Anthony's Computer Forensics

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

The whole concept of anything looked up on google is ridiculous to me. I don't see how anyone can allow google searches to be included as "evidence" of anything.

There are so many ways you can get redirected on a website. I got a virus once and every time I looked something up it would redirect to another website.

Just seems incredibly stupid that this is even an issue in this case. By throwing everything at KC I think the Prosecution is actually hurting their case and creating doubt. How can you NOT have reasonable doubt when it comes to google searches?
 
as the above comment said, weren't the searches done in the home when cindy and george were proven to be out of the home? who searched them the other 80-odd times? and weren't they done on a user account on that computer that only casey had access to? IIRC there were two user accounts, one that all could access and one that casey had a password to... and i also remember them being done on a different browser and search engine from the ones normally used by cindy and george. gonna go reread the computer forensics thread to check whether i remembered this correctly....

i am confused by this for sure... it is the defense's responsibility to create reasonable doubt, and obviously CA does not want her daughter to get the death penalty, but i thought the facts did not line up here...
 
I wish they would have kept the chloroform and the web searches out. I think it would have been enough to just says she duct taped her child's mouth shut and be done with it. That could still be pre-meditated.
 
Chewy said:
The whole concept of anything looked up on google is ridiculous to me. I don't see how anyone can allow google searches to be included as "evidence" of anything.

There are so many ways you can get redirected on a website. I got a virus once and every time I looked something up it would redirect to another website.

Just seems incredibly stupid that this is even an issue in this case. By throwing everything at KC I think the Prosecution is actually hurting their case and creating doubt. How can you NOT have reasonable doubt when it comes to google searches?
Click to expand...

I think it has to do with the searches being for chloroform, a substance that was found in abundance in the trunk of the car where there was clear evidence of decomp.

As for Google as evidence of wrongdoing in general, I agree. If anyone did forensics on my computer right now they would probably wonder what kind of no-good I was up to.
 
It will not be unnoticed by the jury these search terms are not words an educated nurse would choose to use while searching. A nurse, imo, would have searched more scientific terms.


JMO
 
ladylurker said:
as the above comment said, weren't the searches done in the home when cindy and george were proven to be out of the home? who searched them the other 80-odd times? and weren't they done on a user account on that computer that only casey had access to? IIRC there were two user accounts, one that all could access and one that casey had a password to... and i also remember them being done on a different browser and search engine from the ones normally used by cindy and george. gonna go reread the computer forensics thread to check whether i remembered this correctly....

i am confused by this for sure... it is the defense's responsibility to create reasonable doubt, and obviously CA does not want her daughter to get the death penalty, but i thought the facts did not line up here...
Click to expand...

That statement is completely wrong. There's no such thing as an account that only Casey had access to, once she opened the account there is no way to actually prove that it was SHE who made the searches.

You could say one of the boyfriends was trying to look it up for his own reasons.

It's weakening their case. To me it's the equivalent of hear say and should not have been allowed.
 
Since she clearly lied on the stand today do you think that the State could come at her with this? I personally think they should because she was clearly lying. I am still shocked about this. I mean don't get me wrong I am sure she's lied but to lie about something this big? Just wow... I guess it is because I never saw it coming.

ETA: For those that do not know Cindy testified in court today that it was HER who searched how to make chloroform. Big bombshell today and clearly she lied about it and covered for Casey. She also said that she searched the neck breaking stuff too.
 
Cubby said:
It will not be unnoticed by the jury these search terms are not words an educated nurse would choose to use while searching. A nurse, imo, would have searched more scientific terms.


JMO
Click to expand...
Huh? Chloroform and chlorophyll are not scientific terms?
 
Chewy said:
That statement is completely wrong. There's no such thing as an account that only Casey had access to, once she opened the account there is no way to actually prove that it was SHE who made the searches.

You could say one of the boyfriends was trying to look it up for his own reasons.

It's weakening their case. To me it's the equivalent of hear say and should not have been allowed.
Click to expand...

i should have said, a user account only casey had the password to. you are correct; had she opened her account and walked away anyone could have used it. thanks for noting that.
 
Cubby said:
It will not be unnoticed by the jury these search terms are not words an educated nurse would choose to use while searching. A nurse, imo, would have searched more scientific terms.


JMO
Click to expand...
Bingo! There's no way a Registered Nurse mistook Chloroform for Chlorophyll!!!:snooty::snooty::snooty:
 
Either purgery or falsifying business records and theft of services.
 
i have read on here that computer forensics show that the chloroform searches were done on the desktop home computer while cindy was confirmed to be at work. if this is the case, cindy was lying... but do we actually know this as fact? does anyone have a link?

my OPINION is that she is lying, but i will certainly admit that i have NO linkage whatsoever to back up that opinion, merely the memory of reading that she was confirmed at work when done. anyone have a link?
 
I don't know if CA will be charged for lying under oath but it would be pretty easy to prove that she didn't do these computer searches if they were done while she was at work. And IIRC, the state had CA's and GA's timecards from their jobs entered into evidence. The state entered those into evidence for a reason and I think that reason is they suspected one or both might try to own up to doing those computer searches.
 
LinasK said:
Bingo! There's no way a Registered Nurse mistook Chloroform for Chlorophyll!!!:snooty::snooty::snooty:
Click to expand...


Oh come on, people now this is what I mean. How the heck do you know what a Nurse would search for? She could have clicked on chloroform by accident, she typed it and it self corrected and she didn't read it carefully and clicked on it.


Hmm:truce: sorry for being so snarky but it just grates on my nerves SO MUCH the way people keep talking about what she would or wouldn't do.

If you took my google searches I'd have tons of murders, sexual weirdness, missing persons, Black Dahlia pictures, you'd think I was a sicko. I'm sure the same is true of nearly every single person on this site.
 
I'm sure she also lied when she said that she fudged her work records to show she was at work when she clearly was NOT at work. I'd love for the state to get proof from Gentiva.

Gahhhhhhhhhhh I hope she gets a cell next to her daughter!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 440 (members: 116, guests: 324)

Online statistics

Members online
116
Guests online
324
Total visitors
440
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,594
Messages
18,255,951
Members
234,698
Latest member
Digger1
Back
Top