2012.11.20 WKMG/Tony Pipitone Special Report - AZlawyer & JWG interviewed

[dizzychick]

I cannot imagine as many eyes that have followed this case that none of us saw that phrase so I am guessing since the state didnt have it this evidence was not published. And the cop investigator said she was not asked to look for suffication, well I would think you would be looking at everything not any one word or phrase so that answer sounds a little strange. This tells you how behind the state was in looking into a computer records. I see a house cleaning in their future...

 

[sayd]

I knew that JWG and Tony Pipitone had tried to get the hard drive images (both desktop and laptop) from the SA office before, but were unsuccessful. I tried that way first, just to see what would happen. I learned that the SA did not have the hard drives, so they could not provide images. I then made a public records request to OCSO for the hard drives, and learned that OCSO did have the hard drives, but could not simply turn over the imaged hard drives without redacting private information unrelated to the case, which would have been impossible. OCSO suggested as an alternative just sending me the internet history files, and I said that would be fine, but I wanted all the internet history files, not just the ones previously released to the media. By that time, OCSO had figured out how to extract the internet history files that Linda had been looking for pretrial :banghead:, so I got all of them. I then sent the files to JWG to run through the forensic software that makes them much more readable.

As I understand it, the only internet history files I didn't receive were deleted files that the OCSO had not "rescued" from the hard drives. They had found some deleted files pretrial, which we already knew about and had, but they weren't going to (and weren't required to) try to find more deleted files just to respond to a public records request. So there are periods of time for which we don't have internet history information--like most of the "31 day" time period for the laptop. If JWG had the hard drive images, I'm sure he could have found more of that information.

I know we all feel like this, but dang I am proud of you. And JWG. Wow...just WOW!!!!!! Thank you for doing this for Caylee.

 

[dizzychick]

thank you Steely Dan for the link and this is just my opinion ofcourse but I do not think for one second that jury would have convicted her if they had a front row seat to the event, and I think they must be quite happy at this news as it passes the buck of guilt off them and onto the state. What a shame...

 

[dizzychick]

I smell a rat, I am sorry but after hearing a exceprt from the book that the lawyer Sims had to drive her car out onto the closed airport to guide the plane in as the only source of light on the landing strip struck me as greatly over dramatized for the effect. With that observation I wonder what defense attorney would spill this story that makes his client look so bad? Just saying something is not right is there anyway to independantly verify this overlooked evidence?

 

[AZlawyer]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I will admit, I haven't read every post due to my honey-do list. My questions would be, wouldn't it be obvious to the sherriff's dept that the computer had more than 1 browser? If they knew it had more than one browser, wouldn't it be obvious that all browsers needed to be examined?

Yes, the SO knew there was more than one browser and extracted the data for both. They just didn't read it.

I cannot imagine as many eyes that have followed this case that none of us saw that phrase so I am guessing since the state didnt have it this evidence was not published. And the cop investigator said she was not asked to look for suffication, well I would think you would be looking at everything not any one word or phrase so that answer sounds a little strange. This tells you how behind the state was in looking into a computer records. I see a house cleaning in their future...

The "state" (SO) had the data, but the other part of the "state" team (prosecutors) did not. It was not published because the prosecutors were the ones who were being asked for and were releasing data. I agree that the SO's answer is strange--why not look at the whole internet history for June 16 at least? I did, and it took me about 15 minutes. She said it would not be possible to read through "everything," but it is possible to read through what seems like it might be important...like June 16.

I smell a rat, I am sorry but after hearing a exceprt from the book that the lawyer Sims had to drive her car out onto the closed airport to guide the plane in as the only source of light on the landing strip struck me as greatly over dramatized for the effect. With that observation I wonder what defense attorney would spill this story that makes his client look so bad? Just saying something is not right is there anyway to independantly verify this overlooked evidence?

Jose "spilled" the "fool-proof suffication" story because he thought it made GEORGE look bad, because George said Casey left the house at 12:50 pm, so, if that were true, the last one in the house to be searching on Google would have been George.

There is definitely a way to independently verify the "fool-proof suffication" search--that's what JWG and I did. I independently got the internet history files from the SO (through a public records request, which I suppose anyone else can do again if they want to independently verify it for themselves), and JWG ran the files through computer forensic software.

 

[logicalgirl]

I don't think Tony agreed with him. I think he was saying, ok, yes, you can never pin down for sure who's sitting at the computer, but when NO ONE ELSE IS AT THE HOUSE and the person is doing Casey-like things with her Casey passwords, we can make a pretty good guess.

ETA: And, of course, the fact that the SO/SA missed this evidence is a legitimate aspect of the news story and perhaps SHOULD be the focus as far as the citizens of Florida are concerned. Casey can't be retried, but the SO/SA can pay more attention to computer evidence and timelines next time.

BBM - Thank you for your comment. You have a distinct advantage over me because you have obviously had conversations with Piptone, which I have not. He may very well have meant to say that - but I was simply a member of the viewing public and watched where the clip ended - at the point where he agreed you can never be sure.

And yes, I agree the public might think the focus of his expose "should" be the topic of overlooked evidence so that more attention can be given the next time - but I again stress my point. Yes, Casey can never be tried and to me the conclusion is not that the OCSD should take more care although that is true it is only a step to an obvious conclusion. The conclusion is we have had an enormous miscarriage of justice and a child killer has walked free.

 

[beach]

I don't think Tony agreed with him. I think he was saying, ok, yes, you can never pin down for sure who's sitting at the computer, but when NO ONE ELSE IS AT THE HOUSE and the person is doing Casey-like things with her Casey passwords, we can make a pretty good guess.

ETA: And, of course, the fact that the SO/SA missed this evidence is a legitimate aspect of the news story and perhaps SHOULD be the focus as far as the citizens of Florida are concerned. Casey can't be retried, but the SO/SA can pay more attention to computer evidence and timelines next time.

BBM - Thank you for your comment. You have a distinct advantage over me because you have obviously had conversations with Piptone, which I have not. He may very well have meant to say that - but I was simply a member of the viewing public and watched where the clip ended - at the point where he agreed you can never be sure.

And yes, I agree the public might think the focus of his expose "should" be the topic of overlooked evidence so that more attention can be given the next time - but I again stress my point. Yes, Casey can never be tried and to me the conclusion is not that the OCSD should take more care although that is true it is only a step to an obvious conclusion. The conclusion is we have had an enormous miscarriage of justice and a child killer has walked free.

LG, I saw it completely differently. In fact, Jose apparently saw it the same way AZ & I did because he was livid with Pipitone. He even posted on his own Facebook page regarding the interview: "...they [WKMG] are trying to mislead people. It's truly ridiculous". IMO, JB thought he was going to sit for an interview about his book. Well, he was right in a sense. The problem for JB was he wasn't expecting Pipitone to sandbag him. Thwarted big time!

I see quite a few people upset because it points out the costly mistakes (glaring oversights!) made by the OSCO during their computer forensics investigation. It is what it is. A light needs to be shone on it. Otherwise, it is likely to happen again. I guarantee you that LDB & JA are sick about it, too. Obviously, this was nothing intentional on the part of the OSCO. Of course they felt they had covered all the bases. Simply put, they screwed up. It's happened to all of us. We all learn from our own mistakes.

Let's not forget - it makes JB's "experts" (you know - those who have been admitted in courts of law ) look totally inept, as well. They had the time stamps wrong and JB used that same BAD INFO while writing his book to try to exonerate Casey and implicate George. When in fact, the info AZ and JWG extracted, proves the OPPOSITE. Once again, the man has egg on his face. His "experts" were trumped by a couple of citizen investigators and he is not going to take it laying down. haha

Oh, the irony. oops, iorny, that is.

 

[neesaki]

https://www.youtube.com/user/Bettychand

I just watched the interview with JB again. I have been of the opinion that JB had gotten to the point that he believed his own lies. Almost to the point of being delusional, if he claims something is true, it becomes truth.

But here, he appears rather nervous and unsure of himself and seems to be grasping at straws as if even he doesn't believe what he's saying. Unfortunately, that's not enough to stop him from blaming George...again. :no:

Am beginning to think that's what he'll have written on his tombstone, "George Did It" .

 

[logicalgirl]

LG, I saw it completely differently. In fact, Jose apparently saw it the same way AZ & I did because he was livid with Pipitone. He even posted on his own Facebook page regarding the interview: "...they [WKMG] are trying to mislead people. It's truly ridiculous". IMO, JB thought he was going to sit for an interview about his book. Well, he was right in a sense. The problem for JB was he wasn't expecting Pipitone to sandbag him. Thwarted big time!

I see quite a few people upset because it points out the costly mistakes (glaring oversights!) made by the OSCO during their computer forensics investigation. It is what it is. A light needs to be shone on it. Otherwise, it is likely to happen again. I guarantee you that LDB & JA are sick about it, too. Obviously, this was nothing intentional on the part of the OSCO. Of course they felt they had covered all the bases. Simply put, they screwed up. It's happened to all of us. We all learn from our own mistakes.

Let's not forget - it makes JB's "experts" (you know - those who have been admitted in courts of law ) look totally inept, as well. They had the time stamps wrong and JB used that same BAD INFO while writing his book to try to exonerate Casey and implicate George. When in fact, the info AZ and JWG extracted, proves the OPPOSITE. Once again, the man has egg on his face. His "experts" were trumped by a couple of citizen investigators and he is not going to take it laying down. haha

Oh, the irony. oops, iorny, that is.

Yes, of course you are right Beach - and I understood that. I was concerned that we know "stuff" that isn't landing out there in the mainstream. I read four or five other media wrap-ups of this event and they all seem to end with what Baez had to say about it being George - which to me left it hanging as inconclusive rather than glaringly obvious that it was FCA.

And yes, I am delighted he has egg on his face again, along with another one of the experts - did he ever get it off in the first place. What I do like is that more and more in the public eye it is obvious Baez knew for certain she was guilty and that he had pulled a fast one on Lady Justice.

And I laughed and laughed at Baez cracks about "experts" vs. Bloggers and up pops AZLawyer....just that moment was worth any other angst I was left with.:great:

 

[logicalgirl]

I just watched the interview with JB again. I have been of the opinion that JB had gotten to the point that he believed his own lies. Almost to the point of being delusional, if he claims something is true, it becomes truth.

But here, he appears rather nervous and unsure of himself and seems to be grasping at straws as if even he doesn't believe what he's saying. Unfortunately, that's not enough to stop him from blaming George...again. :no:

Am beginning to think that's what he'll have written on his tombstone, "George Did It" .

Thank you for mentioning this because it brings up another point of contention for me. Blaming George last time worked for him big time and some people are completely convinced he has "something" to do with it or was complicit in the crime and here Baez goes again - using the same avenue.

I guess the thought is - if it worked last time it'll work again because - you know - there's just something about George. :banghead:

 

[neesaki]

And Pipitone reports that the SO admits they "tried and failed to extract the browser". Maybe has already been addressed here, but this makes it sound like it was not so much as an oversight, but an unsuccessful attempt or inability to get the information. :waitasec: Could anyone clarify this for me? TIA

I know we all feel like this, but dang I am proud of you. And JWG. Wow...just WOW!!!!!! Thank you for doing this for Caylee.

I agree, I am in awe of you AZ and JWG .... :yourock: :hero:

 

[AZlawyer]

And Pipitone reports that the SO admits they "tried and failed to extract the browser". Maybe has already been addressed here, but this makes it sound like it was not so much as an oversight, but an unsuccessful attempt or inability to get the information. :waitasec: Could anyone clarify this for me? TIA




I agree, I am in awe of you AZ and JWG .... :yourock: :hero:

I wish I could clarify it. They certainly tried and succeeded to extract the Firefox browser information for other time periods before the trial started, and at least by the time I requested the information they had successfully extracted the June 16 information, because they were able to tell me about how the "fool-proof suffication" search was spelled, etc., before sending the files. The tools they had should have extracted it just fine, except perhaps with time stamps 1 hour off and visit counts messed up.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

I wish I could clarify it. They certainly tried and succeeded to extract the Firefox browser information for other time periods before the trial started, and at least by the time I requested the information they had successfully extracted the June 16 information, because they were able to tell me about how the "fool-proof suffication" search was spelled, etc., before sending the files. The tools they had should have extracted it just fine, except perhaps with time stamps 1 hour off and visit counts messed up.

Did you or JWG find anything else in the information you were provided that the OCSO and SAO should have looked more closely at? Or was it just that one search?

 

[ZsaZsa]

I had almost forgotten what a m***n Baez is- thanks for reminding me.
Every time he opens his mouth he gets in more trouble...:floorlaugh:

 

[AZlawyer]

Did you or JWG find anything else in the information you were provided that the OCSO and SAO should have looked more closely at? Or was it just that one search?

Anything interesting we found was posted in the Computer Forensics thread. I don't think there was anything else that would have qualified as evidence.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Anything interesting we found was posted in the Computer Forensics thread. I don't think there was anything else that would have qualified as evidence.

Thanks for pointing me AZ. I'm fairly new here, so I'm still trying to find my way around the many threads

 

[RR0004]

Wonder if Sharon O. would be willing to come on to True Crime Radio.
That would make for one heck of a show.

 

[K_Z]

Wonder if Sharon O. would be willing to come on to True Crime Radio.
That would make for one heck of a show.

Did you mean Sandra Osbourne? (Though I agree that Sharon Osbourne could be pretty interesting, too!)

Somehow, I doubt she would be interested in agreeing to that at this point in time. Any explanation for what happened includes the fact that the Firefox history for June 16th was overlooked by her or her colleague Stenger. It's pretty hard to admit a mistake like that was made at all, let alone want to discuss it openly.

It's really awful that it happened. I just hope there was a thorough look internally at OCSO computer forensics procedures to try to make sure this never happens again. I think that's all that can really be done at this point. They both have had stellar careers.

 

[RR0004]

Did you mean Sandra Osbourne? (Though I agree that Sharon Osbourne could be pretty interesting, too!)

Somehow, I doubt she would be interested in agreeing to that at this point in time. Any explanation for what happened includes the fact that the Firefox history for June 16th was overlooked by her or her colleague Stenger. It's pretty hard to admit a mistake like that was made at all, let alone want to discuss it openly.

It's really awful that it happened. I just hope there was a thorough look internally at OCSO computer forensics procedures to try to make sure this never happens again. I think that's all that can really be done at this point. They both have had stellar careers.

Tee hee. Too funny. Yes, Sandra O. G-sh...my brain's mush.

 

[lowens1975]

I wish I could clarify it. They certainly tried and succeeded to extract the Firefox browser information for other time periods before the trial started, and at least by the time I requested the information they had successfully extracted the June 16 information, because they were able to tell me about how the "fool-proof suffication" search was spelled, etc., before sending the files. The tools they had should have extracted it just fine, except perhaps with time stamps 1 hour off and visit counts messed up.

Just wondering...can you tell us when you submitted your request for the information? I'm just wondering when the OCSD discovered the search.

I'm surprised and disappointed that they didn't ask for outside help once they ran into trouble with the computer search for June 16. That whole hard drive should have been searched for files stamped for that day. They went to the FBI for hair analysis, etc. They should have asked for help with the data mining off of the home computer. :banghead: