Anthony's Computer Forensics

Yep, I'm looking at the two displays in the report right now. But I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the graphic was reduced to "percent". I don't think we can do that. We can only say how many files were accessed every 20 minutes.

Does that make sense? (I hope so.)
 
P.S. But the good news is (once you guys get the potential time shift thingy resolved), we have granularity down to 20 minute intervals.
 
Yep, I'm looking at the two displays in the report right now. But I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the graphic was reduced to "percent". I don't think we can do that. We can only say how many files were accessed every 20 minutes.

Does that make sense? (I hope so.)
*bold by me*

I'll defer to JWG, but, based on past comments from him and some others I think they'll agree w/ you. One suggestion was that the % was a relative to a historical max...but I dunno. Maybe...maybe not.
 
Here is some more information that will be helpful in interpreting the two graphs. (Again, my apologies if I'm posting stuff already discussed.)

# Light-gray squares indicate a Last Accessed Date/Time stamp for a file.
# Medium-gray squares indicate a Last Written Date/Time stamp for a file.
# Dark-gray squares indicate a Creation Date/Time stamp for a file.

A gray box with three dots I a row indicates that there are too many files there to list in the space given.

[Edit: Inserting source of information http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache...imeline+daily+view&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]

That last statement is important. Let's take 1:00 p.m. (1300) on 6/16 for the desktop. Currently you have nothing listed as activity. But if you will look midway down the graph, there is the box with the ... 1 (or if you guys prove it was 2) was an EXTREMELY busy time on the desktop. There were so many files accessed that it couldn't fit on the display...hence the ...

Same thing on 2 pm and 3 pm of the 17th. I've grabbed a screencap off the desktop graphic and circled the ...'s for you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Valhall/desktopactivity.jpg

P.S. I went ahead and made one for the laptop graph as well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Valhall/laptopactivity.jpg
 
Okay, I just noticed something. Now that we have the error fixed due to the ... business, the laptop shows intense activity between 3 and 4 pm on the 17th. SO!!!! I do not believe there is any time error on the EnCase report!!

Because now KC's laptop activity that we know about falls within the range where there were large amounts of file activity.
 
*bold by me*

I'll defer to JWG, but, based on past comments from him and some others I think they'll agree w/ you. One suggestion was that the % was a relative to a historical max...but I dunno. Maybe...maybe not.

Kinda busy right now but I will say ... Yes, be careful with the %'s I quoted way back that have been used over and over in subsequent posts.

What I did was, for each time period for both computers, is count the number of boxes and put that number in a spreadsheet. The slot with the most boxes was 9-10PM on the 17th on the laptop. I arbitrarily assigned that as 100%, and everything else is relative to that. For example, 8-9PM on the 17th on the laptop had 131 boxes, which is 44%.

Hope that helps to clarify some things.
 
Here is some more information that will be helpful in interpreting the two graphs. (Again, my apologies if I'm posting stuff already discussed.)

# Light-gray squares indicate a Last Accessed Date/Time stamp for a file.
# Medium-gray squares indicate a Last Written Date/Time stamp for a file.
# Dark-gray squares indicate a Creation Date/Time stamp for a file.

A gray box with three dots I a row indicates that there are too many files there to list in the space given.

[Edit: Inserting source of information http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:C8O80z9tdosJ:faculty.colostate-pueblo.edu/dawn.spencer/Cis462/Homework/Ch2/Work%2520a%2520Case%2520with%2520EnCase.doc+encase+enscript+timeline+daily+view&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us]

That last statement is important. Let's take 1:00 p.m. (1300) on 6/16 for the desktop. Currently you have nothing listed as activity. But if you will look midway down the graph, there is the box with the ... 1 (or if you guys prove it was 2) was an EXTREMELY busy time on the desktop. There were so many files accessed that it couldn't fit on the display...hence the ...

Same thing on 2 pm and 3 pm of the 17th. I've grabbed a screencap off the desktop graphic and circled the ...'s for you.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Valhall/desktopactivity.jpg

P.S. I went ahead and made one for the laptop graph as well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v476/Valhall/laptopactivity.jpg


I see what you are saying Val...I had always thought that was crud / noise due to poor photocopy quality. I will need to look at this more closely tonight.

Thanks for digging out the reference. Took a very quick glance and it looks useful, so if my demo copy of EnCase never arrives, I have that to fall back on!
 
. . .IMHO KC did not do anything with chloroform. However, the searches did plant a seed on how to deal with her "Caylee problem". :furious:

"What was the problem JWG", you ask? :waitasec:

IMHO, Caylee was napping inconsistently. She would not go down easily. Her changing sleep patterns were causing her to behave poorly at times (it is what we used to call the "terrible twos"). While KC could foist Caylee off on Cindy many nights, daytime was KC's problem.

She read the parenting books and the advice to hold the line on tantrums. Then, as she is researching chloroform for a completely unrelated reason, she notices the Google ad-sense ad that says: Get Your Baby to Sleep.

View attachment 3203

About 2 months later KC and Caylee both get sick, see the doctor, and get meds. KC discovers the meds...help...Caylee...sleep.
. . . .

I want to preface my comments by pleading computer illiteracy--well, semi-illiteracy at best--so that i don't come across as rude or impertinent.
And while I marvel at your ability to do all that searching and even convert your findings into numeric "facts," i.e. percentages, and reach your
conclusion which I bolded above, I must ask, Why does this lead you to opine that. . ."KC did not do anything with chloroform?"

Other possibilities occur to me about how she might have acquired knowledge of a vaporous substance surely known to medical personnel
for anesthetic properties. Sitting across the breakfast table, she could just ask her mom who might pour out information. . .so that Google
by contrast would be a boring ordeal.

Similarly, as to your last sentence which I've italicized, this defendant wouldn't need to "get sick" to have the lightbulb go off about meds.
She lived with a health care professional!

I totally agree that she was in the the throes of the normally occurring separation-individuation conflict with a child of 2+ years, a conflict which
does manifest in both mother and child, and that this had to be--in her own words--"exhausting," but why would the "two-months-later" doctor visit
be the first time it occurred to her that medication helps a child sleep. . .unless the physician specifically prescribed a psychopharmacologic
substance, such as a sedative, or suggested OTC cough elixir with alcohol base. . .? (One might also expect that there was just plain old ethanol
around the house in the form of wine, beer, etc.) I don't even recall the type illness without going back & researching, so I'll rely on clarification
from you. Thanks!
 
I have a question concerning the laptop. Do you guys think KC left it at the Anthony house when she left on the 16th? It shows no activity indicative of user activity all day of the 16th and all the way until 2 p.m. the 17th. That's when you guys' ping analysis show her back in the vicinity of the Anthony home. Curiously, the desktop activity skyrockets during the 2 to 3 pm period as well. Since George appears to have not left prior to about 2:45 on his work days, I would assume the 2 to 3 activity on the desktop is George.

This is an important question to me because if KC did leave her laptop and came back to get it at the Anthony house on the 17th, then George saw her that day. If that's so (of course, it's just speculation right now), why hasn't he admitted that? Also curious, is that this is the day that when CA got home from work, she found the gate open, the pool supply box moved over by the pool, and the ladder in the pool.
 
It appears they split each hour into 3 20-minute intervals and then place the files into the respective 20 minute time sector. I'll get back with you in a bit on this. Please ignore me if I'm telling you something you already know. :p

Hi Val...

I think what you are saying is that the data for each hour is represented by a "bar" comprising three columns and any number of rows. Your interpretation is that each column in the bar is a 20-minute window? Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

If that is how you are looking at it, I don't believe that they have split each hour into (3) 20-minute segments. To me it looks like they create a bar by starting with row 1, column 1 for and they note the first access there. Row 1 column 2 records the second access. Row 1 column 3 records the third access. Row 2 column 1 records the fourth access. And so on.

I think this is how the graph is constructed based on the fact that only the last row ever varies in the number of filled locations.

However, if you are seeing things differently or have some documentation that shows otherwise, I'd be happy to crawl through it.
 
Hi Val...

I think what you are saying is that the data for each hour is represented by a "bar" comprising three columns and any number of rows. Your interpretation is that each column in the bar is a 20-minute window? Please correct me if I am wrong on this.

If that is how you are looking at it, I don't believe that they have split each hour into (3) 20-minute segments. To me it looks like they create a bar by starting with row 1, column 1 for and they note the first access there. Row 1 column 2 records the second access. Row 1 column 3 records the third access. Row 2 column 1 records the fourth access. And so on.

I think this is how the graph is constructed based on the fact that only the last row ever varies in the number of filled locations.

However, if you are seeing things differently or have some documentation that shows otherwise, I'd be happy to crawl through it.

I don't have the definitive answer, but I have a reason to believe that how you are interpreting may not be correct. So I'll lay out why I believe the columns are temporal instead of file based.

Okay, going off your idea we have the top row of the laptop activity beginning at 2 pm (1400) June 17th. If we stick with your idea we either have to decide that : 1. The "three part row" for that hour is depicting the last action committed to that file (i.e. creation, access, modification), or 2. it is depicting subsequent actions to that file.

So let's take 2 pm the 17th first row. And let's go with the three row depict the last action on the file: Row 1 shows three blocks "dark", so that file was created at or after 2 pm and the three files show that's all that happened to it. But we run into a problem as we go down the columns. Let's move down that timeframe to about halfway between the first row and the row where the preceding timeframe's "..." is circled. We have a file that has been clearly "created" in the first column, in the second column, but in the third column it is NOT created. It is either accessed or modified. It is discernibly lighter in the third column. So the three columns can't be depicting "the last action" of a file.

Now let's move to the theory that the three columns are depicting different actions to the SAME file. So they log all actions to a given file across a row. Let's take the first row...that file is "created" three times in one hour, which could be true if it was an isolated incident, but there are too many incidences of this occurring as we move down the columns for this time frame.

Lastly, the statement "only the last row varies in the number of filled locations" is incorrect. I direct you to the times 1400, 1900 and 2200 on the laptop graph. The last TWO rows vary from the first on all three of those.

We need to answer this question. And I will continue to look for the answer on it. Because I think it could benefit us greatly if we find out the columns are 20 minute intervals. If they are not, I still believe there is great benefit in the graph...for sure!
 
I think I have a mental picture worked out now that reconciles some of the inconsistencies we were seeing, and brought a few surprises to me.

First, a BIG TY to Valhall :clap: for closely reading the Photobucket investigative report and for finding the link to "Work a Case with EnCase" which answered a number of nagging questions I had about the software. Some still remain because all we have are two pages of grainy black-and-white bar graphs, but that link helped immensely. :thumb:

Val's info straightened me out in a couple of areas. First, the Photobucket timestamps are Mountain Time and not Central Time. Way back when I created Photobucket upload graphs (before investigative material had been released), I had assumed the timestamps were Eastern Time. When the Photobucket investigative report was released, included were materials from Bright House Networks (the ISP provider for the Anthony's and for Tony) listing events in Central Time. I assumed then that the uploads were in Central Time. Notice I assumed twice...and we know that when one assumes, they make an :butthead: out of you and me.

This means I have a bit of work to do ... I need to go back and fix my Photobucket upload graphs. :bang:

The big thing I learned is that the three dots in several slots of the encase graphs are not noise found in a poor-quality image...they are real and significant data. I had thought those slots indicated no computer activity. Instead, they indicate extremely heavy computer activity.

IMHO, the 17th becomes a significant and rather twisted day of activity at the Anthony home. :crazy:

Val's link here shows a red line when George was at work, but she notes it ignores his commute time. I think we need to consider that as well as the fact that George often left home even earlier to run some errands. Thus, on the 17th, I believe George was gone well before 2:30 PM.

KC pings from the Anthony home by 2:30 PM, and she could have been there as early as 2:25 PM. She leaves between 4:05 PM and 4:10 PM.

Encase shows light to moderate use of the desktop from 12 to 1 and then very light use from 1 to 2 PM. I believe this was George, and the density of activity indicates he got off the computer shortly after 1 PM. (BTW, there is a record of him doing job searching from 11 to 12 that morning and this does not show up in EnCase...this is one example of why Bond thinks there is a 1-hour shift in the EnCase report)

Assuming for now EnCase does not need time shifting (maybe the cookies need it)....

The activity from 2 -3 PM on the desktop is through the roof. This implies that once KC arrived at the home, she powered up the system and went solidly to work. Activity on the laptop, while not "though the roof" is very, very high. She may be doing a mass-copy from one system to the other.

From 3 - 4 PM the activity on both systems is "though the roof", further validating a mass-copy is underway.

From 4 - 5 PM the desktop is quiet and the laptop activity is rather light, indicating some activity up to a few minutes after 4 and then a shutdown.

Cell ping indications from KC and Tony's phone, along with Tony's testimony, tell us that KC left her parents shortly after 4PM to meet Tony at a house he and three buddies were considering renting. KC drove Tony back to his apartment in her car, making this the only time Tony rode in her car after Caylee went missing.

What was surprising to me was that, according to neighbor Brian B., the 17th was one of the three days he noticed KC had backed into the garage. I had assumed (there I go again :rolleyes:) this meant she was spending time trying to deal with the body.

Instead, computer activity and cell phone activity tell us she was doing something else entirely.
:mad:
 
I think I have a mental picture worked out now that reconciles some of the inconsistencies we were seeing, and brought a few surprises to me.

First, a BIG TY to Valhall :clap: for closely reading the Photobucket investigative report and for finding the link to "Work a Case with EnCase" which answered a number of nagging questions I had about the software. Some still remain because all we have are two pages of grainy black-and-white bar graphs, but that link helped immensely. :thumb:

Val's info straightened me out in a couple of areas. First, the Photobucket timestamps are Mountain Time and not Central Time. Way back when I created Photobucket upload graphs (before investigative material had been released), I had assumed the timestamps were Eastern Time. When the Photobucket investigative report was released, included were materials from Bright House Networks (the ISP provider for the Anthony's and for Tony) listing events in Central Time. I assumed then that the uploads were in Central Time. Notice I assumed twice...and we know that when one assumes, they make an :butthead: out of you and me.

This means I have a bit of work to do ... I need to go back and fix my Photobucket upload graphs. :bang:

The big thing I learned is that the three dots in several slots of the encase graphs are not noise found in a poor-quality image...they are real and significant data. I had thought those slots indicated no computer activity. Instead, they indicate extremely heavy computer activity.

IMHO, the 17th becomes a significant and rather twisted day of activity at the Anthony home. :crazy:

Val's link here shows a red line when George was at work, but she notes it ignores his commute time. I think we need to consider that as well as the fact that George often left home even earlier to run some errands. Thus, on the 17th, I believe George was gone well before 2:30 PM.

KC pings from the Anthony home by 2:30 PM, and she could have been there as early as 2:25 PM. She leaves between 4:05 PM and 4:10 PM.

Encase shows light to moderate use of the desktop from 12 to 1 and then very light use from 1 to 2 PM. I believe this was George, and the density of activity indicates he got off the computer shortly after 1 PM. (BTW, there is a record of him doing job searching from 11 to 12 that morning and this does not show up in EnCase...this is one example of why Bond thinks there is a 1-hour shift in the EnCase report)

Assuming for now EnCase does not need time shifting (maybe the cookies need it)....

The activity from 2 -3 PM on the desktop is through the roof. This implies that once KC arrived at the home, she powered up the system and went solidly to work. Activity on the laptop, while not "though the roof" is very, very high. She may be doing a mass-copy from one system to the other.

From 3 - 4 PM the activity on both systems is "though the roof", further validating a mass-copy is underway.

From 4 - 5 PM the desktop is quiet and the laptop activity is rather light, indicating some activity up to a few minutes after 4 and then a shutdown.

Cell ping indications from KC and Tony's phone, along with Tony's testimony, tell us that KC left her parents shortly after 4PM to meet Tony at a house he and three buddies were considering renting. KC drove Tony back to his apartment in her car, making this the only time Tony rode in her car after Caylee went missing.

What was surprising to me was that, according to neighbor Brian B., the 17th was one of the three days he noticed KC had backed into the garage. I had assumed (there I go again :rolleyes:) this meant she was spending time trying to deal with the body.

Instead, computer activity and cell phone activity tell us she was doing something else entirely.
:mad:
I sure would like to know what she was searching for on the computer on the 17th...

Maybe she was planning, when she first backed in to the garage, to do something with the body...then got on the computer and lost focus ?
 
JWG... I just have to say thank you...you're always there to answer the "bat call".
 
I can't wait to see how your refined data comes out, JWG. Kudos to you!!! I would like us to get the question resolved as to the "three columns" under each hour. I think that will help us not go astray (as I can tend to easily do) using this important data.

I don't remember reading any interviews in which GA is questioned about his movements on the 17th, but if some one remembers that, please post it! Maybe it can help to eliminate some real concerns I have right now. Because I definitely have some.

Depending on what we find out on the interpretation of the "three columns" (and where George was at the time) I am starting to be swayed that the concurrent high activity on the two computers may have been KC transferring files.
 
I sure would like to know what she was searching for on the computer on the 17th...

Maybe she was planning, when she first backed in to the garage, to do something with the body...then got on the computer and lost focus ?

I doubt there was any searching.

As her daughter lied rotting in the trunk, KC was copying the all-important icons and party pictures from the desktop to the laptop. Can't leave those behind now can we?

Surfing probably played a rather minor role in it all.
 
You guys are awesome! I feel honored to be able to read and follow your work! :bow::bow::bow:

I would think that if she was not planning on returning to the A home, there would be lots and lots of stuff to transfer from the desktop to the laptop. Not just her own files, but also any other stuff of CA or GA. (I think she was quite aware of GA's website searches/activities)
 
I can't wait to see how your refined data comes out, JWG. Kudos to you!!! I would like us to get the question resolved as to the "three columns" under each hour. I think that will help us not go astray (as I can tend to easily do) using this important data.

I don't remember reading any interviews in which GA is questioned about his movements on the 17th, but if some one remembers that, please post it! Maybe it can help to eliminate some real concerns I have right now. Because I definitely have some.

Depending on what we find out on the interpretation of the "three columns" (and where George was at the time) I am starting to be swayed that the concurrent high activity on the two computers may have been KC transferring files.

I know where you are coming from Val. Just to let you know where I am coming from, here are the general rules I am operating under when it comes to the Anthony's:

KC: No idea when she is lying or not. Need to apply the laugh test. Need to look for inconsistencies. Assume lies before truths.

Cindy: Honest effort put forth before KC was taken into custody. After KC was taken into custody the gravity of the situation hit her: she might lose two and not just one. Went into coverup mode.

George and Lee: As honest as their memories allow when Cindy is not around or when they feel Cindy will not find out. All other times they are in appease-Cindy-mode. They knew during the ZFG civil case depositions Cindy would see them within 24 hours, so they chose to look like asses rather than defend Caylee.

Bottom line is nothing says to me George had any involvement. He loved Caylee deeply.
 
Bottom line is nothing says to me George had any involvement. He loved Caylee deeply.

*cropped to the point*

I ABSOLUTELY 100% agree. I do not, for one second, believe George had anything to do with Caylee's death. My concerns lie with whether George, when being confronted (hypothetically speaking) with the death of his granddaughter, and with his daughter standing there saying it was an accident, may have let his love, protectionism and fatherhood take over and assisted in a cover-up.

I do NOT believe George had any part in Caylee's death.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
476
Total visitors
560

Forum statistics

Threads
596,479
Messages
18,048,397
Members
230,011
Latest member
Ms.Priss74
Back
Top