Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

'I'M the one who Googled chloroform': Casey Anthony's mother drops a bombshell as she testifies

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

'I'M the one who Googled chloroform': Casey Anthony's mother drops a bombshell as she testifies for the defense


www.dailymail.co.uk

Casey Anthony’s own mother attempted to blow up prosecution evidence against her daughter today as she claimed that she was the one who looked up facts about chloroform on the family’s home computer.
In a stunning twist to the state’s accusation that Casey researched the dangerous compound three months before using it to overpower her two-year-old daughter Caylee, Mrs Anthony revealed that she had herself pulled up Internet pages about chloroform in March 2008, seeking health information


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Normally I don't care much for these sensationalized stories of rediculous nature, but this one struck me as extremely odd.

How does the prosecution know what she "googled"?

What does that say about the police state grid in the US, that every search is logged and catalogued and used as evidence in court.

With new federal power grabs through regulations and bills like "The Patriot Act", could your next search be your last?

Let's play devil's advocate for a minute, since the majority will agree that the mother is making this story completely up, and say that what is said in her testimony is fact. . .

Someone could recieve the death penalty for googling the wrong search term at a bad time.

If this is admissable as evidence, it will remove the ability for the prosecution to argue premeditated murder, as opposed to something less severe.

Think about the gravity of a google search, and how it got to court.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


+17 more 
posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Whoa! Slow down buddy! The family computer was seized with a search warrant, and the internet history was taken off the hard drive.


And yes, casey mom was at work that day, and is lieing. Ive watched these people since "day 31". All they know how to do is lie.
Eta- imoo
edit on 25-6-2011 by showintail because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 


Even I can recover your data AFTER you delete your internet history:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I guarantee you a cheeseburger I may be able to piece together part of the history on your computer if not all of it.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by showintail
Whoa! Slow down buddy! The family computer was seized with a search warrant, and the internet history was taken off the hard drive.


And yes, casey mom was at work that day, and is lieing. Ive watched these people since "day 31". All they know how to do is lie.


I agree, I have followed this case not very closely most of the time, but since the trial started I've followed it pretty closely. I have to agree with you here that computer was taken three years ago, and the searches for chloroform were deleted, yet Cindy didn't even know which browser she was using and she can remember a pop up ad that popped up three years ago?!!? It's the most ridiculous thing I've heard that she (Cindy) did those searches!! She is a liar, and here I thought she was a grieving grandmother ...pfft!!

I'm sorry for that, this trial just makes me crazy!!!



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
This story is a distraction, I've never seen the media give so much attention to a random case before.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackStar99
 


Ever hear of OJ Simpson or JonBenet Ramsey?


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I with the OP. Even if they can or should be allowed to seize your puter, Googling something is evidence of nothing. My Google search patterns being on conspiracy boards all thee time and researching what I read about must make me look like the next Sultan of Al-Qaeda.
edit on 26-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbctinfantry
How does the prosecution know what she "googled"?

What does that say about the police state grid in the US, that every search is logged and catalogued and used as evidence in court.
As someone said they seized the computer, however they don't need to seize your computer to know what you googled.

Google saves all your searches, as I understand it...forever, or at least I never heard of them deleting any.

Under the patriot act, it's not hard for law enforcement to request information about your searches. The patriot act even says they don't need a warrant signed by a judge, they can ask for it now, and then follow up with the warrant signed by the judge later. How does that make sense? What if the judge decides not to sign the warrant? Too bad, they already have it.

I Google things like radiation from Fukushima and then compare that to radiation from atomic bombs like atmospheric tests done in the 1960s, perfectly innocent stuff. Because it involves atomic bombs, I'd just as soon not end up on any watch list of people Googling atomic bombs, so I Google it in a way that it's not logged to my IP by Google, as I use scroogle. Law enforcement can still get logs from Scroogle, but they only have 48 hours to do it, because after that, the logs are deleted, in contrast to Google who keeps them forever.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Not to be THAT guy but....

I don't think something that has been simultaneously broacast on ever cable news network really belongs in an alternative breaking news thread.

I'm not busting balls just saying



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
I with the OP. Even if they can or should be allowed to seize your puter, Googling something is evidence of nothing. My Google search patterns being on conspiracy boards all thee time and researching what I read about must make me look like the next Sultan of Al-Qaeda.
They don't need your puter, your ISP will give them everything they want, and even if they don't, the FBI has an app for that:

www.pcworld.com...


the ISPs are increasingly performing the intercepts of their own networks." He also says that the ISPs "overwhelmingly have been cooperative" in giving the FBI information it needs. (...)

The other software, which Bresson now uses in place of Carnivore, is used by the FBI only in the event that an ISP doesn't provide the federal agency with the information it needs.
They don't mention the name of the other software other than it's "commercially available". But they can get pretty much whatever they want about your internet activities, without your computer. Hello big brother!



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 



How does the prosecution know what she "googled"?

Computer forensics. They specialize in pulling up anything that was ever in your hard drive, doesn't matter if you deleted it, they can pull it back up. Actually I am quite the genius snoop myself and can pull up deleted history and deleted search history. And I learned it all on my own. It's not too difficult to do really! But just sayin if you ever look the wrong thing up...destroy the evidence especially if you use what you found. Sell off the old pc or laptop (after you reformat it so the buyer doesn't snoop) and buy a pristine pc or laptop.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
I don't think something that has been simultaneously broacast on ever cable news network really belongs in an alternative breaking news thread.
If all they did was post the story I'd agree, however they didn't just post the story. They asked a valid question about the angle of looking at what we Google, and if something you didn't even Google could be used against you, if say someone else used your computer. So that is sort of an alternative, Orwellian 1984-esque slant on the story, rather than just a raw story.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saya13
reply to post by BlackStar99
 


Ever hear of OJ Simpson or JonBenet Ramsey?


Those were high profile cases, this isn't.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Yeah, sure she searched for clorophyll, err, cholofoam. Sounds like a distaught and medicated mother is covering up for her daughter. And what mother wouldn't love her daughter, even if she is an alleged killer of a child?

Addendum: Up to this point, I need evidence like time/date stamps of the searches and the order in which the searches were done, etc. So far all I'm hearing are circumstantial evidence at best.
edit on 2011-6-26 by pikypiky because: To add more "food for thought".



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I don't think the majority really understand what I am getting at. Playing devil's advocate, a woman could face the death penalty over a google search. Why is this admissible evidence? I search some crazy things on the internet out of curiosity, don't you?

And it's an established fact now that your searching patterns are being recorded, most, of the time.

That much has been made clear.

Anyway, doesn't this seem like the type of case that sets precedent for future laws? Maybe that's why the attention is so vast with all these talks about internet censorship, cybersecurity, and the likes? This case would be the perfect kind to use as a pretext to steal your browsing data or more.

As far as forensics and computers, I know a little bit about it. I know that pretty much anything recorded on a hard drive can be recovered. I had no idea they could pull a google search term or browsing history from 3 years ago. That's insane and I feel like it stretches the law thin.

I can see it now:

Due to this trial and verdict, the police are now seeking authorization to monitor internet activity through XYZ bureau in order to prevent tragedies such as this from ever occurring. *sob sob*

It stinks.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


True, which is why I don't use an IP in my name or at my physical address.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 

This is one messed up family, possible incest, the brother is probably the little girls daddy, the dad was probably sexing the entire family.
The mom will do or say anything to keep her insane whore, daughter from the gas chamber.
The only normal person in this whole mess is little Kailey



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
.
edit on 26-6-2011 by CobraCommander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thunderheart
reply to post by sbctinfantry
 

This is one messed up family, possible incest, the brother is probably the little girls daddy, the dad was probably sexing the entire family.
The mom will do or say anything to keep her insane whore, daughter from the gas chamber.
The only normal person in this whole mess is little Kailey


I'm not trying to argue that she is innocent. I don't understand what your reply is in regards to really. I'm going to do my best not to flag this as off-topic.

Could you clarify and maybe we can have a real discussion?





new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join