- Joined
- Aug 27, 2008
- Messages
- 638
- Reaction score
- 4,419
Don't we have the cell phone records with pings for the whole family or is it just ICA? cell pings could show exactly where CA was.
RichardHornsby Richard Hornsby
March 25, 2008 was 84th day of year, March 24, 2008 was 83rd day, March 23, 2008 is 82nd day, etc. they are both wrong. #CaseyAnthony
And wouldn't it show which myspace page you went to? Didn't CA say she never even had a MS page until she posted her message about Caylee?
I always clear my cache and delete my history because if you don't do that every so often it slows your computer down. Clearing/deleting that stuff does NOT in any way imply that anyone is hiding something. All it proves is that they would like their computer to run faster.
I was literally LOL when she was going on about how her company had no means to save her e-mails from 3 years ago. Seriously? Does she really believe this? Kinda like all the imaginary friends? Maybe Cindy thinks she has imaginary e-mails that cannot be traced.
gahhhhhh!
All my opinion of course.
Mel
Hummm, JB got a hold of a computer expert last night it appears.
Now that the initial shock of CA's testimony is wearing off, I just had a few thoughts. While in my heart, I still believe CA just perjured herself on the stand, I do wonder about something. What if she was telling the truth and did actually look up chloroform in her search for chlorophyll, like she claims. She did not admit to having looked it up 84 times, but yet somehow, it was looked up that many times. Could it be possible that CA looked it up initially, as she claimed, and then left it open on the computer, ICA saw it and that's what sparked her idea? Honestly, I've always thought Ricardo's "win her over with chloroform" thing was a tiny bit of a leap, and this could actually make more sense. Or, for all we know, ICA could have looked it up before, then when CA went on the computer to look up chlorophyll, chloroform auto filled in on the search engine because the first six letters are the same, and then CA got curious and looked it up. I don't know. I still think CA's lying, but I just thought I'd throw out some scenarios where if she wasn't, that it doesn't mean that ICA didn't do those searches (at least some of them).
Oh, and I, too, am wondering if those dogs were sleepy because they'd been experimented on. My red flags started flying when that was mentioned, too.
Apparently nobody has told CA that ALL companies are required to keep 7 years worth of e-mail history in case of litigation or investigation. This is particularly strong in the health care industry.
Isn't it true that if a person is convicted of a crime - such as perjury - that they cannot thereafter profit in any way from the crime? Is it wishful thinking to believe that if she's found guilty of perjury, it could jeapordize her book?