cleo612
My reason for waking up each day!
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,255
- Reaction score
- 16
The "chloraform" searches that were brought up at trial took place in March 2008 and did not include the word suffocation, but you are correct that Cindy unsuccessfully tried to take the blame for those searches.
The "fool-proof suffication" search took place on June 16, 2008, and is discussed at length starting around p. 45 of the "Anthony's Computer Forensics" thread, which I think someone bumped up not too long ago.
Just jumping off your post, AZ...
One thing I have never understood is why investigators and/or prosecutors only did specific keyword searches on the computer(s).
They severely limited the scope of their investigation by only searching for specific keywords, and in my very humble opinion, deprived the Pinellas 12 of vital information/evidence.
Why did they not look into ALL of the searches that were done? They would have surely found the "foolproof suffocation" search had they done so.
Even though I doubt that the Pinellas 12 would have understood, or even deliberated any longer had they the full scope of the computer searches that were done by FCA, at least we would know that every effort was made to ensure that a thorough investigation was done on the computer(s).
As it stands right now, it makes the computer investigation seem half-hearted, at best.