Slashdot Mirror
Search For "Foolproof Suffocation" Missed In Casey Anthony Case
Hugh Pickens writes "The Orlando Sentinel reports that a google search was made for the term 'foolproof suffocation' on the Anthony family's computer the day Casey Anthony's 2-year-old daughter Caylee was last seen alive by her family — a search that did not surface at Casey Anthony's trial for first degree murder. In the notorious 31 days which followed, Casey Anthony repeatedly lied about her and her daughter's whereabouts and at Anthony's trial, her defense attorney argued that her daughter drowned accidentally in the family's pool. Anthony was acquitted on all major charges in her daughter's death, including murder. Though computer searches were a key issue at Anthony's murder trial, the term 'foolproof suffocation' never came up. 'Our investigation reveals the person most likely at the computer was Casey Anthony,' says investigative reporter Tony Pipitone. Lead sheriff's Investigator Yuri Melich sent prosecutors a spreadsheet that contained less than 2 percent of the computer's Internet activity that day and included only Internet data from the computer's Internet Explorer browser – one Casey Anthony apparently stopped using months earlier — and failed to list 1,247 entries recorded on the Mozilla Firefox browser that day — including the search for 'foolproof suffocation.' Prosecutor Jeff Ashton said in a statement to WKMG that it's 'a shame we didn't have it. (It would have) put the accidental death claim in serious question.'"
Why didn't she just put the kid up for adoption?
In this case the prosecutors and justice system were incompetent to prove this person was the killer.
In other cases they're incompetent to tell that the prosecutors and justice system have failed to prove the person was the killer.
When we execute convicted people there is no chance to catch the errors that are executing people who are not guilty. Not guilty people are killed because the system isn't adequate to execute only the guilty.
We shouldn't execute people, because we're not really sure that we're killing someone who's guilty.
--
make install -not war
She was found innocent, and a bunch of big media dipshits, and powerful figures are still trying to lynch her. Why? She's poor, and in all this rubble, they want one big poor villian to crucify, so they can shift the focus away.
Part of the assault on her character includes the fact that case was concieved out of rape, something that would have every major neo-liberal "feminist" group up in arms if it was someone the system was protecting.
I'll tell you something else. I'll contrast this to another femme fatale who got out of prison around the same time. "Amanda Knox"
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/print-edition/2011/10/21/seattle-pr-firm-reveals-efforts-to.html?page=all
Looks like the media industry wasted no time revealing if you got money to spend on a PR campaign they could fix your broken character flaws and get murder raps thrown out.
if its any more proof of just how biased the system is, and the system is run by hoardes of PR/advertising goons and lawyers, who seem to want nothing more than to shake you down for verbal and character protection money.
Of course the real enemies of this system are those who can't raise enough money to pay for their services.
Its sick, its real sick.
No really, that's exactly what happened.
He blew it, he retired, he wrote a book...
Now he's a state prosecutor?
So, just how effective is clear cache anyway?
Is it... foolproof?
OK, so I searched for Foolproof Suffocation myself just now... does that mean I'm screwed forever if someone near me turns up suspiciously dead?
"If the search didn't hit, then you must acquit."
Maybe she was planning some autoerotic asphyxiation and didn't know how to spell "asphyxiation!" Jeez, you people, always jumping to conclusions!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Bad example, but still proves the point. This datum of a search would not be enough to shift someone from not guilty by reason that I am not sure to absolutely guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. This WOULD be worth something in a Wrongful Death lawsuit, where the standard is merely the preponderence of evidence, but no one has standing.
What is the /. interest in this story? It already kinda disgusting how these local crime stories dominate the national media, but now that the case is over with double-jeopardy attached, it appears on /. just because a search term was involved? Big whoop.
foolproof suffocation orgasm
Actually, she'll change her name, live the next 50 years just like any other white trash from Florida, and then get buried in the ground for good.
Please leave your moronic superstitions outside. Here we discuss science!
You are right in that it's no proof in itself. What makes it suspicious is the timing.
Lord Blargzorxx (Ted to his friends) will reward her handsomely for her crimes. A mansion! A little bench in the garden from which she can laugh as the non-murderers burn in Hell!
I feel this to be true in my heart.
That mork format was really something else. Whoever thought that having the browser history stored in an impenetrable format with no tools to read it should turn in their nerd badge.
You are right in that it's no proof in itself. What makes it suspicious is the timing.
And even the combination of search and timing aren't proof. But that's why we have juries, whose job it is to weigh the totality of the evidence. If the jury was teetering on the edge of convicting but could find just enough doubt to call it reasonable, perhaps this bit of information would have pushed them the other direction. Or not. But it's the sort of thing that should have been presented to them.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Did the local newspaper actually get a copy of the hard drive?
"Repeated requests by Local 6 beginning in 2009 for a copy of the hard drive that contained the Internet histories were denied by the state attorney's office, which claimed -- correctly, it turned out -- it did not have the data in its possession."
This kind of request should be denied outright, not because they don't have it.
Another true believer! I'm glad I wasn't the only one to hear Ted's words from a bloody pool of a loved one's tragic ending. And you know it has to be true, because who would make up such a terrible and strange thing?*
*the entire premise of all holy books is exactly just as plausible.
I've googled
r@ygold
hussyfan
babyshivid
kingpass
Doesn't mean I've killed a killed, raped, and videotaped the aftermath of a kid.
I also have the old crappy anarchist cookbook, a ebook on better living through chemistry
as well as googling how to assassinate the president and get away with it.
also how to murder my wife in a dolcett fashion, or use ammonium nitrate and methanol to visibly protest against the city hall the raising of property taxes...
google searches mean squat.
No, given that the prosecution tried to phone it in, the jury came to the only conclusion they could come to. They got it right. If that verdict doesn't match the facts, crucify the prosecutor that couldn't be bothered to do his job properly even though he was handed a gimmee.
Obviously we need to do a brain scan on everyone so we know the real truth!
given that the prosecution tried to phone it in
Not only that, but all the peripheral circumstantial evidence that the prosecution presented only served to bolster the defense argument that she was a awful, selfish, negligent mother who could believably leave her child unattended by a pool to accidentally fall in and drown. IIRC, there were jurors interviewed after the trial who openly questioned why the prosecution did not try her on the lesser charge of negligent homicide (which they were ready to convict her on) instead of first degree murder.
I wonder if this another case of certifications being treated as evidence of competence and experience. With the hundreds of infosec certs out there, and law enforcement agencies essentially being too ignorant to know the difference, or even to know if a certification has any value, I wonder if this happened because of incompetence disguised by a certification? Who doesn't know to look at all the browsers installed on the system? Seriously, that's such a boneheaded mistakes its frightening to think it happened.
The follow up to this should be an investigation into the whole certification process for all digital forensics persons working on this case, and if the certification turn out to be a joke, banning them and everyone that has the cert.
Python
Well if the cops missed checking the firefox browser cache, what makes you confident they would have checked to see if the system time was set correctly?
captcha word: echelon
You need to be very careful in using people's searches in court. As an example, I run role-playing games, some of which are set in the modern world. I've searched for all sorts of information on criminal activity.
No, given that the prosecution tried to phone it in, the jury came to the only conclusion they could come to. They got it right. If that verdict doesn't match the facts, crucify the prosecutor that couldn't be bothered to do his job properly even though he was handed a gimmee.
They did not phone it in, forensic fucking up the search history notwithstanding. There was plenty of evidence to convict, the jury simply wanted a smoking gun that was blatant and immediately obvious rather than something that required putting 2 + 2 together. This IS NOT the standard of guilt in the USA; you need guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not guilt beyond any possibility of innocence.
The jury convicted her of lying to the police and served time for it. What the fuck else could she have been lying ABOUT?
I just searched for it and the results are about Casey Anthony! So she wouldn't have found anything but herself if she searched for it, would she?
It is actually the prosecutor's job to put 2 and 2 together. Everything I have seen about the prosecution suggested that they didn't even present all of the available evidence to the jury. It's worth noting that just because you saw evidence in the media that was enough to convict, it doesn't mean the prosecution presented it to the jury.
Back before cars had emission controls there was a class of people known as "shadetree mechanics" that could actually fix a car without knowing much about what they were doing. No formal or even informal training, but they got by because of simplicity of the engines at the time. I know of someone in the computer forensics business that rails against "shadetree forensics" because it will be the downfall of computer forensic examination as a whole.
Someone I know in the FBI has rather strong words about pushbutton forensics where if you click the right button you get an answer. Maybe not the right answer, but something to put in a report. In some ways, computer forensics tools are moving in that direction with more and more automation and less and less understanding. When it takes several weeks of intensive training to understand a tool it does in some ways open the doors to this sort of use.
What we have here is very simply a case of pushbutton forensics. The examiner failed to conduct a proper examination of the computer and was misled by getting some easy results. These easy results were put in a report and passed on. Nobody ever questioned the examiner about what he or she might have missed - like the simple and obvious question of "What about alternative browsers?"
This is altogether too common today. Yes, there is a lot of training out there for people and there are various certifications, but none of it means the person doing the examination is actually performing an examinations or just pushing buttons to see what pops out. No, the certifications are not a joke and it takes a lot of effort to get certified. Unfortunately, there is little followup once someone is certified it is just assumed that they know what they are doing and how to perform a correct examination.
In defense of examiners I must say they all have huge backlogs and the pressure to deliver a report quickly is incredible. But that doesn't excuse being sloppy and at its core pushbutton forensics is just being sloppy.
And, it would also be evident that your searches related to the game being played.
Is for her to get into an armed robbery attempt to recover her sports memorabilia and she'll be doing time for what she deserves. :) Hope it doesn't take too long, though.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
So because she googled for "foolproof suffocation" that makes her automatically guilty in your eyes? Because you saw ALL the evidence the rest of the jurors saw?
Or are you just playing the hypocritical progressive as usual and calling others incompetent to make up for your shortcomings?
BTW in all your rantings and ravings about the war-monkey evil rethuglicans and your oh-so-noble pacifist nature I notice you can't be bothered to condemn Obama for drone assassinations...
Damn. Must now resist urge to Google "foolproof suffocation."
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Helping criminals evade justice since 2004.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
I guess back in 2008 most people still used Internet Explorer. I guess the foresincs team were used to 95% of people using IE 6 just 4 years earlier and it never dawned on them to ask what the red fox over the world icon was on her computer?
It also makes me wonder if use a minority browser like Opera today if I could get away with the same crime. 4 years later it is not just geeks who use alternative browsers but everyone and their brother runs the top 3.
http://saveie6.com/
Really? Do you think it'd be evident to a jury of non-gamers? When the prosecution has only submitted the searches as evidence that support their case, dismissing all the obviously game-related searches as unimportant?
She lied about what they did with the body after they found it in the pool and how her father disposed of it.
Alright folks, before you kill anyone, I wanted to let you all know that the fancy blog about suffocating and torturing children is actually a honey pot, edited by the same chaps over at Inspire. If you really want to know how to kill people, sign up for our free news letter. We teach the A's and B's of killing everything from small fury creatures, to large important people. Just because we care, we've included in this post our free clue of the day: When searching for homicidal procedures, be sure to remain indirect -- you should try things like "how to avoid fatally injuring someone" and simply do the opposite. For more great tips on premeditated murder in the age of Google, please send your contact information to foiled@fbi.guv
Casey Anthony, thou art ephemeral.
HRH The Duke of Windsor
I would like to know how she got off but Hans Reisier didn't Not that I believe(d) Reiser was innocent, but the level of doubt seems the same, except for one thing. Reiser was weird. As a weird person who is slightly more law abiding then the average person, I find the idea that I could be convicted of something because I act weird disturbing.
Any chance you all could stay on the topic of prosecutorial incompetence? No? Ah, didn't think so.
That is the real question. Why was it rushed? There was no physical evidence to her. Just lies and uncooperativeness by her. Had they done their jobs and waited until the had more evidence instead of rushing to trial because the big flapping/talking heads were yelling and screaming, she would be going to trial now (after court date set) and would be taking either a plea deal (assuming one was even offered, which in this case it probably would not be), and be in jail in 3-4 weeks for the rest of her life (be it taken early by the state or not).
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
I may be possible that his Certification covered only IE
n/t
I think computer searches should usually not be used as evidence in trials at all; there is too much potential for bias and misinterpretation.
The President has a "Kill List." The death penalty is executed, at least, as the result of a trial by jury. Capital punishment is not even close to the thing that gives the government "too much power."
There's this guy called counsel for the defense. He isn't there for decoration.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Back in 2006 I was searching for the "housing crash". In 2008 we had a financial meltdown. Just sayin...
Where's Dexter when you need him :)
Bow before me, for I am root.
I agree, the jury did the right thing *GIVEN THEY NEVER SAW the evidence that was so damning.