The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[MEM2010]

has it been established that google had the permanent "autofill" in '08?

From what I recall it was an optional feature until this past year or so.

TIA!

 

[logicalgirl]

Sheesh........I'm exhausted!

No me! I'd have to say I am ....content......yes, content would be a good word for it.

I was fortunate that I was able to watch the trial in full, streaming, without commercial interruptions. Because I am three hours behind, I wasn't distracted by anything at all during that time.

When the verdict was read - I was stunned, like many others. With such a huge amount of both circumstantial and forensic evidence, how was this possible that 12 people who appeared rational and relatively logical, came to this decision - particularly in such a short time.

So this thread has allowed me to listen to those who think the verdict was fair, go back and specifically look at the depositions, forensic evidence or testimonies, and rethink them as each opinion arose.

I have read argument after argument from basically the same core group.
I now have my answers. Nothing has changed from my original opinion, and if anything, this thread has deepened and strengthened my opinion.

So, I feel quite refreshed by my experience here. Even more rational and logical than I believed I was when I started it. Thanks folks!

 

[Baznme]

Interesting. I just began typing out the word chlorophyll into Google. As soon as I got to chlor and as far as chloroph BOTH chlorophyll and chloroform came up. See for yourself in these two screen shots.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36530577/Chlor... Google Search.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36530577/Chloroph... Google Search.JPG

I get that Cindy claimed she searched only the word chlorophyll and not how to make chlorophyll and that the actual search issue testified about what how to make chloroform. I am responding to your claim in the quote above where you said you googled chlorophyll and not once did chloroform come up. Perhaps not once you type the entire word out, but absolutely "as you type it out"

So, are we to believe it was someone else that did the search "how to make chloroform"? This may substantiate CA's testimony but, who did the search on "how to make the chloroform"? Can anybody guess?

 

[logicalgirl]

So, are we to believe it was someone else that did the search "how to make chloroform"? This may substantiate CA's testimony but, who did the search on "how to make the chloroform"? Can anybody guess?

Well, whoever did it was the one who also deleted that file - right?

 

[MissJames]

I find it confusing that speculation,even the defense did not bring up ,is being used to explain the NG verdict.

 

[MissJames]

No me! I'd have to say I am ....content......yes, content would be a good word for it.

I was fortunate that I was able to watch the trial in full, streaming, without commercial interruptions. Because I am three hours behind, I wasn't distracted by anything at all during that time.

When the verdict was read - I was stunned, like many others. With such a huge amount of both circumstantial and forensic evidence, how was this possible that 12 people who appeared rational and relatively logical, came to this decision - particularly in such a short time.

So this thread has allowed me to listen to those who think the verdict was fair, go back and specifically look at the depositions, forensic evidence or testimonies, and rethink them as each opinion arose.

I have read argument after argument from basically the same core group.
I now have my answers. Nothing has changed from my original opinion, and if anything, this thread has deepened and strengthened my opinion.

So, I feel quite refreshed by my experience here. Even more rational and logical than I believed I was when I started it. Thanks folks!

Same here : ) Cheers :toastred:

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Interesting. I just began typing out the word chlorophyll into Google. As soon as I got to chlor and as far as chloroph BOTH chlorophyll and chloroform came up. See for yourself in these two screen shots.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36530577/Chlor... Google Search.JPG
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/36530577/Chloroph... Google Search.JPG

I get that Cindy claimed she searched only the word chlorophyll and not how to make chlorophyll and that the actual search issue testified about what how to make chloroform. I am responding to your claim in the quote above where you said you googled chlorophyll and not once did chloroform come up. Perhaps not once you type the entire word out, but absolutely "as you type it out"

Yes, it showed up in the autocomplete, but NOT in the search results. See the original post by imagirlgeek earlier in this thread:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6974707&postcount=1446"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6974707&postcount=1446[/ame]

 

[gladiatorqueen]

BBM - Exactly. Experts who offered the evidence each agreed. and in the end, the majority of the DT Experts agreed with the SA Experts. Legal minds and legal experts have written lengthy articles disagreeing with the verdict.

But you disagree because it is your opinion. You have a right to your opinion. But I defer to the experts.

I disagree because I deferred to different experts (or rather, weighed the conflicting evidence). You also have a right to your opinion (yes, opinion). Maybe the best route is for us to accept those differences in opinion and move on.

 

[logicalgirl]

I disagree because I deferred to different experts (or rather, weighed the conflicting evidence). You also have a right to your opinion (yes, opinion). Maybe the best route is for us to accept those differences in opinion and move on.

My post 1502 applies in this instance - thanks.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

My post 1502 applies in this instance - thanks.

Glad to have helped. You're welcome.

 

[imagirlgeek]

has it been established that google had the permanent "autofill" in '08?

From what I recall it was an optional feature until this past year or so.

TIA!

I think you might be confusing the Autofill/Autocomplete in the search box with the 'Google Instant' which is fairly new.

The Autofill is what you see when you start typing in the search box, as a list of items/suggestions in a little drop-down right below the search field.

The 'Google Instant' is when the actual search results populate the page as you type. This one is definitely new-ish, and you can (supposedly) turn this off. I've read that it's a little buggy and tends to re-enable though.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

I think you might be confusing the Autofill/Autocomplete in the search box with the 'Google Instant' which is fairly new.

The Autofill is what you see when you start typing in the search box, as a list of items/suggestions in a little drop-down right below the search field.

The 'Google Instant' is when the actual search results populate the page as you type. This one is definitely new-ish, and you can (supposedly) turn this off. I've read that it's a little buggy and tends to re-enable though.

So in other words what we do now won't be indicative of what was coming up in 08 ?

 

[beccalecca1]

Responses in Green above

I'm not sure how my search for chlorophyll to see if how to make chloroform came up is wrong versus your search for chlorophyll looking for chloroform. It's the same search. And, nothing came up in relations to making chloroform. So, what wrong Google search am I repeating?

To be clear, the SA never claimed that someone searched "chloroform" in the Google search utility and "how to make chloroform" popped up as a result. The computer forensics revealed that someone typed "how to make chloroform" in the search utility. That was evident by the historical URL that results from such a search:

http ://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=13&gs_id=1d&xhr=t&q=how+to+make+chloroform&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=how+to+ make+c&aq=0&aqi=g5&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or .r_gc.r_pw.&fp=da8c3ab7508c4c6a&biw=1178&bih=821

CA "claimed" that she typed "chloraphyll" in the google search utility and the list of pages included chloroform pages. Did not happen. Cannot happen.

My post was not referring to trial. My post was referring to Dr. Drew on HLN stating a few days after trial if you google search "chlorophyll" on of the search results is "how to make chloroform". IMO, he was insinuating that perhaps CA was actually telling the truth (IIRC he actually said something along those lines). I am not saying that this is in fact what happened with the computer searches. I am saying this is what Dr. Drew stated on HLN and when I did my own research doing the same, I did not come up with those results.

GA had seen Casey, that we know for sure, on June 24, 2008. So, at the very least we know GA did see Casey during that 31 days. And, by his testimony of that day he admitted to having his own set of keys for the car. Or, is all of that being discounted now too?

I don't recall, but I want to say that there was another time she was in the house and he knew about it... but I could be wrong.

And, as the testimony reveals, Casey would not allow George to even retrieve something from the trunk of the car. He could not get near it.

You are right, GA's testimony stated she wouldn't let him near the trunk. But, I found his testimony to lack credibility, so I'm not sure if I believe he did not have access to the car.

Please re-read my post. I said during trial I "thought" RM was over there because those sounded like searches a guy would do. And, I don't believe that is a stretch of any imagination. During trial I posted a lot in another forum (youtube) and found out that Shovel is a term used in an Xbox game. So, that search along with the others led me to believe it was RM. There is nothing abnormal about that, nothing.

This is nothing but speculation.

When someone states they "think" something, yes that is speculation. And, in the original post I stated that I was wrong at the end.

When JA cross-examines a witness doesn't mean that it is 100% definitive true evidence. If that were the case, JB got to cross examine many witnesses also, confirming whatever point he was trying to make. Was his cross-examinations thrown in the wind because it was JB? Not IMO.

I think you have to consider the content of the cross examination. IMO

You are right, and the post this was replying to basically, IMO, inferred that since JA cross-examined the expert witnesses, that proves that certain things in evidence were in fact true/false (depending on which side you're leaning to). One attorney's cross examination doesn't prove fact over another's when your witness is implying things are "consistent" with but not "conclusive" with.

 

[MEM2010]

I think you might be confusing the Autofill/Autocomplete in the search box with the 'Google Instant' which is fairly new.

The Autofill is what you see when you start typing in the search box, as a list of items/suggestions in a little drop-down right below the search field.

The 'Google Instant' is when the actual search results populate the page as you type. This one is definitely new-ish, and you can (supposedly) turn this off. I've read that it's a little buggy and tends to re-enable though.

Right. The drop down box is what I'm referring to. I didn't believe it was a feature in '08, so it didn't make sense to me that CA was typing in chlorophyll and chloroform came up.

but as always MOO and could be wrong.

TY!

 

[beccalecca1]

Right. The drop down box is what I'm referring to. I didn't believe it was a feature in '08, so it didn't make sense to me that CA was typing in chlorophyll and chloroform came up.

but as always MOO and could be wrong.

TY!

I took her testimony to mean that one of the search results was how to make chloroform (or some chloroform variation). Either way, we know she was at work during this time so even her reasoning for the searches couldn't be accurate.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Right. The drop down box is what I'm referring to. I didn't believe it was a feature in '08, so it didn't make sense to me that CA was typing in chlorophyll and chloroform came up.

but as always MOO and could be wrong.

TY!

A quick google search for "google autocomplete" and I found a reference in a forum to the autocomplete feature dated back in 2004. HTH.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

My post was not referring to trial. My post was referring to Dr. Drew on HLN stating a few days after trial if you google search "chlorophyll" on of the search results is "how to make chloroform". IMO, he was insinuating that perhaps CA was actually telling the truth (IIRC he actually said something along those lines). I am not saying that this is in fact what happened with the computer searches. I am saying this is what Dr. Drew stated on HLN and when I did my own research doing the same, I did not come up with those results.

I guess what is confusing me is that it seems like you are stating that you agree with the verdict because, in part, of these statements made by Dr. Drew. So, if you have found that what Dr. Drew said does not seem to be fact, are you in agreement (or agreeance ) that CA did lie about performing those computer searches?

 

[imagirlgeek]

So in other words what we do now won't be indicative of what was coming up in 08 ?

In the post you quoted, I was just explaining the difference between Autofill and the Google Instant feature, since they are 2 separate features.

But, to answer your question, that's correct. What we see now won't be indicative of what was showing up in the autofill in 2008. In fact, what we see today won't be what we see next month, or next year...maybe even next week. It just depends of the popularity of what is being searched at the time.

It's kind of like Twitter 'trends', for those of you who tweet. Google is trying to be smart and predict what we want to search for based on what is being searched by all users across the globe.

Does that make sense? Sometimes when I speak nerd, people look at me like I'm speaking Russian or something.

 

[beccalecca1]

I guess what is confusing me is that it seems like you are stating that you agree with the verdict because, in part, of these statements made by Dr. Drew. So, if you have found that what Dr. Drew said does not seem to be fact, are you in agreement (or agreeance ) that CA did lie about performing those computer searches?

Umm...:waitasec: I don't recall ever stating I agree with the verdict because Dr. Drew stated something. In fact, I've posted many times about the actual evidence in this case and what the evidence meant to me. I'm pretty sure I haven't included Dr. Drew into any of those posts.

I didn't need Dr. Drew to know CA lied about the searches. Her work records prove it. If she had the same punches in and out every day that would be a different story, but it clearly looked like someone was punching in and out her time card because they were odd times in and out. She was at work IMO.

The only thing that threw the searches off for me was the "hypovolemia, hemorrage, meningial artery (something.. I can't remember but it was something to do with the main artery in your brain). That's not something that a normal person would search, IMO.

 

[beccalecca1]

In the post you quoted, I was just explaining the difference between Autofill and the Google Instant feature, since they are 2 separate features.

But, to answer your question, that's correct. What we see now won't be indicative of what was showing up in the autofill in 2008. In fact, what we see today won't be what we see next month, or next year...maybe even next week. It just depends of the popularity of what is being searched at the time.

It's kind of like Twitter 'trends', for those of you who tweet. Google is trying to be smart and predict what we want to search for based on what is being searched by all users across the globe.

Does that make sense? Sometimes when I speak nerd, people look at me like I'm speaking Russian or something.

I think that makes perfect sense, and I don't even tweet :crazy: