. Those articles are horrifying.

I'll admit that I don't understand the technical info posted here, but have I gleaned correctly that the "84 site visits" evidence has been proven wrong? If so, it sounds like something that could result in a mistrial or certainly an appeal if convicted. In other words, it sounds pretty darn serious to me. Though I still think the chloroform issue is a red herring and therefore never put much stock in the computer searches, the state has certainly made it out to be key evidence.

If it's the result of the analyst's mistake--which is what it sounds like, if I'm reading this thread correctly--I'm actually angry at the defense. If you guys could figure this out so quickly, surely a good defense lawyer should be able to point it out clearly to the jury somehow. (Or was it clear? Or is it still to come? I honestly didn't watch the computer testimony today; I'm operating totally on hearsay!) It certainly doesn't exonerate Casey, but it sounds like such a serious flaw in the state's case that it could throw everything into doubt.

I just don't think a verdict means anything if the jury has been misinformed on any issue.
 
OneLostGrl said:
Gotta ask JWG about that.
Click to expand...

"Chlorophyll" or some close variant of that word are not found anywhere in the discovery that has been released to the public. A copy of the hard drive has not been released to the public.
 
OneLostGrl said:
We have the originals someplace.. don't we.. somebody? I know JWG had everything in order to get all the info he has.. maybe msg him and ask where he got it or if he still has it and would send it to you?
Click to expand...

The original, raw files have not been released. We have only seen comma-delimited files, In the case of the file recovered from unallocated space, that file was further filtered to only include entries with the term "google" in them. The "sci-spot" entry, for example, is not in that file and was new news to me.
 
benjaminfpierce said:
Honestly, it makes a bit more sense that the 84 was for Myspace. Why would someone search "How to" if they had a bookmark to the sci-spot page?

However, I often use Google to search just to navigate to a page. It may have been her top visited link from Google's index during that time and that's how she navigated to the page even though maybe she had a bookmark too.

But it sorta makes more sense it is a Myspace count from what I heard today.

The state and the OSCO computer guy sounds like they could have made a mistake. Or, the other program could be wrong. But using the Dork.exe you can easily tell which one is correct.

Ashton should be made aware of this information. I've emailed John Bradley about it but I don't know if anyone is going to listen to me. Mr. Bradley probably doesn't want to know how easy it would have been to find this information. He could be embarassed, especially if he coded his parser wrong.
Click to expand...

The 84 visits were not to the search of "how to". They were to the results of the search - "sci-spot". Or to myspace. But "how to" was not searched 84 times.
 
H ow does cindy know or remember that she went to a site talking about seaweed algae producing chloroform. Wonder if the dt is telling her . She did not mention finding anything else about chloroform, but was not asked either.
 
3doglady said:
One thing I realized when I listened again was this was a large file March 4-March 21. It is very unusual for a file that large to be 100% intact. Normally when files are deleted they are written over as we use the computer. Meaning no one used the owner profile browser Firefox much if any after the deletion. So while they can't tell us the date of deletion it had to be close to the time of KC's arrest. Yeah, I know JWG told us this years ago.
Click to expand...

It was also noted in the computer report that the file must have been deleted very close to the time of the computer being seized.
 
JWG said:
The 84 visits were not to the search of "how to". They were to the results of the search - "sci-spot". Or to myspace. But "how to" was not searched 84 times.
Click to expand...

The Sci-spot page is a how-to and the sci-spot page was not a search. John Bradley said it was a direct link either typed in, pasted in or from a bookmark. There was no REFERER or any prior request (search results) that contained that link. Everyone keeps saying search, search, not every HTTP request is a search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 65 more.
Total: 3,705 (members: 66, guests: 3,639)

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
3,639
Total visitors
3,705
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,547
Messages
17,970,826
Members
228,807
Latest member
Buffalosleuther
Back
Top