Caey Anthony: Computer Forensics Question

[minniebride]

I was just reading an article about the searches they did on the Anthonys' home computer. They had found that someone (I guess the family shared that computer) was searching on Google for things like chloroform, Internal bleeding,
Ruptured spleen, Death, etc...It said after that person searched for those terms, they then logged onto Myspace.

My question is: if that person then logged into Myspace, couldn't the computer forensics people then just check the data to see who's account was logged into? I would have that that finding that info out would make a huge dent in the case.

I feel like that is an obvious solution, so there must be some reason why they didn't look into that My fiance thinks it might have something to do with privacy laws-that maybe Myspace wouldn't want to provide that info to protect the privacy of their users. But I would think that all privacy would go out the window if you are being investigated for murder.....if the police have a warrant anyways.

Any ideas?

Here is the article I am referring to:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/c...ruptured-spleen-1525916.html?cxtype=ynews_rss

Thanks!

 

[diznygirl]

But they can't prove who was actually using the computer. I log in to my husband's facebook all the time.

 

[minniebride]

But they can't prove who was actually using the computer. I log in to my husband's facebook all the time.

I guess that is true, but I guess I don't understand why they did not check out who's Myspace account was being logged into. Doesn't that seem like important information in a case like this?

 

[DVC-Don]

I believe Cassie was the only one in the family with a MySpace account. One of the early videos had her mom asking what the password was as the one Cassie (from jail) had given her would not work and Cassie kept insisting that was the only password.

 

[minniebride]

I believe Cassie was the only one in the family with a MySpace account. One of the early videos had her mom asking what the password was as the one Cassie (from jail) had given her would not work and Cassie kept insisting that was the only password.

I thought the mother had also set up a Myspace account after she found out that Caylee was missing?

I believe that Casey is guilty, I'm just thinking that, without confirmation that the searcher had logged into Casey's Myspace account, I would think the defense would come back and say maybe the mom or dad also had a Myspace account and they were logging into their own account. Just seems like knowing who's Myspace account was logged into would solidify evidence of who it was searching for chloroform and the other stuff.

 

[Wadecool]

But they can't prove who was actually using the computer. I log in to my husband's facebook all the time.

They can't prove who was using the computer but they have already proved who wasn't using the computer, because George, Cindy, and Lee have alibis for being someplace else when these searches took place. Based upon the defense strategy for Baez so far, he's probably going to argue that a burglar could have broken into the house to use the computer.

 

[minniebride]

They can't prove who was using the computer but they have already proved who wasn't using the computer, because George, Cindy, and Lee have alibis for being someplace else when these searches took place. Based upon the defense strategy for Baez so far, he's probably going to argue that a burglar could have broken into the house to use the computer.

But if they have proof that the person logged into Caey's Myspace account, wouldn't that nullify any ridiculous argument that Baez comes up with? I just don't understand why they wouldn't go that extra step to see who's Myspace account was logged into.

 

[diznygirl]

But if they have proof that the person logged into Caey's Myspace account, wouldn't that nullify any ridiculous argument that Baez comes up with? I just don't understand why they wouldn't go that extra step to see who's Myspace account was logged into.

Even if it was Casey's Myspace account being logged into, you can't prove WHO logged into it.

The State knows who it wasn't, but they can't prove who it was.

Of course, we know it was Casey.

 

[minniebride]

Even if it was Casey's Myspace account being logged into, you can't prove WHO logged into it.

The State knows who it wasn't, but they can't prove who it was.

Of course, we know it was Casey.

I guess you are right-it's all just circumstantial in the eyes of the court. I wonder though-would that info have been picked up on a computer search or would they have to have contacted Myspace to get it?

 

[DisneyWitch]

Even if it was Casey's Myspace account being logged into, you can't prove WHO logged into it.

The State knows who it wasn't, but they can't prove who it was.

This is the salient point. Thank you for bringing this up.

Circumstantial or not, anyone could have logged into her account, whether was a hacker using a proxy or another person physically located at the computer. For all the jury knows, it could have been a disgruntled ex-boyfriend or "frenemy" who knew/guessed her password, broke into her house and decided they wanted to plant incriminating evidence. Bottom line is that the prosecution has the burden of definitively proving that the defendant was actually sitting at the computer - the defense only has to show reasonable doubt.

If someone else has ever used her login information, which is illegal (even if you're the spouse), that will make this strategy very weak. Anything facts which come of this line of questioning will be "fruit of the poisoned tree".

ISPs, from my understanding, keep a backlog of 30 days (some will keep 90 days or longer) in their backup archives in case of criminal investigations. Web hosting / websites usually have backups of their data on hand as well, including access logs and data flow. There is a standard law enforcement warrant which has to be very precise and very focused, however, this process can be very slow.

I wouldn't have piped in on this, but I have a degree in Digital Forensics and have worked in Digital Forensics labs - it's my career field. Many times people think that Digital Forenics works like they see it on CSI, and it's a matter of typing a few keystrokes to find the answers. Unfortunately, there's a lot more to it, even beyond the legal structure. And no, we don't find all the answers in 45 minutes. Many cases take days and months to be processed. Digital Forensics Investigators are bound not only by the technology they have available to them, but also by the laws which were made to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Hopefully the truth will come out either way in this case. Our justice system isn't perfect, not by a long shot. But the fact of the matter is that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty, no matter what one's instinct is. I haven't made up my mind on her guilt or innocence yet. There's so many questions and inconsistencies which haven't been addressed. If she is found guilty, I hope her sentence befits the crime. If she is found not guilty, I hope she and her family can right themselves in spite of this mess. Speaking as a regular person, the sad fact is that several families have been destroyed and the life of a little girl has been lost.

 

[minniebride]

This is the salient point. Thank you for bringing this up.

Circumstantial or not, anyone could have logged into her account, whether was a hacker using a proxy or another person physically located at the computer. For all the jury knows, it could have been a disgruntled ex-boyfriend or "frenemy" who knew/guessed her password, broke into her house and decided they wanted to plant incriminating evidence. Bottom line is that the prosecution has the burden of definitively proving that the defendant was actually sitting at the computer - the defense only has to show reasonable doubt.

If someone else has ever used her login information, which is illegal (even if you're the spouse), that will make this strategy very weak. Anything facts which come of this line of questioning will be "fruit of the poisoned tree".

ISPs, from my understanding, keep a backlog of 30 days (some will keep 90 days or longer) in their backup archives in case of criminal investigations. Web hosting / websites usually have backups of their data on hand as well, including access logs and data flow. There is a standard law enforcement warrant which has to be very precise and very focused, however, this process can be very slow.

I wouldn't have piped in on this, but I have a degree in Digital Forensics and have worked in Digital Forensics labs - it's my career field. Many times people think that Digital Forenics works like they see it on CSI, and it's a matter of typing a few keystrokes to find the answers. Unfortunately, there's a lot more to it, even beyond the legal structure. And no, we don't find all the answers in 45 minutes. Many cases take days and months to be processed. Digital Forensics Investigators are bound not only by the technology they have available to them, but also by the laws which were made to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Hopefully the truth will come out either way in this case. Our justice system isn't perfect, not by a long shot. But the fact of the matter is that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty, no matter what one's instinct is. I haven't made up my mind on her guilt or innocence yet. There's so many questions and inconsistencies which haven't been addressed. If she is found guilty, I hope her sentence befits the crime. If she is found not guilty, I hope she and her family can right themselves in spite of this mess. Speaking as a regular person, the sad fact is that several families have been destroyed and the life of a little girl has been lost.

Thank you for piping in on this thread~that was exactly the type of info I was looking for.

 

[Wadecool]

This is the salient point. Thank you for bringing this up.

Circumstantial or not, anyone could have logged into her account, whether was a hacker using a proxy or another person physically located at the computer. For all the jury knows, it could have been a disgruntled ex-boyfriend or "frenemy" who knew/guessed her password, broke into her house and decided they wanted to plant incriminating evidence. Bottom line is that the prosecution has the burden of definitively proving that the defendant was actually sitting at the computer - the defense only has to show reasonable doubt.

If someone else has ever used her login information, which is illegal (even if you're the spouse), that will make this strategy very weak. Anything facts which come of this line of questioning will be "fruit of the poisoned tree".

ISPs, from my understanding, keep a backlog of 30 days (some will keep 90 days or longer) in their backup archives in case of criminal investigations. Web hosting / websites usually have backups of their data on hand as well, including access logs and data flow. There is a standard law enforcement warrant which has to be very precise and very focused, however, this process can be very slow.

I wouldn't have piped in on this, but I have a degree in Digital Forensics and have worked in Digital Forensics labs - it's my career field. Many times people think that Digital Forenics works like they see it on CSI, and it's a matter of typing a few keystrokes to find the answers. Unfortunately, there's a lot more to it, even beyond the legal structure. And no, we don't find all the answers in
45 minutes. Many cases take days and months to be processed. Digital Forensics Investigators are bound not only by the technology they have available to them, but also by the laws which were made to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

Hopefully the truth will come out either way in this case. Our justice system isn't perfect, not by a long shot. But the fact of the matter is that the defendent is innocent until proven guilty, no matter what one's instinct is. I haven't made up my mind on her guilt or innocence yet. There's so many questions and inconsistencies which haven't been addressed. If she is found guilty, I hope her sentence befits the crime. If she is found not guilty, I hope she and her family can right themselves in spite of this mess. Speaking as a regular person, the sad fact is that several families have been destroyed and
the life of a little girl has been lost.

Thank you for piping in, and don't be a stranger! Your post was very informative and fascinating.

 

[desamnik]

they could. They said her dad worked the afternoon shift 3-11 i think. So he is gone from the house maybe M-F from say 2-12ish.

Did Casey's mom work? if they can show both of them out of the house (at their jobs) on that day at that time, they've got her.

Same w/ the searches for chloroform and the other searches in question.

Most of them were done around 3pm, which immediately made me think that her dad wasn't home then.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I've only caught little bits of this, it's not as widely talked about where I live BUT I thought there were also searches for chloroform on her boyfriend's computer? Didn't he have some strange date rape kind of photo that said something like Win her Over with Chloroform? I found that so really strange and compelling. Maybe she saw that and was searching for chloroform bc of that or could even he have something to do with this? I'm still lost with why she came out with now saying the baby drowned in the pool and how this ties into finding her in the woods, did they think the father did that? put her in the woods and put duct tape? I don't get it, I'm kinda lost. I think I've missed too much maybe someone can fill me in.
Oh I think I get it is bc they say the guy that found her did that? I think I'm missing something.

 

[rie'smom]

My daughter and her friends would use each others FB all the time.
If I ever got into trouble, I'd hate to see what they would make of some of my internet searches. When I'm reading books, magazine or newspaper articles, or even some DIS posts and see something interesting, I Google or do other types of searches. For example,if I look up serial killers, it doesn't mean that I am one. Last night I saw a program on this woman who poisoned her family with arsenic and i looked up arsenic. If I was arrested and on trial, a prosecutor could make a big deal out of it even though it was an innocent search.

 

[minniebride]

If I ever got into trouble, I'd hate to see what they would make of some of my internet searches. When I'm reading books, magazine or newspaper articles, or even some DIS posts and see something interesting, I Google or do other types of searches. For example,if I look up serial killers, it doesn't mean that I am one. Last night I saw a program on this woman who poisoned her family with arsenic and i looked up arsenic. If I was arrested and on trial, a prosecutor could make a big deal out of it even though it was an innocent search.

I am the exact same way. I have a fascination with crime stories like these & I often read about past bizarre stories, like the Manson murders, Amanda Knox, Natalie Holloway, etc... and if I don't understand something I read or if something intrigues me, I will immediately Google it.

The suspicious thing to me is not that those terms were searched on her computer, it's that chloroform was searched but then found in an empty gatorade bottle in a car that experts are saying smelled like human decomposition

I don't know much about court stuff, but I wonder: at what point does the "reasonable doubt" window close?? Or does it stay circumstantial unless Casey admits to the crime?