Anthony's Computer Forensics

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Why didn't LDB ask CA to which friend she was referring about the accident ?
 
goldenlover said:
I can be on my computer talking to my sister on the telephone and she is on her computer and we both put the same word in the search and we both end up with different results.
Click to expand...

Google uses your location as part of it's search algorithm. They keep the algorithm secret, but I do know that Google gives sites more relevant to San Antonio for me. If I look up a doctor's name it will weight doctors closer to me higher than ones in other areas.
 
coloradoteacher said:
So as to the testimony today regarding myspace having an 84 next to as well and Richard Hornsby's tweet that it could have to do with how many days have passed in the year, I googled 84th day of the year and found that it should be March 25, not the 21st or 17th.
Click to expand...

March 24th in 2008 (it's a leap year)
 
Turnadot said:
The point for me is that I feel the computer forensics are worthless now. Not really because of Cindy's testimony, but as Hot Dog pointed out, it looks hinky.
Click to expand...

Right, and how many members of the jury are asking themselves what else the DA may have gotten wrong or misrepresented? Implying that Casey visited the "how to make chloroform" site 84 times when, in reality, it was only one time...that is HUGE. As a juror, I'd be wondering...did she even visit the site at all? What else did the DA get wrong? Can I trust the lab results? My head would be spinning.
 
So, does this leave us in the position of not knowing how many times the chloroform recipe site was actually viewed?

Is it possible that it was only viewed once?
 
Hoping one of our more tech savvy members would benefit from this document:

http://www.cacheback.ca/download/documents/build_history.txt

This explains upgrades and changes in the different versions of Cacheback. Depending on when the report from Cacheback was generated is it possible that odd data results might have come up as a result of bugs within the system? IDK.

To me, it doesn't matter as much. What if she only searched chloroform 1 time? Neck-Breaking 1 Time? I'd find that equally incriminating. I saw the searches and know that someone searched those things, how many times seems to be at issue, but how many times would it take to prove premeditation?
 
Hot Dogs said:
Oh great. Now people are going to say that the computer searches show that Casey slept with a guy named Julian.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL thank you... I needed that moment of levity. :)
 
rhornsby said:
Its called a Julian Date. All the number 84 means is someone visited MySpace on the 84th day of 2008, which happens to coincide to same date of search.
Click to expand...

Precisely!! But it was presented to the jury as 84 visits to the chloroform site. Baez needs to jump on that and make it clear.
 
WillenFan21 said:
She said that it was her who searched how to make Chloroform, the whole neck breaking etc and not Casey.
Click to expand...

NO< that is NOT AT ALL what she testified to. She actually said she did NOT search for neckbreaking and she did NOT type in " How to Make Chloroform."

She said she did search for Chloroform however, not 84 times.
 
rhornsby said:
Its called a Julian Date. All the number 84 means is someone visited MySpace on the 84th day of 2008, which happens to coincide to same date of search.
Click to expand...


So why is Linda asking Cindy if she searched for something 84 times? How could the State get that so wrong?
 
Why don't they just release the unallocated data so that the many computer experts available online will freely determine:

Which site was hit 84 times? Myspace or Sci-spot?
Which facebook, photobucket, & myspace profile pages were accessed?
If pets or dog was searched?

Also,

Can they get Cindy's cellphone pings? Can they cross-reference Cindy and Casey's phone records to determine that Cindy was at work and Casey was at home? If there was a phone call from home to work her work number, why would Cindy call her own number at work on that day?
 
Hot Dogs said:
So, does this leave us in the position of not knowing how many times the chloroform recipe site was actually viewed?

Is it possible that it was only viewed once?
Click to expand...

i would LOVE clarification on this as i am confused as all get-out. i thought it was testified that she had visited the site 84 times and would love more info on this.

Irish_Eyes said:
-snipped- To me, it doesn't matter as much. What if she only searched chloroform 1 time? Neck-Breaking 1 Time? I'd find that equally incriminating. I saw the searches and know that someone searched those things, how many times seems to be at issue, but how many times would it take to prove premeditation?
Click to expand...

zero, which is why i think a lot of people think this issue is kinda weaksauce.

correct me if i am wrong here but... if she did use the duct tape as the murder weapon (something i am not personally sure about), then the amount of time it would take for her to rip the duct tape would be enough for premeditation. if chloroform itself was the murder weapon (something else i am not sure about), the amount of time it would take for her to soak & place a paper towel would be enough for premeditation. were it a gun (which i'm sure it wasn't), the amount of time to pick up the gun and aim it before squeezing the trigger. there needs to be only enough time for that angel on your shoulder to say "this might not be a good idea." researching it online several times strengthens the state's case that it was premeditation, but it isn't a requirement and if the forensics are hinky then as others have said it could hurt the case.... but i was not aware of the hinkiness of said forensics myself, so i think i don't really know what i'm talking about, possibly ever. :innocent:

Chilly Willy said:
She probably did....84 times.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
alwaysonmymind said:
So why is Linda asking Cindy if she searched for something 84 times? How could the State get that so wrong?
Click to expand...

Some might call it a rush to judgement.

It's apparently so juicy and mind-blowing that you don't even confirm that it is actually true.
 
I'm getting really tired of the misinformation.

Not everything is searched. Sometimes people bookmark pages or type them.

From the state's expert John Bradley made clear that the sci-spot page was not from a search, it was either typed in or pasted in the address or used from a bookmark.

Firefox history files do record counters for total number of times a site is visited. It maybe a coincidence it was both 84 julian date and 84 times in the counter. It may also be that he determined this incorrectly myspace/sci-spot.com but the data is still there and they will be able to tell.

The thing that I'm fairly certain of is that the sci-spot.com page was from a bookmark because there was no RERFER. It was not a link clicked from a previous page. This is what the experts said.
 
rhornsby said:
Its called a Julian Date. All the number 84 means is someone visited MySpace on the 84th day of 2008, which happens to coincide to same date of search.
Click to expand...
Omg, how could the State F this up so badly?
 
ladylurker said:
i would LOVE clarification on this as i am confused as all get-out. i thought it was testified that she had visited the site 84 times and would love more info on this.
Click to expand...

This seems to be an error that spanned across numerous prosecution witnesses who worked on the computer forensics. If this kind of an error were committed by the defense, lots of people would say it was intentional.
 
ladylurker said:
i would LOVE clarification on this as i am confused as all get-out. i thought it was testified that she had visited the site 84 times and would love more info on this.



zero, which is why i think a lot of people think this issue is kinda weaksauce.

correct me if i am wrong here but... if she did use the duct tape as the murder weapon (something i am not personally sure about), then the amount of time it would take for her to rip the duct tape would be enough for premeditation. if chloroform itself was the murder weapon (something else i am not sure about), the amount of time it would take for her to soak & place a paper towel would be enough for premeditation. were it a gun (which i'm sure it wasn't), the amount of time to pick up the gun and aim it before squeezing the trigger. there needs to be only enough time for that angel on your shoulder to say "this might not be a good idea." researching it online several times strengthens the state's case that it was premeditation, but it isn't a requirement and if the forensics are hinky then as others have said it could hurt the case.... but i was not aware of the hinkiness of said forensics myself, so i think i don't really know what i'm talking about, possibly ever. :innocent:



:lol:
Click to expand...

It doesn't negate any belief a person might have about premeditation (or aggravated child abuse) in terms of the duct tape, but I tend to believe there are a lot of us on here that just want to know the truth. IMO the state really confused the issue with the chloroform angle, and it's always been a point that I've had a hard time believing. MOO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 648 (members: 127, guests: 521)

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
521
Total visitors
648
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,358
Messages
18,238,207
Members
234,353
Latest member
Motherofvoids16
Back
Top