PDA

View Full Version : April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

otto
04-30-2011, 04:33 AM
I suppose we should have a weekend thread before the comments get lost in two threads.

Bringing over a couple of comments from the last thread ... thanks to Johnfear who attended the trial on Friday:


Yes, I can go over what was said today (and previously) and compare and contrast.

(Pardon my BOZ commentary)

Basically, Cisco has discovered that they can indeed relate the machine codes back to individual components (conveniently) by date.

Problems (IMO): This is a "new" follow up (primarily to CYA on things come to light per this case, but, honestly, coupled with previous misconceptions within the company). They are putting CFry into an impossible position and a "hero" role. Unfair? Yes. They are going to lump (onto three people's backs) a very heavy burden in relying on some "scrabbled together" information.

Why is this a problem: 1) The spoilage/unknown issue is the biggest. Some of this evidence is invalid because it's invalid. It CAN NOT be used in the search for the truth. 2) It's new data and if the trial were in six months would be perfectly valid and tested, but is not currently because it has not withstood any level of errors. 3) It feels contrived because of the timing/wave it is riding and it comes on the heels of Boz being a self-righteous d__k about a lot of the other evidence and showing it in his cross. 4) It contradicts DD and CF in previous testimony to what means? Rebuttal means or new evidence means? We are saying what here? 5) This information is suspect by timing, spoilage AND inventory controls. Now we also have to deal with a new expert witness who can convolute this further OR we can accept it in light of numerous other missteps in the prosecution's case that have literally been "sponged" or had numerous holes poked in it.

The BIGGEST problem is this: We are going to rely on information from a potentially "spoiled" piece of evidence (the IBM Thinkpad's hard drive) to bolster a VERY weak CE case and say: Here's one more piece of the poison fruit from a (now) poison tree to sink your teeth into. Why is this a problem? Because you want me to see a router in a forest of routers that is "missing" and unaccounted for. (But, Johnfear, this could be the "truth" and that would show _________________ and that BC did ____________.) Unless this router is shown to be in existence until the moment the call is spoofed and then never heard from again, it is completely irrelevant. It is a tree in a forest where we've decided to count trees recently and it is lost on the case-in-chief and irregardless of the outcome, we do NOT preserve the tree, we preserve the underlying FOREST legally and move on.)

Why is all of this suspect? Because Boz and BC have one thing in common. They lie to preserve their lies. I liked Boz for about ten minutes early on. Then I saw him cross ineffectively. Then I saw him intentionally confuse Gessner. At that moment (and today) I decided I don't trust him on this case. Had it been Cummings. Even with Cummings saying exactly what I said above, it would be 10000 times the evidence that I needed. Boz saying it = last ditch effort and we know we are losing. Cummings saying it (after the ducks) = "Your Honor, this is the truth, and I understand it LESS than you, but, it's the truth".

The Cfry timing is not only suspect based on timing, it is also very scheme/map oriented. He's a witness who JUST HAPPENS to go digging and find the information on the eve of deliberations (calculate this odds and stop at a GOOGLE) it is suspect based on the source of the information and the heels of the "we don't have time to prepare for cross" complaints. Again, BOZ.

Boz needs to be ejected from the courtroom at this point. (Look at some of his weaker crosses and the behavior I consider to be OVER-THE-LINE lying and obfuscating.)

Cummings and Fitzhugh can carry this out in a fair manner. Boz just lies to Gessner thinking: (I'ma be a twitter-loving, myspace condemning judge some day soon)

CFRY basically is saying (This information ain't gone be ready, so I be coming back when it be ready. Cause then it's ready. This is not rebuttal. It's buying the Pros five days or six days to finish "exams' and cobble together a rebuttal around it when they should have gone along with the stay in Feb., presented the case to Cisco and CTF and THEN presented a case-in-chief.)

You ain't gonna hide behind national security on this one. And GM, witness or not, will have the cross prepped to tear it apart as "spoiled" evidence (via Trenkle, I'd wager) and you lose the case on the merits you introduced.

There may be something for the re-trial on these logs. Save it for the retrial. Cut your loses and move on.




By the way, my rankle on this has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence as this point.

It's about two things. 1) Fair trials and 2) due process versus "crap a waffle house platter of spaghetti on the wall post-case-in-chief" and see if noodles fall down. I actually liked Boz until the first time he lied to Gessner and exploited the judge trying to see things simply.

ETA: For the BDI side of the fence, you should be angry at this. Why? Because a win has been contaminated by "spoliage" and leaving reasonable doubt on the table by saying: Oh, we got a grand jury indictment on a "gut feeling" and we crammed as much in to confuse the jury to secure a win because "that is justice" and we don't care if it ruins future cases by locking this case into 10 years of appeals.

And prepare yourself for the lamest excuse ever by a prosecution: Oh, your honor, the defense had this for like 2.5 years now. We just didn't know the "right questions" to ask to illicit the answers we wanted to hear. And we know you would totally disallow that if a defense attorney asked it, but come on, ummm, we're the prosecution. The law doesn't apply to us, or the Cary PD. This is an instance of national security and ummmm, new technology. You knowhatImsayin?

So even if the prosecution can connect the router with Brad on the evening of July 11, we still have problems like the following. Even though this particular expert was not allowed to testify, maybe someone else will present the same evidence.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t189/zed0101/coopermodifiedfiles.jpg

Ref: WRAL video feed Thursday (might have been Wed).

otto
04-30-2011, 04:56 AM
Bringing this to the top of the list ...

cassius
04-30-2011, 06:45 AM
perhaps boz is opening the door for JG to allow GM to now testify as a rebuttal witness. JG is in a precarious position. He's allowing in new evidence through an expert witness and would seemingly need to all rebuttal by way of an expert witness. It seems if this information was found on the Thinkpad, Boz is opening up that whole can of worms again. The only problem, however, is that JG is deathly afraid of worms.

momof7
04-30-2011, 06:55 AM
Wow..so much has gone on this week, I may never catch up. The new router/spoofing call information looks interesting, though I find it odd that it is delivered so late in the game. You would think this little piece of information would have been one of the important things you investigate BEFORE the trail starts.

And before I get back to sorting out this whole week, am I correct that BC's mom found the cell phone, the necklace AND THE DUCKS???? Very strange.

Kelly

otto
04-30-2011, 07:16 AM
perhaps boz is opening the door for JG to allow GM to now testify as a rebuttal witness. JG is in a precarious position. He's allowing in new evidence through an expert witness and would seemingly need to all rebuttal by way of an expert witness. It seems if this information was found on the Thinkpad, Boz is opening up that whole can of worms again. The only problem, however, is that JG is deathly afraid of worms.

The expert that was heard on Thursday for appelate purposes had only examined a small portion of the evidence. Perhaps he should be allowed to testify for both parties. That can of worms could go either way.

otto
04-30-2011, 07:50 AM
Wow..so much has gone on this week, I may never catch up. The new router/spoofing call information looks interesting, though I find it odd that it is delivered so late in the game. You would think this little piece of information would have been one of the important things you investigate BEFORE the trail starts.

And before I get back to sorting out this whole week, am I correct that BC's mom found the cell phone, the necklace AND THE DUCKS???? Very strange.

Kelly

According to testimony, she found the necklace in the front foyer and thought it might get lost so near to the front door, so she moved it to a drawer in the room where she was staying. I heard earlier that the neckace was found in Brad's desk. Was Brad's mother keeping her sweaters in his desk? Where was it found? I thought she stated that it was found under her sweater.

The ducks were in a box and his mother saw them in the box. In November, when Brad was arrested, half the house was packed up (in part from the time when Nancy was alive) and Brad's mom had continued packing up the house. When Brad was arrested, she simlply handed everything over to the attorneys, including vehicles. Police had control to search the house and contents of the boxes in the house before it was released to attorneys. After the trial started, Brad's mom was having dinner with a woman that hosted her at some time. She mentioned all the Court Duck Talk. It turned out one of the attorneys at dinner had the ducks in her office. They were then entered into evidence. She took a couple of momentos before leaving, but she basically walked away from responsibility for packing up the house and all contents. She had no idea that the ducks were important until days into the trial, at which time she notified her son's lawyer. Through disclosure, the prosecution knew about the ducks from April 6 on.

Router spoofing comes down timeline problems, to a corrupt computer with backdoor malware and a wiped cell phone, the latter of which inadvertently occured while the electronics were in police custody. Is Brad that good? Did he leave a map of the drainage ditch on his computer before he went there, but he's so good he can remotely delete and mess with files? Probably.

Interesting week with another suppressed witness. He was qualified, but it was debated whether his testimony was necessary in the trial. The prosecution had not yet introduced evidence that this expert would address. He was put into the appelate record, and then the prosecution introduced new evidence that the appelate expert was qualified to address. The judge is allowing the witness, and the defense can rebut even though both sides have rested. I suppose it's like a mini Series 2 of the trial electronics.

The expert proposed by defense had only reviewed a fraction of the computer records, but if he's an expert, he could go either way. The judge should suggest that this expertise be accepted by both parties. It could go either way.

otto
04-30-2011, 08:03 AM
Trying to keep all the comments in one place so Friday's trial discussion doesn't get mixed with the weekend speculations.



I think you underestimate Joe Public...most are very savvy to what is going on..JMO


Thank you for your posts, and I think four of us on these boards saw that and said basically the same thing, you were in the court and came back with the same. Thank you!

momof7
04-30-2011, 08:08 AM
Thank you Otto for that synopsis! Helps a great deal. It has been an interesting week it appears. From the surface it appears that nothing has been confirmed that BC DID or DID NOT spoof the calls? The rebuttal phase and closing arguments will be very interesting in this trial. I hope that I have the opportunity to listen live.

With what little I have been able to actually get into it still sounds like it could go just about any which way, G, NG or hung jury. I would imagine, at this point, a lot depends on those closing arguments, tying things together, and of course, what can of worms the new expert brings to the mix.

Thanks again for keeping me in the loop!

Kelly

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 08:33 AM
If I'm understanding this correctly, what some are saying here is that because the police left the computer on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served any evidence found on the computer should be thrown out because of "spoilage"? I can't say that I would be able to accept that if I was on the jury.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 08:35 AM
According to testimony, she found the necklace in the front foyer (I seem to have heard in a box on the foyer table - may be one of those decorative ones, I have one of those where I put my keys on my foyer table) and thought it might get lost so near to the front door (with so many people in and out and driving by in curiosity but with the front door open so often), so she moved it to a drawer in the room where she was staying. I heard earlier that the neckace was found in Brad's desk (I never heard this, just that it was ultimately found in the guest room bedroom drawer where his mother was staying). Was Brad's mother keeping her sweaters in his desk (She was staying in the guest room)? Where was it found? I thought she stated that it was found under her sweater.

The ducks were in a box and his mother saw them in the box. In November, (after BC was arrested in October) when Brad was arrested, half the house was packed up (in part from the time when Nancy was alive) and Brad's mom had continued packing up the house. When Brad was arrested, she simlply handed everything over to the attorneys, including vehicles. Police had control to search the house and contents of the boxes in the house before it was released to attorneys. After the trial started, Brad's mom was having dinner with a woman (the Custody Attorney) that hosted her at some time. She mentioned all the Court Duck Talk. It turned out one of the attorneys (the Custody Attorney) at dinner had the ducks in her office. They were then entered into evidence. She took a couple of momentos before leaving, but she basically walked away from responsibility for packing up the house and all contents. She had no idea that the ducks were important until days into the trial, at which time she notified her son's lawyer. Through disclosure, the prosecution knew about the ducks from April 6 on. (Cummings was mad and grilled Mrs. C about why she did not tell the prosecution about the ducks in 2008, Mrs. C said she didn't know they were important until trial, Cummings said, in open court, that Mrs. C made all his witnesses look like liars - WRAL has been kind enough to put just that part on a video excerpt for us :-) http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9510364/#/vid9510364 - I can see that on TruTV in the future as the most inane thing a prosecutor can do, call his own witnesses liars in open court)

Router spoofing comes down timeline problems, to a corrupt computer with backdoor malware and a wiped cell phone, the latter of which inadvertently occured while the electronics were in police custody. Is Brad that good? Did he leave a map of the drainage ditch on his computer before he went there, but he's so good he can remotely delete and mess with files? Probably. (unlikely imo)

Interesting week with another suppressed witness. He was qualified, but it was debated whether his testimony was necessary in the trial. The prosecution had not yet introduced evidence that this expert would address. He was put into the appelate record, and then the prosecution introduced new evidence that the appelate expert was qualified to address. The judge is allowing the witness, and the defense can rebut even though both sides have rested. I suppose it's like a mini Series 2 of the trial electronics.

The expert proposed by defense had only reviewed a fraction of the computer records, but if he's an expert, he could go either way. The judge should suggest that this expertise be accepted by both parties. It could go either way.

Thank you, Otto, and I hope you don't mind if I make a couple of add ons and corrections in your post above, I will make mine red, so I don't have to do a bunch of retyping, yes, i am lazy this morning.

They also showed video of NC in HT on Friday July 11, spending money that she supposedly did not have that week, and also not wearing the necklace she NEVER took off.

One more thing, the Defense rested their case after a cumulative 4.5 days of testimony, now the Prosecution basiscally wants to go back to day one and start their case all over again pretending it is rebuttal testimony after having 8.2 weeks to present their original case. Boz has been manipulating the truth to sway the Judge. They also want their new witness to testify on things that they previously said an expert was needed to testify on, but because it is this mans job in part, Pros feels that is ok, but they didn't feel it was ok when it was JWs job to discuss the same thing.

Pros objected to delaying the trial in Feb because they were ready to present their case, but it seems now that they were not.

cityslick
04-30-2011, 08:37 AM
If I'm understanding this correctly, what some are saying here is that because the police left the computer on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served any evidence found on the computer should be thrown out because of "spoilage"? I can't say that I would be able to accept that if I was on the jury.

Not that's it's really similar, but what if an analogy can be made, like what if a DNA sample was left in an unsecured/unsterile lab for 27 hours. Would you consider that sample to have 'spoilage'?

I'm not arguing that it's spoiled either, just throwing the thought out there.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 08:39 AM
Thank you, Otto, and I hope you don't mind if I make a couple of add ons and corrections in your post above, I will make mine red, so I don't have to do a bunch of retyping, yes, i am lazy this morning.

They also showed video of NC in HT on Friday July 11, spending money that she supposedly did not have that week, and also not wearing the necklace she NEVER took off.

One more thing, the Defense rested their case after a cumulative 4.5 days of testimony, now the Prosecution basiscally wants to go back to day one and start their case all over again pretending it is rebuttal testimony after having 8.2 weeks to present their original case. Boz has been manipulating the truth to sway the Judge. They also want their new witness to testify on things that they previously said an expert was needed to testify on, but because it is this mans job in part, Pros feels that is ok, but they didn't feel it was ok when it was JWs job to discuss the same thing.

Pros objected to delaying the trial in Feb because they were ready to present their case, but it seems now that they were not.

Since you brought it up, she WAS wearing the necklace. Otto showed it in her photo enhancement.

Bottle Cap
04-30-2011, 08:41 AM
I don't so much fault BZ for what he's doing. He's playing the game. If his job is to win this case and evidence has come to light that will rebut JW's testimony and clear up speculation about routers, then IMO he'd be remiss not to try to get it in. He works for the DA's office - from a professional standpoint, he's not going to sit on knowledge that could potentially put a murderer behind bars because he wants to be nice. What sort of DA does that? Somebody else put it like this - it's a murder trial, not a tea party. I daresay that if the defense had something very suddenly that proved BC innocent from a source they'd been working with for a while, they'd be doing whatever it took in an effort to get it in. Whether they were successful or not, you'd have to give them credit for trying to expose the truth. If you have to be mad at someone, shouldn't you be mad at the Cisco folks for not getting on the ball a little faster with the Feb court order?

The other issue is that the defense had every opportunity to put someone besides JW on the stand, knowing his ability to testify was limited. They chose to do it anyway. If they'd put somebody up who could testify on forensic issues, possibly a lot of this would seem "fairer". I put fair in quotes, because nobody made the defense choose JW. For that matter, if BZ hadn't tried to discredit him, he wouldn't have been doing his job. The FB page was relevant with regard to conspiracy theories - I think the prosecution has addressed the existence of wacky conspiracy theories in an abstract way, instead of head on - the JW FB page and MH's squirmy testimony being a prime example.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 08:44 AM
Not that's it's really similar, but what if an analogy can be made, like what if a DNA sample was left in an unsecured/unsterile lab for 27 hours. Would you consider that sample to have 'spoilage'?

I'm not arguing that it's spoiled either, just throwing the thought out there.

I do not consider that to be a good analogy. The owner of the DNA would have needed to have access to that DNA that no one else had in order for the analogy to be equivalent. I really do not believe that anyone tampered with Brad's computer. I do not believe anyone dropped that google map search onto his computer. I do not believe that anyone went in there and changed the times on his computer. That makes zero sense to me.

Bottle Cap
04-30-2011, 08:51 AM
Was the computer in the house for the whole 27 hours?

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 08:55 AM
Since you brought it up, she WAS wearing the necklace. Otto showed it in her photo enhancement.

No, she wasn't, but that is fine if you believe that and believe that even though you think she had it on that the Prosecution didn't think it worthy of crossing on that issue. It was obvious in the video she had on no necklace.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 08:57 AM
Was the computer in the house for the whole 27 hours?

Yes. When the police served the search warrant the computer was in the home office connected to the docking station. It was locked with a password but was still connected to the network and to the Cisco VPN. The agents charged with securing computer evidence did not arrive until the following evening, 27 hours later. They also did not follow proper protocol in aquiring the RAM before powering down but it was taken off the network at that time. That's my understanding of the timeline.

Bottle Cap
04-30-2011, 08:57 AM
No, she wasn't, but that is fine if you believe that and believe that even though you think she had it on that the Prosecution didn't think it worthy of crossing on that issue. It was obvious in the video she had on no necklace.

She also forgot to wear her chin and jawline that day.

cityslick
04-30-2011, 08:58 AM
I do not consider that to be a good analogy. The owner of the DNA would have needed to have access to that DNA that no one else had in order for the analogy to be equivalent. I really do not believe that anyone tampered with Brad's computer. I do not believe anyone dropped that google map search onto his computer. I do not believe that anyone went in there and changed the times on his computer. That makes zero sense to me.

I came up with that because I was thinking of the OJ case and how a big deal was made of the blood/dna sample kept in a jacket pocket for some time (meaning it wasn't properly handled).

In a computer sense, can you make the argument that the computer wasn't properly 'handled' after it was secured by LE?

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 08:58 AM
No, she wasn't, but that is fine if you believe that and believe that even though you think she had it on that the Prosecution didn't think it worthy of crossing on that issue. It was obvious in the video she had on no necklace.

It's not a matter of a "belief". I saw it with my own eyes. From the video, it looks like she doesn't have a chin either.

Bottle Cap
04-30-2011, 09:00 AM
If the computer was in the house, and the house was secured, isn't it reasonable to believe that the house's contents are secure too? Otherwise you could believe that CPD packed up the ducks, removed the sticks, put the necklace in a drawer, threw some shoes away, and ditched a router. Not that anyone believes that, but if the house can't be considered secure, then NO evidence is going to be worthy.

cityslick
04-30-2011, 09:00 AM
It's not a matter of a "belief". I saw it with my own eyes. From the video, it looks like she doesn't have a chin either.

Everyone sees it differently. You can look at the picture and the video upside down and all around and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. You can't see the earrings either, so who knows if she's wearing those or not.

CrimeAddict
04-30-2011, 09:01 AM
Thank you, Otto, and I hope you don't mind if I make a couple of add ons and corrections in your post above, I will make mine red, so I don't have to do a bunch of retyping, yes, i am lazy this morning.

They also showed video of NC in HT on Friday July 11, spending money that she supposedly did not have that week, and also not wearing the necklace she NEVER took off.

One more thing, the Defense rested their case after a cumulative 4.5 days of testimony, now the Prosecution basiscally wants to go back to day one and start their case all over again pretending it is rebuttal testimony after having 8.2 weeks to present their original case. Boz has been manipulating the truth to sway the Judge. They also want their new witness to testify on things that they previously said an expert was needed to testify on, but because it is this mans job in part, Pros feels that is ok, but they didn't feel it was ok when it was JWs job to discuss the same thing.

Pros objected to delaying the trial in Feb because they were ready to present their case, but it seems now that they were not.

IMO that is speculation. We don't know if he gave her 20 bucks or so to tide her over and get ribs for the party. I did notice she did not buy much at the store.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 09:03 AM
I came up with that because I was thinking of the OJ case and how a big deal was made of the blood/dna sample kept in a jacket pocket for some time (meaning it wasn't properly handled).

In a computer sense, can you make the argument that the computer wasn't properly 'handled' after it was secured by LE?

If their expert could get on the stand and say that this file was dropped on the computer on X day at Y time, I would say there was tampering. What their expert talked about more than anything else was "spoilage" and that had to do with the fact that the computer was left on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served. He also critisized them putting the computer in a locked lab instead of an evidence storage room. I didn't hear him testify to any google map being added or times changed during his testimony (outside the presence of the jury) the other day.

cityslick
04-30-2011, 09:03 AM
If the computer was in the house, and the house was secured, isn't it reasonable to believe that the house's contents are secure too? Otherwise you could believe that CPD packed up the ducks, removed the sticks, put the necklace in a drawer, threw some shoes away, and ditched a router. Not that anyone believes that, but if the house can't be considered secure, then NO evidence is going to be worthy.

Did we ever hear an explanation why it took CPD 27 hours to get Det. Ice there to get the computers after the house was secured?

Bottle Cap
04-30-2011, 09:04 AM
Did we ever hear an explanation why it took CPD 27 hours to get Det. Ice there to get the computers after the house was secured?

Not that I recall. I wasn't even sure the computer was there for 27 hours, or if part of that was in transit or what. My brain can't retain all these zillions of details.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 09:05 AM
Everyone sees it differently. You can look at the picture and the video upside down and all around and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. You can't see the earrings either, so who knows if she's wearing those or not.

But you can most definitely see that necklace in the photo enhanced by otto. I agree you can't see it in that grainy video taken from a distance. Perhaps the pros. will clear this up in rebuttal.

momof7
04-30-2011, 09:11 AM
Bottle Cap, I agree with your issue re: the Defense and JW testimony. Especially if it is true JW asserted to the Defense he was not a forensic expert before he even came to testify. I am still dumbfounded that they did not look for a forensic expert to bolster their side of the testimony. The only logical thought I can process there is that there wasn't anyone willing to say the evidence was incorrect or altered. There was no one willing to go out on that limb. As with so much of the trail, everytime I think a point has been made by the attorneys, something more is brought out that just throws it back in the mixing pot. I am not a lawyer though, and with everything so far, it feels like we are seeing a chess game, one upmanship type thing. Something along the lines of 'Oh yeah, so ya found the ducks, well guess what WE found the router'. I just had a different idea of what I 'thought' would go on in court. And Boz, coming right out and saying the information makes them look like liars. My only thought there is we have had to infer so much why not let the jury decide that too IMHO.

There is a human side of this whole trail, the he-said/she-said that really bogs down what the heart of the matter is. I still hold firm to my conviction, without additional testimony/rebuttal/closing arguments being heard yet, that this jury decision will come down to the computer/spoof call testimony and what they believe is the correct answer. If FD and JF are correct, there is at least one juror who is possibly able to decode the information the others are unsure of. The only problem is, which way does that juror see it and what information will they need to decide if it was possibly tampering or BC was an expert in changing and clouding the waters to make it look like he didn't do it. I will be glad to hear the rest and see if either Def/Pros can turn that information into 'proof' of either.

I guess, IMHO and my feelings and thoughts only, I am still stuck on how things will play out. As Gritguy pointed out, who knows what the jury will decide in the end, the note though is telling of how they are feeling about the length of the trail. I hope they are still paying attention.

I also wanted to mention, I noticed on another thread (I believe thurs?) there was discussion on BC getting the children back if he is NG etc. IMHO, even if he is found NG, his life is ruined. Cisco won't take him back so that employment is out. His field deals with technology, I can't imagine that there isn't a 'taint' on his employment in any field. Similar to the OJ scenario, he pretty much will be forever the guy who probably murdered his wife and got away with it if there is a NG verdict. IIRC, Nicole's family retained custody of those children along with a verdict in the civil action along with RG's family. BC, IMHO, will never live with or have custody of his children ever again.

Kelly

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 09:17 AM
I don't so much fault BZ for what he's doing. He's playing the game. If his job is to win this case and evidence has come to light that will rebut JW's testimony and clear up speculation about routers, then IMO he'd be remiss not to try to get it in. He works for the DA's office - from a professional standpoint, he's not going to sit on knowledge that could potentially put a murderer behind bars because he wants to be nice. What sort of DA does that? Somebody else put it like this - it's a murder trial, not a tea party. I daresay that if the defense had something very suddenly that proved BC innocent from a source they'd been working with for a while, they'd be doing whatever it took in an effort to get it in. Whether they were successful or not, you'd have to give them credit for trying to expose the truth. If you have to be mad at someone, shouldn't you be mad at the Cisco folks for not getting on the ball a little faster with the Feb court order?

The other issue is that the defense had every opportunity to put someone besides JW on the stand, knowing his ability to testify was limited. They chose to do it anyway. If they'd put somebody up who could testify on forensic issues, possibly a lot of this would seem "fairer". I put fair in quotes, because nobody made the defense choose JW. For that matter, if BZ hadn't tried to discredit him, he wouldn't have been doing his job. The FB page was relevant with regard to conspiracy theories - I think the prosecution has addressed the existence of wacky conspiracy theories in an abstract way, instead of head on - the JW FB page and MH's squirmy testimony being a prime example.

I am not sure if you are a US citizen, or where you went to school, but in the civics classes I had when a person's life and livelihood are on the line it is not a game and it is not about the State winning as much as it is supposed to be about Justice. That means that the ADA should not be obfuscating the truth to the Judge when he wants to get something into evidence, and he should not be making unethical comments as he did yesterday in court. I really hope that he is brought before the bar for some of his actions and statements in this case.

I am all for justice, and putting a murderer in jail, if they have properly investigated, and it is the right person. What I am not for is manipulation of justice to "win the game," overtly biased Judges, and the treading on of people's rights, last I knew the government still worked for the people, not the other way around. Just like the National Security issues precluding examination of evidence that the State has brought forward in this trial, that, I bet, is really going to have some repercussions down the line. Basically, it is the State saying, we have evidence against you, we can't show it to you, just trust us that it is against you. That really feels like some Communist or Facist ruled country to me, and I don't believe that is what the USA is about.

The State had a chance to delay this trial until they had all the evidence in, they objected to that delay saying they had everything they needed. Cisco is not the problem here, the State is the one that seems to have rushed to judgement and then thought later that maybe they should do a bit of real investigating.

The Defense should have been allowed to bring in their expert this week. That is if you truly believe what you have said about justice and finding the truth. The conspiracy theories on JWs FB page was ridiculous, BZ did not discreit the relevant testimony at all, he attacked the person. MH was not squirmy. You are a BDI person, I am not a BDI person, or a a person that thinks BC is innocent, I am about justice and there has been none in this case. What did they really put him in jail for 2.5 years ago? Missing ducks that weren't missing, a necklace she never supposedly took off that we now found out she did, or was it one of the other totally broken theories of the State? We were told it was some FBI computer technology that was presented before the GJ, now we find out that the FBI did not even look critically at the computer evidence until after he was arrested. Maybe it is fine with you to be lied to by our government, maybe it makes some feel safer, it doesn't make me feel that way.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 09:29 AM
Yes. When the police served the search warrant the computer was in the home office connected to the docking station. It was locked with a password but was still connected to the network and to the Cisco VPN. The agents charged with securing computer evidence did not arrive until the following evening, 27 hours later. They also did not follow proper protocol in aquiring the RAM before powering down but it was taken off the network at that time. That's my understanding of the timeline.

We don't know when the CPD secured the house if the laptop was PW protected, we only know that it is was later. We also know that the FBI agent didn't know that the laptop had not been properly secured as it was supposed to have been, that means powering it down as soon as the house was secured amongst other things. We do know that supposedly the CPD couldn't turn it off for 27 hours due to the possibility of corrupting data, which we now know that corruption happened after the CPD took possession. They won't tell us why the 27th hour was the magic hour. We also know the CPD totally corrupted other electonics, NC's blackberry.

momof7
04-30-2011, 09:30 AM
[QUOTE=Danielle59;6415677]I am all for justice, and putting a murderer in jail, if they have properly investigated, and it is the right person. What I am not for is manipulation of justice to "win the game," overtly biased Judges, and the treading on of people's rights, last I knew the government still worked for the people, not the other way around. Just like the National Security issues precluding examination of evidence that the State has brought forward in this trial, that, I bet, is really going to have some repercussions down the line. Basically, it is the State saying, we have evidence against you, we can't show it to you, just trust us that it is against you. [QUOTE]

I agree with this, I can not, IMHO, believe that it is right/legal for evidence to be entered that can not be rebutted/refuted by the Defense. I also believe, as you do, down the line this is one that will have repercussions. If, IMHO, the only way to recreate the google testimony was by using tools/technology that couldn't be shown due to National Security Issues, they should not have been allowed until it shown to be unbiased or legal. That is a big sticking point for me. I am also of the mind, if we allow this type of thing to happen, where exactly is the justice? Where does it really end? Again, just my thoughts.

Kelly

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 09:32 AM
IMO that is speculation. We don't know if he gave her 20 bucks or so to tide her over and get ribs for the party. I did notice she did not buy much at the store.

You think she bought ribs, wine, and what seemed to be a bunch of other things for $20? The testimony of friends was that she had no money that day because BC didn't give her any, now you want us to believe he gave her some to tide her over?

momof7
04-30-2011, 09:37 AM
You think she bought ribs, wine, and what seemed to be a bunch of other things for $20? The testimony of friends was that she had no money that day because BC didn't give her any, now you want us to believe he gave her some to tide her over?

For some reason, I was thinking she had some money due to her family giving her money from the beach vacation. Regardless, it does refute some testimony she had NO money because BC wouldn't give her the allowance. Either way, its just more smoke and mirrors for me. Unless BC gets on the stand and says he did or didn't give her something, or she had some left over from the trip who is really to know?

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 09:40 AM
I'm not positive of the timeline but I believe in the deposition that Brad said Nancy had left money for him on the foyer table in order to pay him back for paint used at JA's house. I guess I just assumed that she was using the money she got from painting to pay for those items.

momof7
04-30-2011, 09:43 AM
I'm not positive of the timeline but I believe in the deposition that Brad said Nancy had left money for him on the foyer table in order to pay him back for paint used at JA's house. I guess I just assumed that she was using the money she got from painting to pay for those items.

And that is a very plausible explanation at this point, the painting money has been confusing to me as well. So, yes, that could be something to base an assumption on IMHO.

Kelly

momof7
04-30-2011, 09:47 AM
She didn't find any of them. BC gave her the phone. The necklace was in a drawer in the house with jewelry. And the ducks were boxed up in the house and his custody attorney told Mrs. C. that she still had them.

So, in other words, she was the link to all the missing items. Not necessarily found them but knew where they were?

Thanks!

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 09:49 AM
Bottle Cap, I agree with your issue re: the Defense and JW testimony. Especially if it is true JW asserted to the Defense he was not a forensic expert before he even came to testify. I am still dumbfounded that they did not look for a forensic expert to bolster their side of the testimony. The only logical thought I can process there is that there wasn't anyone willing to say the evidence was incorrect or altered. There was no one willing to go out on that limb. As with so much of the trail, everytime I think a point has been made by the attorneys, something more is brought out that just throws it back in the mixing pot. I am not a lawyer though, and with everything so far, it feels like we are seeing a chess game, one upmanship type thing. Something along the lines of 'Oh yeah, so ya found the ducks, well guess what WE found the router'. I just had a different idea of what I 'thought' would go on in court. And Boz, coming right out and saying the information makes them look like liars. My only thought there is we have had to infer so much why not let the jury decide that too IMHO.

There is a human side of this whole trail, the he-said/she-said that really bogs down what the heart of the matter is. I still hold firm to my conviction, without additional testimony/rebuttal/closing arguments being heard yet, that this jury decision will come down to the computer/spoof call testimony and what they believe is the correct answer. If FD and JF are correct, there is at least one juror who is possibly able to decode the information the others are unsure of. The only problem is, which way does that juror see it and what information will they need to decide if it was possibly tampering or BC was an expert in changing and clouding the waters to make it look like he didn't do it. I will be glad to hear the rest and see if either Def/Pros can turn that information into 'proof' of either.

I guess, IMHO and my feelings and thoughts only, I am still stuck on how things will play out. As Gritguy pointed out, who knows what the jury will decide in the end, the note though is telling of how they are feeling about the length of the trail. I hope they are still paying attention.

I also wanted to mention, I noticed on another thread (I believe thurs?) there was discussion on BC getting the children back if he is NG etc. IMHO, even if he is found NG, his life is ruined. Cisco won't take him back so that employment is out. His field deals with technology, I can't imagine that there isn't a 'taint' on his employment in any field. Similar to the OJ scenario, he pretty much will be forever the guy who probably murdered his wife and got away with it if there is a NG verdict. IIRC, Nicole's family retained custody of those children along with a verdict in the civil action along with RG's family. BC, IMHO, will never live with or have custody of his children ever again.

Kelly


I think the reason they wanted JW to testify versus a "forensics" guy is because they needed the security expertise more than the forensic component in this situation - showing intrusions occurred on the computer. JW was the right choice because he did have at least *some* forensics knowledge and a great deal of expertise in network/computer security and analysis of data logs. Even GM confirmed his evaluations as accurate. ( GM is the forensic examiner who testified without the jury only as an offer of proof.) And he also said that typically the forensic examiner takes the reports generated BY the network security expert and examines them as part of the exam/investigation. So there are two components to this. BZ's protests about needing a forensics expert to examine logs was wrong from the start. JW was quite qualified to discuss ALL the computer logs. It is what he does. So now the rules have changed due to Boz once again tricking JG. (Bringing in CF to report on logs with NO expertise whatsoever in forensics.)

Another thing I found interesting is that defense asked for information on router logs and event logs in their February motion, recognizing the importance of having ALL pertinent information. Now they have to go over a great deal of new information in a very short amount of time because it JUST surfaced.

GhostCrab
04-30-2011, 09:51 AM
So, in other words, she was the link to all the missing items. Not necessarily found them but knew where they were?

Thanks!

No one even knew the ducks were "missing" until after the trial started and it became known that they were such an important part of the state's narrative. Keep in mind, Mrs. C didn't offer up anything in the house to the civil attorney until AFTER the police were done with it. They could have easily found the ducks themselves had they opened some boxes.

momof7
04-30-2011, 09:53 AM
I think the reason they wanted JW to testify versus a "forensics" guy is because they needed the security expertise more than the forensic component in this situation - showing intrusions occurred on the computer. JW was the right choice because he did have at least *some* forensics knowledge and a great deal of expertise in network/computer security and analysis of data logs. Even GM confirmed his evaluations as accurate. ( GM is the forensic examiner who testified without the jury only as an offer of proof.) And he also said that typically the forensic examiner takes the reports generated BY the network security expert and examines them as part of the exam/investigation. So there are two components to this. BZ's protests about needing a forensics expert to examine logs was wrong from the start. JW was quite qualified to discuss ALL the computer logs. It is what he does. So now the rules have changed due to Boz once again tricking JG. (Bringing in CF to report on logs with NO expertise whatsoever in forensics.)

Another thing I found interesting is that defense asked for information on router logs and event logs in their February motion, recognizing the importance of having ALL pertinent information. Now they have to go over a great deal of new information in a very short amount of time because it JUST surfaced.

This makes absolute sense to me. You would think the 'how' the information could have gotten there would definitely preclude the 'what' that evidence is.

Thank you Sunshine05!

momof7
04-30-2011, 10:00 AM
No one even knew the ducks were "missing" until after the trial started and it became known that they were such an important part of the state's narrative. Keep in mind, Mrs. C didn't offer up anything in the house to the civil attorney until AFTER the police were done with it. They could have easily found the ducks themselves had they opened some boxes.

Yes, I do believe that did see a news clip showing the moving truck and the items being taken out of the house. Knowing that CPD did not do as 'thorough' an investigation of that house as they could have. Just makes things a bit murkier. CPD says they did everything possible to follow every lead, searched and searched and the DA built their case around all of this.

I can only hope AL is in the process of rewriting her book. Doesn't seem like the ending she has planned, if the cover of that book remains the same, is likely to happen IMHO

Bottle Cap
04-30-2011, 10:01 AM
I am not sure if you are a US citizen, or where you went to school, but in the civics classes I had when a person's life and livelihood are on the line it is not a game and it is not about the State winning as much as it is supposed to be about Justice. That means that the ADA should not be obfuscating the truth to the Judge when he wants to get something into evidence, and he should not be making unethical comments as he did yesterday in court. I really hope that he is brought before the bar for some of his actions and statements in this case.

I am all for justice, and putting a murderer in jail, if they have properly investigated, and it is the right person. What I am not for is manipulation of justice to "win the game," overtly biased Judges, and the treading on of people's rights, last I knew the government still worked for the people, not the other way around. Just like the National Security issues precluding examination of evidence that the State has brought forward in this trial, that, I bet, is really going to have some repercussions down the line. Basically, it is the State saying, we have evidence against you, we can't show it to you, just trust us that it is against you. That really feels like some Communist or Facist ruled country to me, and I don't believe that is what the USA is about.

The State had a chance to delay this trial until they had all the evidence in, they objected to that delay saying they had everything they needed. Cisco is not the problem here, the State is the one that seems to have rushed to judgement and then thought later that maybe they should do a bit of real investigating.

The Defense should have been allowed to bring in their expert this week. That is if you truly believe what you have said about justice and finding the truth. The conspiracy theories on JWs FB page was ridiculous, BZ did not discreit the relevant testimony at all, he attacked the person. MH was not squirmy. You are a BDI person, I am not a BDI person, or a a person that thinks BC is innocent, I am about justice and there has been none in this case. What did they really put him in jail for 2.5 years ago? Missing ducks that weren't missing, a necklace she never supposedly took off that we now found out she did, or was it one of the other totally broken theories of the State? We were told it was some FBI computer technology that was presented before the GJ, now we find out that the FBI did not even look critically at the computer evidence until after he was arrested. Maybe it is fine with you to be lied to by our government, maybe it makes some feel safer, it doesn't make me feel that way.

I mean this with all respect, but to say someone is obfuscating the truth implies that you actually know what it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are very few absolutes, and the truth is an enormous gray area containing lots of room for perception. In fact, if truth was as easy to grasp hold of as all that, sitting right there in front of our faces, we'd not have a trial and we'd not be having this conversation.

lib's mom
04-30-2011, 10:01 AM
I'm not positive of the timeline but I believe in the deposition that Brad said Nancy had left money for him on the foyer table in order to pay him back for paint used at JA's house. I guess I just assumed that she was using the money she got from painting to pay for those items.

I was thinking it was the painting money as well.

momof7
04-30-2011, 10:03 AM
I think the reason they wanted JW to testify versus a "forensics" guy is because they needed the security expertise more than the forensic component in this situation - showing intrusions occurred on the computer. JW was the right choice because he did have at least *some* forensics knowledge and a great deal of expertise in network/computer security and analysis of data logs. Even GM confirmed his evaluations as accurate. ( GM is the forensic examiner who testified without the jury only as an offer of proof.) And he also said that typically the forensic examiner takes the reports generated BY the network security expert and examines them as part of the exam/investigation. So there are two components to this. BZ's protests about needing a forensics expert to examine logs was wrong from the start. JW was quite qualified to discuss ALL the computer logs. It is what he does. So now the rules have changed due to Boz once again tricking JG. (Bringing in CF to report on logs with NO expertise whatsoever in forensics.)

Another thing I found interesting is that defense asked for information on router logs and event logs in their February motion, recognizing the importance of having ALL pertinent information. Now they have to go over a great deal of new information in a very short amount of time because it JUST surfaced.

Any of the lawyers posting know if JW could possibly be brought back for the defense again? Will the court's previously ruling and subsequent ruling on CF will allow JW to expand on his testimony? Or at this point he is not going to be qualified as an expert but can he be used to refute this testimony?

Kelly

bloghooligan
04-30-2011, 10:03 AM
Bz keeps bringing to mind Mike Nifong. During Nifong's attempt to railroad the Duke LAX we called them "Nifongisms" he minced words, lied to at least one Judge, strutted, accused, lied to the media, lied to the public.

all in attempt to get elected and WIN a case. He actually said something to the effect 'if I were these attorneys (the defense) I'd be afraid to try a case against me too'.

For the DA's office, it should be purely about justice. They shouldn't twist their words and attempt to twist/hide/manufacture evidence to WIN. I do understand how a case can become personal, a mission, but the DA's office needs to constantly remind themselves, they work for the public -- their job is not about winning, it's about fairness and justice.

In this case, the prosecution presented speculation (not proof) about spoofing calls (thus far). The defense presented speculation (accusations) of tampering. Now, at the 11th hour the pros has supposedly found proof to their speculation. They should be allowed to present the proof but the defense should be allowed to present their proof of tampering.

One of the biggest issues with our 'Justice System' (at least in NC) is the fact that PD, DA & Judges all grow up and work together. They build personal relationships after working together for years. A judge in Durham testified on Nifong's behalf at a contempt hearing -- where Nifong was found guilty of lying in court (and served one day in jail!). That judge cried (yes) on the stand as he testified to what a good guy Nifong is/was. OMG. He was trying to send 3 innocent people to prison for 30+ years for a crime HE KNEW never happened. Sorry I digressed... Judges, DAs, PDs... they have each other's backs and they do things that aren't in the best interest of justice... I think we've seen some of that 'justice' in this case

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 10:04 AM
I am all for justice, and putting a murderer in jail, if they have properly investigated, and it is the right person. What I am not for is manipulation of justice to "win the game," overtly biased Judges, and the treading on of people's rights, last I knew the government still worked for the people, not the other way around. Just like the National Security issues precluding examination of evidence that the State has brought forward in this trial, that, I bet, is really going to have some repercussions down the line. Basically, it is the State saying, we have evidence against you, we can't show it to you, just trust us that it is against you.


I agree with this, I can not, IMHO, believe that it is right/legal for evidence to be entered that can not be rebutted/refuted by the Defense. I also believe, as you do, down the line this is one that will have repercussions. If, IMHO, the only way to recreate the google testimony was by using tools/technology that couldn't be shown due to National Security Issues, they should not have been allowed until it shown to be unbiased or legal. That is a big sticking point for me. I am also of the mind, if we allow this type of thing to happen, where exactly is the justice? Where does it really end? Again, just my thoughts.

Kelly

For me it goes beyond even Justice, I think maybe for you too, it goes to us being a "Free People."

The problem with their reasoning, and us accepting it for any instance, is that we never know who will be in a position of power to use that reasoning, they could be someone that we really shouldn't trust.

There are two sayings that I think sums it up quite well:

'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834-1902) to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887

And by one of our signing fathers:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, February 1775

I have no ball in this game regarding this particular defendant, but I do have a ball in the game when it comes to future cases and our liberty in general.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:05 AM
I don't so much fault BZ for what he's doing. He's playing the game. If his job is to win this case and evidence has come to light that will rebut JW's testimony and clear up speculation about routers, then IMO he'd be remiss not to try to get it in. He works for the DA's office - from a professional standpoint, he's not going to sit on knowledge that could potentially put a murderer behind bars because he wants to be nice. What sort of DA does that? Somebody else put it like this - it's a murder trial, not a tea party. I daresay that if the defense had something very suddenly that proved BC innocent from a source they'd been working with for a while, they'd be doing whatever it took in an effort to get it in. Whether they were successful or not, you'd have to give them credit for trying to expose the truth. If you have to be mad at someone, shouldn't you be mad at the Cisco folks for not getting on the ball a little faster with the Feb court order?

The other issue is that the defense had every opportunity to put someone besides JW on the stand, knowing his ability to testify was limited. They chose to do it anyway. If they'd put somebody up who could testify on forensic issues, possibly a lot of this would seem "fairer". I put fair in quotes, because nobody made the defense choose JW. For that matter, if BZ hadn't tried to discredit him, he wouldn't have been doing his job. The FB page was relevant with regard to conspiracy theories - I think the prosecution has addressed the existence of wacky conspiracy theories in an abstract way, instead of head on - the JW FB page and MH's squirmy testimony being a prime example.


The defense didn't know his ability to testify would be limited. GM testified that JW fully qualified to talk about the files. And as was pointed out in court yesterday, they weren't granted additional funds to pay experts. GM and JY are both pro bono. So that is why they didn't use some "qualified" expert. So CF is now allowed to testify about files found in the "FBI" results, but JY was not. How is that "fair"? Boz even said CF didn't need to be an expert to testify about those files. So why is JY required to be an expert if CF is not?

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 10:08 AM
A couple of things I'm wondering about with the new router info. showing up on the event log:

1)Are we *sure* the router was supposed to be in the home? I know BZ said that, but I don't trust his word. IF the router was supposed to be in the home, why did Cisco do a complete search of the labs looking for it?

2) IF BC was hooking up this separate router to plan to spoof the call, why would he use the Thinkpad, knowing it would be the main thing they would look at for evidence? Even, why not the home computer?

3) Does the information on the "event log" showing the router used match the router identifiers from when we know it was in use in Jan/Feb '08? That would be good to know.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:09 AM
She also forgot to wear her chin and jawline that day.

We'll see if the prosecution attempt rebuttal on it. I'm guessing they will not and will simply forget the assertion that she always wore the necklace.

momof7
04-30-2011, 10:10 AM
Bz keeps bringing to mind Mike Nifong. During Nifong's attempt to railroad the Duke LAX we called them "Nifongisms" he minced words, lied to at least one Judge, strutted, accused, lied to the media, lied to the public.

all in attempt to get elected and WIN a case. He actually said something to the effect 'if I were these attorneys (the defense) I'd be afraid to try a case against me too'.

For the DA's office, it should be purely about justice. They shouldn't twist their words and attempt to twist/hide/manufacture evidence to WIN. I do understand how a case can become personal, a mission, but the DA's office needs to constantly remind themselves, they work for the public -- their job is not about winning, it's about fairness and justice.

In this case, the prosecution presented speculation (not proof) about spoofing calls (thus far). The defense presented speculation (accusations) of tampering. Now, at the 11th hour the pros has supposedly found proof to their speculation. They should be allowed to present the proof but the defense should be allowed to present their proof of tampering.

One of the biggest issues with our 'Justice System' (at least in NC) is the fact that PD, DA & Judges all grow up and work together. They build personal relationships after working together for years. A judge in Durham testified on Nifong's behalf at a contempt hearing -- where Nifong was found guilty of lying in court (and served one day in jail!). That judge cried (yes) on the stand as he testified to what a good guy Nifong is/was. OMG. He was trying to send 3 innocent people to prison for 30+ years for a crime HE KNEW never happened. Sorry I digressed... Judges, DAs, PDs... they have each other's backs and they do things that aren't in the best interest of justice... I think we've seen some of that 'justice' in this case

I remember the Duke case and the Nifong hearings well. I remember thinking, how is it possible with all the checks and balances supposedly in place, one man was able to tarnish and ruin reputations, bring false allegations he knew were false and no one, not a single person besides these young men, their families and attorneys were willing to stand up and say no.

The personal aspect just doesn't sit well with me. I am quite sure that at some time in his life Nifong was a nice guy, this case showed he was not nice but corrupt as well.

Tink56
04-30-2011, 10:12 AM
You think she bought ribs, wine, and what seemed to be a bunch of other things for $20? The testimony of friends was that she had no money that day because BC didn't give her any, now you want us to believe he gave her some to tide her over?

I guess no money is relative. If she spent her last $20 at the store, she had no more money. BTW, $20 to supply groceries for a family of four is NOTHING...as I'm sure yaw'll know.

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 10:13 AM
I mean this with all respect, but to say someone is obfuscating the truth implies that you actually know what it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are very few absolutes, and the truth is an enormous gray area containing lots of room for perception. In fact, if truth was as easy to grasp hold of as all that, sitting right there in front of our faces, we'd not have a trial and we'd not be having this conversation.

My take on this is:

1)The Judge asked if this was truly a rebuttal to something from the defense case.

2) Trenkle clearly replied "NO, it is not". This is rebuttal to the state's own witnesses.

3)BZ tried to make the stretch that holding up a router during testimony gives him space to classify his NEW data log information pertaining to a router as rebuttal material. It clearly is not! That, to me is obfuscation.
The judge just accepted it as fact though, much like so many other things in this case. Such as JW not being a forensic expert barred him from discussing computer logs. And now he is doing the same exact thing. He is a liar and a manipulator.

bloghooligan
04-30-2011, 10:16 AM
I am ignorant with all these technical details and don't really know how to ask this question but here goes... on my home network/computer I have a printer and my computer has drivers for said printer. Even when my printer isn't connected to the network software still tries to find it when a print is attempted. Are these attempts to find that printer logged? If so, is it obvious in the logs that the attempt failed? Would this same type of thing happen (attempt/fail) if a router had been configured for use but then disconnected? Could the 7/11 log entry be an attempt rather than actual use?

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 10:16 AM
I mean this with all respect, but to say someone is obfuscating the truth implies that you actually know what it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are very few absolutes, and the truth is an enormous gray area containing lots of room for perception. In fact, if truth was as easy to grasp hold of as all that, sitting right there in front of our faces, we'd not have a trial and we'd not be having this conversation.

If you are listening to the ADA talking to the Judge and truly listening, then there is no way you cannot know he is obfuscating the truth and taking advantage of the Judge's ignorance regarding computers. At least four people, besides me, have said so on these boards in the past two days. It is so blatant that I am surprised the Judge is letting the ADA make such a fool of him.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:19 AM
Bottle Cap, I agree with your issue re: the Defense and JW testimony. Especially if it is true JW asserted to the Defense he was not a forensic expert before he even came to testify. I am still dumbfounded that they did not look for a forensic expert to bolster their side of the testimony. The only logical thought I can process there is that there wasn't anyone willing to say the evidence was incorrect or altered. There was no one willing to go out on that limb. As with so much of the trail, everytime I think a point has been made by the attorneys, something more is brought out that just throws it back in the mixing pot. I am not a lawyer though, and with everything so far, it feels like we are seeing a chess game, one upmanship type thing. Something along the lines of 'Oh yeah, so ya found the ducks, well guess what WE found the router'. I just had a different idea of what I 'thought' would go on in court. And Boz, coming right out and saying the information makes them look like liars. My only thought there is we have had to infer so much why not let the jury decide that too IMHO.

There is a human side of this whole trail, the he-said/she-said that really bogs down what the heart of the matter is. I still hold firm to my conviction, without additional testimony/rebuttal/closing arguments being heard yet, that this jury decision will come down to the computer/spoof call testimony and what they believe is the correct answer. If FD and JF are correct, there is at least one juror who is possibly able to decode the information the others are unsure of. The only problem is, which way does that juror see it and what information will they need to decide if it was possibly tampering or BC was an expert in changing and clouding the waters to make it look like he didn't do it. I will be glad to hear the rest and see if either Def/Pros can turn that information into 'proof' of either.

I guess, IMHO and my feelings and thoughts only, I am still stuck on how things will play out. As Gritguy pointed out, who knows what the jury will decide in the end, the note though is telling of how they are feeling about the length of the trail. I hope they are still paying attention.

I also wanted to mention, I noticed on another thread (I believe thurs?) there was discussion on BC getting the children back if he is NG etc. IMHO, even if he is found NG, his life is ruined. Cisco won't take him back so that employment is out. His field deals with technology, I can't imagine that there isn't a 'taint' on his employment in any field. Similar to the OJ scenario, he pretty much will be forever the guy who probably murdered his wife and got away with it if there is a NG verdict. IIRC, Nicole's family retained custody of those children along with a verdict in the civil action along with RG's family. BC, IMHO, will never live with or have custody of his children ever again.

Kelly


Did you not see court video yesterday? They didn't have the money to pay experts. Additional funds were denied. There is your logical explanation for not using the other 2 experts that were on their list. Again JW and GM were both pro bono.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 10:20 AM
The defense didn't know his ability to testify would be limited. GM testified that JW fully qualified to talk about the files. And as was pointed out in court yesterday, they weren't granted additional funds to pay experts. GM and JY are both pro bono. So that is why they didn't use some "qualified" expert. So CF is now allowed to testify about files found in the "FBI" results, but JY was not. How is that "fair"? Boz even said CF didn't need to be an expert to testify about those files. So why is JY required to be an expert if CF is not?

I was surprised to hear this, well, not really, but I made a post about this a few days back that the State had more access to experts than the Defense because of funding and I was naysayed by the BDIers.

MrsWendy
04-30-2011, 10:20 AM
I'm still finding it tough to get past the fact that the defense is not allowed to question the FBI about the Google evidence. The FBI expert accused Brad of doing something that seems to prove his guilt yet he is not allowed to question anything about it.

Earlier in the trial, the bug expert testified that his tests showed that Nancy was killed between 1 am and 6 am. That initially looked really bad for the defense. But once the defense started to ask questions, it quickly became apparent that there were some questions about the accuracy of the testing and the expert himself admitted that he did not have a high amount of confidence in the results due to the low sample size.

But we know that because the defense was allowed to question the expert about the testing. Imagine if the prosecution said that the details about the testing could not be disclosed due to security reasons. We would then have no idea that the accuracy of the testing is questionable.

I'm not saying that the FBI's Google evidence is not valid. But what if there was a flaw in the methods used to extract the information? What if the FBI expert is not as certain about the accuracy of the results as he initially claimed? Nobody knows because the defense was forbidden to ask the proper questions. The fact that Brad was essentially not allowed to face his accuser continues to bother me.

macd
04-30-2011, 10:22 AM
My take on this is:

1)The Judge asked if this was truly a rebuttal to something from the defense case.

2) Trenkle clearly replied "NO, it is not". This is rebuttal to the state's own witnesses.

3)BZ tried to make the stretch that holding up a router during testimony gives him space to classify his NEW data log information pertaining to a router as rebuttal material. It clearly is not! That, to me is obfuscation.
The judge just accepted it as fact though, much like so many other things in this case. Such as JW not being a forensic expert barred him from discussing computer logs. And now he is doing the same exact thing. He is a liar and a manipulator.

Watch that part again. Judge was looking at the JW transcript and saw what JW testified to. The judge prompted Trenkle to come clean that routers were discussed in the defense case.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 10:25 AM
I am not sure if you are a US citizen, or where you went to school, but in the civics classes I had when a person's life and livelihood are on the line it is not a game and it is not about the State winning as much as it is supposed to be about Justice. That means that the ADA should not be obfuscating the truth to the Judge when he wants to get something into evidence, and he should not be making unethical comments as he did yesterday in court. I really hope that he is brought before the bar for some of his actions and statements in this case.

I am all for justice, and putting a murderer in jail, if they have properly investigated, and it is the right person. What I am not for is manipulation of justice to "win the game," overtly biased Judges, and the treading on of people's rights, last I knew the government still worked for the people, not the other way around. Just like the National Security issues precluding examination of evidence that the State has brought forward in this trial, that, I bet, is really going to have some repercussions down the line. Basically, it is the State saying, we have evidence against you, we can't show it to you, just trust us that it is against you. That really feels like some Communist or Facist ruled country to me, and I don't believe that is what the USA is about.

The State had a chance to delay this trial until they had all the evidence in, they objected to that delay saying they had everything they needed. Cisco is not the problem here, the State is the one that seems to have rushed to judgement and then thought later that maybe they should do a bit of real investigating.

The Defense should have been allowed to bring in their expert this week. That is if you truly believe what you have said about justice and finding the truth. The conspiracy theories on JWs FB page was ridiculous, BZ did not discreit the relevant testimony at all, he attacked the person. MH was not squirmy. You are a BDI person, I am not a BDI person, or a a person that thinks BC is innocent, I am about justice and there has been none in this case. What did they really put him in jail for 2.5 years ago? Missing ducks that weren't missing, a necklace she never supposedly took off that we now found out she did, or was it one of the other totally broken theories of the State? We were told it was some FBI computer technology that was presented before the GJ, now we find out that the FBI did not even look critically at the computer evidence until after he was arrested. Maybe it is fine with you to be lied to by our government, maybe it makes some feel safer, it doesn't make me feel that way.

Great point you bring up about JW being discredited because of the information on his Facebook page! If that is a valid reason for disqualification it would seem CF should be discredited as well since they clearly run in the same circles and share similar beliefs. Either that or JW's good name should be restored.

But again, that would be the court acting fairly so doubt we will see that.

Tink56
04-30-2011, 10:26 AM
If you are listening to the ADA talking to the Judge and truly listening, then there is no way you cannot know he is obfuscating the truth and taking advantage of the Judge's ignorance regarding computers. At least four people, besides me, have said so on these boards in the past two days. It is so blatant that I am surprised the Judge is letting the ADA make such a fool of him.

Another issue upon which to agree to disagree...I have no preconceived notions about NC justice, the specific individuals, etc. I attended college in NC years ago. I do not know anyone now. My dad was a judge; my daughter is a lawyer. I watched the video on WRAL. I DO have a pretty good hinky meter.

The ADA clearly doesn't understand the tech. of computers, that's why he called on the witness for clarification. He was stumbling over his explanations, IMO, because he is NOT TECH smart. I saw only respect for the judge. (From both sides...)

BTW, not being totally familiar with NC laws, I do have an understanding that evidence is allowed to be submitted until the time the case goes to the jury. If this isn't so, would you please refer me to the NC statutes forbidding this.

Not specifically directed at you, but I am seeing and hearing some frustration and bias in comments about this ruling. That's natural...I guess. However, if one is seeking real justice, shouldn't we see and hear all the evidence?

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 10:26 AM
Watch that part again. Judge was looking at the JW transcript and saw what JW testified to. The judge prompted Trenkle to come clean that routers were discussed in the defense case.

You can disagree with me, but DON'T tell me "watch that part again".

I don't need to watch it again. Everyone knows JW discussed the size of the router. That was it. The rebuttal should only be related to the size of the router, not log files!

momof7
04-30-2011, 10:27 AM
Did you not see court video yesterday? They didn't have the money to pay experts. Additional funds were denied. There is your logical explanation for not using the other 2 experts that were on their list. Again JW and GM were both pro bono.

I have not gotten to yesterday's testimony. That is bothersome in its entirety. Are we are aware what the criteria is for getting additional funds?

It is becoming more clear to me that I am not on the fence about anything when I take what has been presented so far clearly into account.

Kelly

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:27 AM
So, in other words, she was the link to all the missing items. Not necessarily found them but knew where they were?

Thanks!

I had deleted my post because someone else answered it better. But when were BCs phone and the necklace ever missing? You keep saying that but I have no idea where you get that from. The only thing "missing" according to the CPD and the prosecution were the ducks, and even they weren't missing. They were in the house the whole time (past when BC was arrested) and CPD had complete access to that house. My guess is the "missing shoes" were in the house too. If I was Kurtz, I certainly would point that out. There is a difference between "missing" and "not looked for".

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 10:29 AM
You think she bought ribs, wine, and what seemed to be a bunch of other things for $20? The testimony of friends was that she had no money that day because BC didn't give her any, now you want us to believe he gave her some to tide her over?

She also bought sandwiches at Village Deli for herself and HP for lunch, but of course she had no money.

macd
04-30-2011, 10:32 AM
A couple of things I'm wondering about with the new router info. showing up on the event log:

1)Are we *sure* the router was supposed to be in the home? I know BZ said that, but I don't trust his word. IF the router was supposed to be in the home, why did Cisco do a complete search of the labs looking for it?

2) IF BC was hooking up this separate router to plan to spoof the call, why would he use the Thinkpad, knowing it would be the main thing they would look at for evidence? Even, why not the home computer?

3) Does the information on the "event log" showing the router used match the router identifiers from when we know it was in use in Jan/Feb '08? That would be good to know.

1) Doesn't matter where it was supposed to be. Windows system event log will show that it was connected locally.
2) Which computer BC used was not the worst decision he made that night. I'm not going to debate how good a job a he did constructing a false alibi as part of proof he did or did not construct a false alibi.
3) The MAC address is burned into the router at manufacturing time. It does not change. There are 300 trillion possible mac addresses, if someone wants to start a spoofed mac address discussion.

momof7
04-30-2011, 10:32 AM
I had deleted my post because someone else answered it better. But when were BCs phone and the necklace ever missing? You keep saying that but I have no idea where you get that from. The only thing "missing" according to the CPD and the prosecution were the ducks, and even they weren't missing. They were in the house the whole time (past when BC was arrested) and CPD had complete access to that house. My guess is the "missing shoes" were in the house too. If I was Kurtz, I certainly would point that out. There is a difference between "missing" and "not looked for".

You are correct, my understanding was they were being looked for and I took that as 'missing'. Just a different take on what initially was offered. I was initially under the understanding no one knew where the cell phone was and it was found later with or by BC's mom. So I interpreted them as missing, but I was also 'assuming' they had been looked for. I see now, with further information there is a good chance that the 'looking' was an assumption.

Kelly

macd
04-30-2011, 10:34 AM
You can disagree with me, but DON'T tell me "watch that part again".

I don't need to watch it again. Everyone knows JW discussed the size of the router. That was it. The rebuttal should only be related to the size of the router, not log files!

I apologize. I agree with your point here. Everyone knows what was said. Even the judge. It's his job to know and he was looking at a copy of the transcript.

The judge was not tricked.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 10:36 AM
I mean this with all respect, but to say someone is obfuscating the truth implies that you actually know what it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There are very few absolutes, and the truth is an enormous gray area containing lots of room for perception. In fact, if truth was as easy to grasp hold of as all that, sitting right there in front of our faces, we'd not have a trial and we'd not be having this conversation.

Saying things like JW talked about CSA logs, so we should be able to talk about CSA logs, CF works at Cisco, he's not testifying as an expert (JW was which is the only reason he was allowed to talk about the CSA logs) so it's ok for him to just chat about CSA logs and oh by the way, the relevant information didn't actually come from the CSA logs, but just listen to what CF has to say, it'll be OK.

Not what I would call truthfully putting evidence before the court.

macd
04-30-2011, 10:39 AM
The ADA clearly doesn't understand the tech. of computers, that's why he called on the witness for clarification. He was stumbling over his explanations, IMO, because he is NOT TECH smart. I saw only respect for the judge. (From both sides...)


Good point. I think the judge is more tech savvy than the ADA.

The judge got clarity on the points he wanted clarity on:
1) Where was the original windows system event log? (On BC's hard drive)
2) What is this router code? (Burned in unique address, kind of like a serial number. Judge compared it to cell phone unique identifiers.)

These are two of the main points that the judge based his ruling on.

macd
04-30-2011, 10:45 AM
I have not gotten to yesterday's testimony. That is bothersome in its entirety. Are we are aware what the criteria is for getting additional funds?

It is becoming more clear to me that I am not on the fence about anything when I take what has been presented so far clearly into account.

Kelly

That was a sticky part of discussion.

BZ crossed the line with one statement. He said the defense could not call on their expert witnesses because they looked at the evidence and could not draw any conclusions that would be helpful to the defense. T said that was false and they just ran out of money. (one poster here said they blew their wad on jury selection.)

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 10:46 AM
I understand the fine points being made about JW testifying and CF testifying. It would actually be better to compare the AT&T guy testifying but not as an expert and CF. CF is the security guy at Cisco. Cisco is where Brad worked. The job that CF is charged with involves looking at these logs and files. As he is the/a security guy at Cisco. I would love to hear his explanation for how malware got on a secure computer.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:46 AM
I am ignorant with all these technical details and don't really know how to ask this question but here goes... on my home network/computer I have a printer and my computer has drivers for said printer. Even when my printer isn't connected to the network software still tries to find it when a print is attempted. Are these attempts to find that printer logged? If so, is it obvious in the logs that the attempt failed? Would this same type of thing happen (attempt/fail) if a router had been configured for use but then disconnected? Could the 7/11 log entry be an attempt rather than actual use?

No, it sounded (from the little that was broadcast) like an IP address confliction. The thinkpad would be set to use dhcp, which means it is dynamically assigned an IP address by the home router (not the 3825). If the 3825 was connected when the thinkpad wasn't, it could have been assigned the IP address the thinkpad usually gets. Then the thinkpad, when it connects, could try to obtain the same IP address, but would be told that there is a conflict with the 3825 since it already has that address. Of course, I could be way off on this, so somebody please correct me if I am wrong.

If this is what happens, it would explain why there was only 1 event log. Since the thinkpad would then get a different IP address, there wouldn't be future conflicts with the 3825. So, theoretically (again, someone correct me if I am wrong), he plugged the 3825 into the network the night of the 11th, then turned his laptop on, which had the conflict and needed to get a new IP address via dhcp. Then you wouldn't see anything else about the 3825 because both would now have valid IP addresses.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:49 AM
Watch that part again. Judge was looking at the JW transcript and saw what JW testified to. The judge prompted Trenkle to come clean that routers were discussed in the defense case.

Only the size of the router was discussed. That's it. Network activity concerning routers was not discussed.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 10:51 AM
I guess no money is relative. If she spent her last $20 at the store, she had no more money. BTW, $20 to supply groceries for a family of four is NOTHING...as I'm sure yaw'll know.

First, she had not been buying groceries for four for a long long time, she was only buying groceries for her and the children and BC was still picking up incidentals. Her Divorce attorney testified that NC wrote her many months back and said BC bought his own groceries.

She was at the store just before 3PM, she had been calling BC all day before that because of no money is the understanding, so why would she do that if she had money?

I also doubt that she spent less than $20 on what she bought considering she was buying ribs for a party full of people and we also saw she bought wine during that trip plus some other items.

I know many think he is guilty, but I think it is important that we don't embellish evidence that is before us to make the case.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:52 AM
Another issue upon which to agree to disagree...I have no preconceived notions about NC justice, the specific individuals, etc. I attended college in NC years ago. I do not know anyone now. My dad was a judge; my daughter is a lawyer. I watched the video on WRAL. I DO have a pretty good hinky meter.

The ADA clearly doesn't understand the tech. of computers, that's why he called on the witness for clarification. He was stumbling over his explanations, IMO, because he is NOT TECH smart. I saw only respect for the judge. (From both sides...)

BTW, not being totally familiar with NC laws, I do have an understanding that evidence is allowed to be submitted until the time the case goes to the jury. If this isn't so, would you please refer me to the NC statutes forbidding this.

Not specifically directed at you, but I am seeing and hearing some frustration and bias in comments about this ruling. That's natural...I guess. However, if one is seeking real justice, shouldn't we see and hear all the evidence?

But that is where the frustration comes in. We aren't hearing all the evidence. The defense was denied the opportunity to present their witness because of the whole expert question. I think all of us expressing frustration are expressing it due to lack of fairness, not wanting to keep the information out.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:54 AM
I have not gotten to yesterday's testimony. That is bothersome in its entirety. Are we are aware what the criteria is for getting additional funds?

It is becoming more clear to me that I am not on the fence about anything when I take what has been presented so far clearly into account.

Kelly

It's even worse than that....the prosecution team made a snide comment about not using their witnesses. That's when the defense called them unethical and said they knew they couldn't because they didn't have the money to do it. In fact, earlier in the week, Trenkle offered to pay for it himself.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 10:57 AM
Saying things like JW talked about CSA logs, so we should be able to talk about CSA logs, CF works at Cisco, he's not testifying as an expert (JW was which is the only reason he was allowed to talk about the CSA logs) so it's ok for him to just chat about CSA logs and oh by the way, the relevant information didn't actually come from the CSA logs, but just listen to what CF has to say, it'll be OK.

Not what I would call truthfully putting evidence before the court.

Yeah, he did throw the whole csa log discussion out there. I was glad the judge asked him if it came from the csa log, which Boz had to admit that it didn't. But he was twisting this stuff left and right before the judge.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 10:58 AM
Only the size of the router was discussed. That's it. Network activity concerning routers was not discussed.

What was the defense point in bringing up the size of the router required to operate with an FXO port?

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 11:00 AM
I understand the fine points being made about JW testifying and CF testifying. It would actually be better to compare the AT&T guy testifying but not as an expert and CF. CF is the security guy at Cisco. Cisco is where Brad worked. The job that CF is charged with involves looking at these logs and files. As he is the/a security guy at Cisco. I would love to hear his explanation for how malware got on a secure computer.

But he isn't a forensic expert. And that was what prevented JW from talking about the same logs. So just because he works at Cisco, that means he is qualified to talk about network related logs that a network security expert is not qualified to talk about?

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 11:02 AM
But he isn't a forensic expert. And that was what prevented JW from talking about the same logs. So just because he works at Cisco, that means he is qualified to talk about network related logs that a network security expert is not qualified to talk about?

On Cisco's own network, yes. Just as the AT&T guy was able to testify to his company's log's and records.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 11:03 AM
Another issue upon which to agree to disagree...I have no preconceived notions about NC justice, the specific individuals, etc. I attended college in NC years ago. I do not know anyone now. My dad was a judge; my daughter is a lawyer. I watched the video on WRAL. I DO have a pretty good hinky meter.

The ADA clearly doesn't understand the tech. of computers, that's why he called on the witness for clarification. He was stumbling over his explanations, IMO, because he is NOT TECH smart. I saw only respect for the judge. (From both sides...)

BTW, not being totally familiar with NC laws, I do have an understanding that evidence is allowed to be submitted until the time the case goes to the jury. If this isn't so, would you please refer me to the NC statutes forbidding this.

Not specifically directed at you, but I am seeing and hearing some frustration and bias in comments about this ruling. That's natural...I guess. However, if one is seeking real justice, shouldn't we see and hear all the evidence?

There are some rules of law that I see being not adhered to regarding rights that are not specific to NC, but to everyone person in the US.

On your bolded comment, absolutely, so the Defense should be allowed their expert witnesses, right? Why is the state arguing against that so hard?

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 11:04 AM
What was the defense point in bringing up the size of the router required to operate with an FXO port?

It was rebuttal to the prosecutions assertion that the FXO card could fit in a pocket. The Cisco expert testified that a router was also required. Yet the prosecutor kept going on and on about how small the card was. So the defense physically showed the size of a router that the prosecution witness said would be required to run an fxo card. That was the point of it. The prosecution mislead the jury by suggesting the evidence could fit in his pocket.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 11:06 AM
On Cisco's own network, yes. Just as the AT&T guy was able to testify to his company's log's and records.

He's not talking about logs on his network. He's talking about logs on BCs hard drive, which wasn't restricted to Cisco's network. That PC was allowed to connect to any network, not just Cisco's. And the stuff he is testifying to supposedly didn't happen on Cisco's network, not even through the VPN. So at that point, it is just a computer (owned by Cisco) on a home network.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 11:07 AM
It was rebuttal to the prosecutions assertion that the FXO card could fit in a pocket. The Cisco expert testified that a router was also required. Yet the prosecutor kept going on and on about how small the card was. So the defense physically showed the size of a router that the prosecution witness said would be required to run an fxo card. That was the point of it. The prosecution mislead the jury by suggesting the evidence could fit in his pocket.

And the defense wanted to point out that it could not be so easily hidden so if he had an FXO port capable router it should have been found?

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 11:09 AM
Watch that part again. Judge was looking at the JW transcript and saw what JW testified to. The judge prompted Trenkle to come clean that routers were discussed in the defense case.

Excellent example of pro-prosecution redaction! Now let that conversation play through to Trenkle saying "I'm getting to that" and explaining exactly what he meant.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 11:09 AM
And the defense wanted to point out that it could not be so easily hidden so if he had an FXO port capable router it should have been found?

Basically, yes. Or at least it wasn't something he could have hidden easily. There is a big difference between something the size of a large pizza box versus a card that can fit in your pocket.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 11:09 AM
He's not talking about logs on his network. He's talking about logs on BCs hard drive, which wasn't restricted to Cisco's network. That PC was allowed to connect to any network, not just Cisco's. And the stuff he is testifying to supposedly didn't happen on Cisco's network, not even through the VPN. So at that point, it is just a computer (owned by Cisco) on a home network.

When I was in charge of a network, all of the computers on that network were part of that. The antivirus/antispyware on all the computers was installed by me. If something went wrong with the computer, even if had been taken home, it was still part of my job to find out what the problem was and fix it or clean it up.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 11:11 AM
Basically, yes. Or at least it wasn't something he could have hidden easily. There is a big difference between something the size of a large pizza box versus a card that can fit in your pocket.

So to rebut that, they are able to show that he did actually have a router the size of a large pizza box in his house on 7/11.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 11:12 AM
When I was in charge of a network, all of the computers on that network were part of that. The antivirus/antispyware on all the computers was installed by me. If something went wrong with the computer, even if had been taken home, it was still part of my job to find out what the problem was and fix it or clean it up.

Then why didn't he testify about this instead of the "FBI" witness? Why didn't he do the forensic analysis on the PC since he would know what wasn't right or wasn't supposed to be there, or what was missing?


ETA: And where does the distinction end of what he is qualified to testify about and what he is not?

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 11:15 AM
Then why didn't he testify about this instead of the "FBI" witness? Why didn't he do the forensic analysis on the PC since he would know what wasn't right or wasn't supposed to be there, or what was missing?


ETA: And where does the distinction end of what he is qualified to testify about and what he is not?

Now that's something entirely different. I wouldn't recognize an MFT if it was sitting in front of my face. I have no idea how to analyze all those files. I do know how to look at event logs because that was part of my job.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 11:15 AM
So to rebut that, they are able to show that he did actually have a router the size of a large pizza box in his house on 7/11.

No. Rebuttal would be showing the 18xx one (I can't remember the number) is much smaller and can house an fxo card.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 11:20 AM
No. Rebuttal would be showing the 18xx one (I can't remember the number) is much smaller and can house an fxo card.

This is the sequence as I see it:
The prosecution puts on a witness to tell the court how small an FXO card is.
(Implication: easily hidden)
The defense puts on a witness to show how large the router is that is needed to house that FXO card.
(Implication: not easily hidden, would have been found)
The prosecution wants to rebut that with he did have a router that size and records show that it was in his house as late as 10:21 on 7/11.

CrimeAddict
04-30-2011, 11:21 AM
First, she had not been buying groceries for four for a long long time, she was only buying groceries for her and the children and BC was still picking up incidentals. Her Divorce attorney testified that NC wrote her many months back and said BC bought his own groceries.

She was at the store just before 3PM, she had been calling BC all day before that because of no money is the understanding, so why would she do that if she had money?

I also doubt that she spent less than $20 on what she bought considering she was buying ribs for a party full of people and we also saw she bought wine during that trip plus some other items.

I know many think he is guilty, but I think it is important that we don't embellish evidence that is before us to make the case.

I used $20 as an example or guess earlier. No one knows how much left of the $240 or so she got from painting at ja's she still had. I agree she had more than 20, obviously to buy those few items she needed more than that. One could assume she didn't have much to cover until the following Friday and needed her allowance and called him a few times that day because she knew once she went to the store she would be broke later. No one is embellishing anything as far as I can tell.

Beautiful day in nc today, I assume you all are walking away soon and enjoying some fresh air, remember bc is in jail, not us!

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 11:24 AM
No, it sounded (from the little that was broadcast) like an IP address confliction. The thinkpad would be set to use dhcp, which means it is dynamically assigned an IP address by the home router (not the 3825). If the 3825 was connected when the thinkpad wasn't, it could have been assigned the IP address the thinkpad usually gets. Then the thinkpad, when it connects, could try to obtain the same IP address, but would be told that there is a conflict with the 3825 since it already has that address. Of course, I could be way off on this, so somebody please correct me if I am wrong.

If this is what happens, it would explain why there was only 1 event log. Since the thinkpad would then get a different IP address, there wouldn't be future conflicts with the 3825. So, theoretically (again, someone correct me if I am wrong), he plugged the 3825 into the network the night of the 11th, then turned his laptop on, which had the conflict and needed to get a new IP address via dhcp. Then you wouldn't see anything else about the 3825 because both would now have valid IP addresses.

I don't actually think the 3825 has to be connected to return the IP address conflict if the IP address of the router is statically configured in the hostname table. Which it would be since you don't want your router IP address to remain static and not use DHCP.

And, unless I am completely mistaken I was under the impression that when an IP address mismatch is returned it returns that MAC address of the device it believes the IP address to belong to not the device that is trying to now use the IP address.

If somebody could clarify that it would be great because I'm not completely positive about that part.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 11:31 AM
I don't actually think the 3825 has to be connected to return the IP address conflict if the IP address of the router is statically configured in the hostname table. Which it would be since you don't want your router IP address to remain static and not use DHCP.

And, unless I am completely mistaken I was under the impression that when an IP address mismatch is returned it returns that MAC address of the device it believes the IP address to belong to not the device that is trying to now use the IP address.

If somebody could clarify that it would be great because I'm not completely positive about that part.

The conflict occurs on the device trying to use an IP address already in use by another device. The error report should reflect the one trying to use it.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 11:38 AM
I don't actually think the 3825 has to be connected to return the IP address conflict if the IP address of the router is statically configured in the hostname table. Which it would be since you don't want your router IP address to remain static and not use DHCP.

And, unless I am completely mistaken I was under the impression that when an IP address mismatch is returned it returns that MAC address of the device it believes the IP address to belong to not the device that is trying to now use the IP address.

If somebody could clarify that it would be great because I'm not completely positive about that part.

Quoting myself say scratch the previous info. That is a duplicate IP error not IP mismatch

gracielee
04-30-2011, 11:51 AM
macd said:


I see a legal system (police, lawyers, judges, witnesses) that is ill equipped to deal with digital evidence.
For the sake of our future, I hope that changes quickly.
In this case, I have been convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't know about the jury. If it is a jury that distrusts computers and law enforcement, then we might have another OJ verdict.


Back when the O.J. trial took place, the *system* the advent of DNA was just at it's beginnings. I feel today, is the birth of digital technology being used in legal cases. I've seen great things happening using digital technology in the investigation of kiddie porn online, trafficking of humans, online rape shows, and pedophiles using the internet to get young kids, boys and girls. Local LE is beginning to attempt to find the money, in this ravaged economy, to train members of their own units to deal with these issues. But IIRC, is it Chappel who is so widely scorned here because he's not 'really FBI'. You can't have it both ways. Yes, FBI is by far the best we have in the U.S. for dealing with digital crime, but they are attempting to train individuals within local LE's across the country, to understand and grasp the new digital crimes they are facing. I think to call Boz a liar is petty and childish and amatuer. Watch 20 years of trials, opening statments to closing arguments. You will see this trial doesn't differ any from the norm. If anything, this trial was exceedingly *polite* if you will. Far less theatrics than normally go on in the courtroom, from both sides. If you want to *fear* for anyone, 'fear for the victims', because they criminals 'out-gun' the good guys.' Fear for yourself or one of your family members being a victim of crime. It's far more likely for that to happen, than for you to be mistaken as a 'bad guy.' MOO MOO MOO Any maybe go back and familiarize yourself with some 'other' trials, to see how things work besides this trial and O.J. Familiarize yourself with the kinds of horrific crimes are being committed against our children, women, and the weakest members of our society. JMO

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 11:52 AM
Great point you bring up about JW being discredited because of the information on his Facebook page! If that is a valid reason for disqualification it would seem CF should be discredited as well since they clearly run in the same circles and share similar beliefs. Either that or JW's good name should be restored.

But again, that would be the court acting fairly so doubt we will see that.
Yeah, the FB stuff was bush league and was a shameful move by the prosecution.

However, it's worth pointing out that JW's expertise was somewhat discredited by the defense's forensics guy that was not allowed to testify. JW testified that the cursor files in the TIF would be .cur files and not .bmp files. The other guy testified that this was not true. So, that demonstrated that at least one of these guys was outside of his area of expertise.

gracielee
04-30-2011, 11:54 AM
Thank you Otto for that synopsis! Helps a great deal. It has been an interesting week it appears. From the surface it appears that nothing has been confirmed that BC DID or DID NOT spoof the calls? The rebuttal phase and closing arguments will be very interesting in this trial. I hope that I have the opportunity to listen live.

With what little I have been able to actually get into it still sounds like it could go just about any which way, G, NG or hung jury. I would imagine, at this point, a lot depends on those closing arguments, tying things together, and of course, what can of worms the new expert brings to the mix.

Thanks again for keeping me in the loop!

Kelly

If the necklace was found on the front hall table, why isn't it in any of the photos taken the day nancy 'went missing'?

gracielee
04-30-2011, 11:56 AM
If I'm understanding this correctly, what some are saying here is that because the police left the computer on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served any evidence found on the computer should be thrown out because of "spoilage"? I can't say that I would be able to accept that if I was on the jury.

I didn't think it was from the time the search warrant was served, I thought it was from the time the house was sealed, awaiting a search warrant to be obtained and served???

gracielee
04-30-2011, 12:04 PM
It's not a matter of a "belief". I saw it with my own eyes. From the video, it looks like she doesn't have a chin either.

I believe it was me who brought that up, lack of chin and lack of jaw and lack of cheek bones. And the fact that we'd previously seen a photo of nancy supposedly without the necklace. But that was a real photo, good quality, that could be enlarged and enhanced to make it's definition clearer rather than more distorted. On that prior photo the necklace could quite clearly be seen on the enlargement. The very FINE gold chain is almost the color of nancy coopers skintone, and blends right in unless it is seen from very close up and either with the naked eye, or with a good camera, not a store video there for the purpose of catching shoplifters and not to catch good quality photos of individuals. IMO If anyone is trying to 'pull a fast one', it's the defense, trying to pass of JW as an expert in forensics, trying to pass off yet a second image of nancy 'with a necklace' as being nancy without a necklace, and coming up with the *ducks* at the last moment, much like Michael Petersons 'sudden discovery of the infamous blow-poke'. If you guys want to fault someone for nefarious courtroom antics, how about placing the blame in the proper corner then? MOO

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 12:04 PM
This is the sequence as I see it:
The prosecution puts on a witness to tell the court how small an FXO card is.
(Implication: easily hidden)
The defense puts on a witness to show how large the router is that is needed to house that FXO card.
(Implication: not easily hidden, would have been found)
The prosecution wants to rebut that with he did have a router that size and records show that it was in his house as late as 10:21 on 7/11.

Your 3rd point is not a rebuttal it is a new assertion

justthinking2008
04-30-2011, 12:05 PM
Ducks, sticks, earrings and necklaces prove nothing. We now know the ducks were not destroyed in a fight, JA was wrong about seeing them the day before. As far as the necklace goes, who wears an expensive diamond necklace to a pool with kids hanging all over them, I have seen pictures of the necklace it was not on a strong chain, could have easily broken in the pool and would have been gone forever, NC had enough smarts to know this, it is not on the HT picture, but the bathing suit appears on under the cover up; therefore, it is logical to conclude that she had been at the pool without the necklace, so HP is mistaken. Now, let's talk about the earrings she never took off. Have any of you ever tried to sleep in post earrings? I have and I can tell you that you will take them off at night as the posts will stick in the back of your neck if you roll onto your side. My friends will also tell you I always wear my diamond earrings and they would be correct, but they are not with me at night when I take them off so I can sleep, I imagine NC did the same thing, also showering with them in is a dangerous bet as your hair can tangle in them and they can come off. So it makes sense that she always wore them and may even have jogged in them or the necklace, but no doubt she took them off from time to time. So the earrings, the necklace or lack thereof, does not indicate anything to anyone. No one can know what anyone else does when they are alone. As far as the faint line around her neck, it is most likely there from the necklace when she wore it in the sun and the area it covered could not tan, IMO that is what you are seeing in the HT video, not the necklace. We do not have one piece of forensic evidence that ties BC to the crime. There are several others with motive, means and opportunity, BC is not alone in this. The google search means nothing as the time stamps may or may not be invalid. Don't get me wrong I want NC's killer caught and brought to justice, I am just not sure we have the right person. If the CPD made mistakes in the investigation and they did admittedly so, no one is perfect, how then is it that BC can commit this crime and not leave a trace, he would have made a mistake as well. People keep bringing up the running shoes, if you go back and read the statements the running shoes even though they were two left shoes were not NC's size, her other pair of running shoes have never been recovered, so the Det. thinks she returned them, well there is nothing to indicate she did so. Lots of things are in boxes, maybe if we look, we will find the two right shoes, who knows. Absolutely no proof of spoofed calls, again having the ability does not mean it happened and it would leave a trace somewhere on something, so far nothing has proven this did happen only that it did not. I am prefectly ready to eat crow if Cisco produces a router showing he made this spoof call and if they do I will gladly and readily admit he is guilty. At this point with nothing to go on, I am going to change my opinion get off of the fence and say, I believe Brad Cooper is not guilty.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 12:06 PM
Your 3rd point is not a rebuttal it is a new assertion

I believe that the judge agrees with you since he is treating it as new evidence meaning that he is allowing the defense a chance to rebut that new evidence. I was just giving my personal opinion.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 12:06 PM
I didn't think it was from the time the search warrant was served, I thought it was from the time the house was sealed, awaiting a search warrant to be obtained and served???

That makes more sense.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 12:07 PM
Now that's something entirely different. I wouldn't recognize an MFT if it was sitting in front of my face. I have no idea how to analyze all those files. I do know how to look at event logs because that was part of my job.

And looking at those logs are part of JWs job as well. So why wasn't he allowed to discuss them? See, you don't have to be a forensic expert to intelligently, and with accuracy, discuss event logs found on the PC. So why wasn't JW allowed to talk about the same logs that he looks at every single day as part of his job? I agree that he wasn't qualified to generate an MFT for forensic analysis. But he wasn't even allowed to discuss the file generated by the prosecution.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:08 PM
If the necklace was found on the front hall table, why isn't it in any of the photos taken the day nancy 'went missing'?

I am pretty sure Mrs. C said it was in a box on the foyer table.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 12:09 PM
Colon Willoughby has been the DA of Wake County since I was a child, and without hesitation I have voted for him for reelection every time.

Of course, given this trial, I will likely be changing my vote. The only way I can see supporting him in his next reelection bid (2012 I believe?) is based on how he addresses the outcome of this case.

Thought I'd add this since we KNOW the Wake County DA's office reads W/S religiously. :)

Any thoughts on what he may say???

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 12:10 PM
This is the sequence as I see it:
The prosecution puts on a witness to tell the court how small an FXO card is.
(Implication: easily hidden)
The defense puts on a witness to show how large the router is that is needed to house that FXO card.
(Implication: not easily hidden, would have been found)
The prosecution wants to rebut that with he did have a router that size and records show that it was in his house as late as 10:21 on 7/11.

No, that's not accurate. The prosecution put on a witness that said both an FXO card and a router were required. They also said that a router wasn't found. So the prosecution established that a router had not been found. Actually, several prosecution witnesses specified that. Then the prosecution tried to mislead the jury by pointing out the size of the fxo card (neglecting the size of the router) saying it could be easily disposed of.

This rebuttal testimony is rebuttal against their own testimony that a router wasn't found. The defense didn't make that claim...the prosecution did.

gracielee
04-30-2011, 12:12 PM
You think she bought ribs, wine, and what seemed to be a bunch of other things for $20? The testimony of friends was that she had no money that day because BC didn't give her any, now you want us to believe he gave her some to tide her over?

IIRC, she had the remainder of the money she earned painting, after the paint and supplies were paid for. That was the money she used to purchase their part of the dinner that night.

momof7
04-30-2011, 12:13 PM
If the necklace was found on the front hall table, why isn't it in any of the photos taken the day nancy 'went missing'?

Hmmm...good question. I do believe a previous poster said something about being in a trinket box, not sure if that was in the bedroom or hall table.

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 12:14 PM
And looking at those logs are part of JWs job as well. So why wasn't he allowed to discuss them? See, you don't have to be a forensic expert to intelligently, and with accuracy, discuss event logs found on the PC. So why wasn't JW allowed to talk about the same logs that he looks at every single day as part of his job? I agree that he wasn't qualified to generate an MFT for forensic analysis. But he wasn't even allowed to discuss the file generated by the prosecution.

CF was talking about his own network that he is hired to monitor and control. He was not called as an expert, given the task of pulling and then analyzing data. He was charged with pulling information from his own network. I haven't heard from him so I'm only going by the little snippet but it is my understanding that his primary role in this portion was taking the MAC address and matching it up with a particular router that had been in their inventory and is now unaccounted for. That doesn't require any level of expertise to match up a number.

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 12:15 PM
It doesn't matter now.

Chris Fry info on the internet is going :woosh: even as I type.

Hi Boz!

:seeya: Hi Boz....I hope you can live the rest of your career with the unethical choices you've made in this trial. I hope we aren't paying your salary any more and you can go be a defense lawyer. Your antics fit in very well with the perception of defense lawyers.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:15 PM
I believe it was me who brought that up, lack of chin and lack of jaw and lack of cheek bones. And the fact that we'd previously seen a photo of nancy supposedly without the necklace. But that was a real photo, good quality, that could be enlarged and enhanced to make it's definition clearer rather than more distorted. On that prior photo the necklace could quite clearly be seen on the enlargement. The very FINE gold chain is almost the color of nancy coopers skintone, and blends right in unless it is seen from very close up and either with the naked eye, or with a good camera, not a store video there for the purpose of catching shoplifters and not to catch good quality photos of individuals. IMO If anyone is trying to 'pull a fast one', it's the defense, trying to pass of JW as an expert in forensics, trying to pass off yet a second image of nancy 'with a necklace' as being nancy without a necklace, and coming up with the *ducks* at the last moment, much like Michael Petersons 'sudden discovery of the infamous blow-poke'. If you guys want to fault someone for nefarious courtroom antics, how about placing the blame in the proper corner then? MOO

1. Regarding the first photo, that was the picture her friends had put on the missing flyer, the Defense did not edit that from what was on the missing flyer.

2. I don't see the necklace in the HT video, many others don't see it, and the State did not argue the point in cross. It was a pretty clear video, clearer than when Det Y supposedly was able to discern sweat on the brow of BC under the bill of his cap while BE was in still in the vestible of HT meaninf that the video was taking his picture behind a wall of glass, did you believe that? But that Det Y could not see that there were no big muddy footprints once BC was in the store past the vestible on a clearly clean white floor?

3. No one knew the ducks were going to be discussed in the trial until they were and then Mrs. C mentioned it to her host while she is here in NC who happens to be the custody attorney who is not in the court at this time, and the custody attorney said she had the ducks, handed them over and Mrs. C told the Defense and gave them to them. Defense then in turn told the State about them on April 4. All that showed was that the State built their case on sand instead of a solid foundation.

gracielee
04-30-2011, 12:15 PM
So, in other words, she was the link to all the missing items. Not necessarily found them but knew where they were?

Thanks!

Yes, Brad's mother was the 'missing link' to all the questionable items. Strange, isn't it? The ducks, the necklace, and the phone. It was Brad the liars mom who handled or had possession of all of them.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 12:17 PM
Hmmm...good question. I do believe a previous poster said something about being in a trinket box, not sure if that was in the bedroom or hall table.

I thought it was in a drawer in the table or in a box...not laying in plain sight on top of the table. So that would explain it not being the original police photos. Of course, one of the missing ducks WAS in the original police photos.

johnfear
04-30-2011, 12:19 PM
:seeya: Hi Boz....I hope you can live the rest of your career with the unethical choices you've made in this trial. I hope we aren't paying your salary any more and you can go be a defense lawyer. Your antics fit in very well with the perception of defense lawyers.

K and B and Z has a ring to it, no?

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:19 PM
Back when the O.J. trial took place, the *system* the advent of DNA was just at it's beginnings. I feel today, is the birth of digital technology being used in legal cases. I've seen great things happening using digital technology in the investigation of kiddie porn online, trafficking of humans, online rape shows, and pedophiles using the internet to get young kids, boys and girls. Local LE is beginning to attempt to find the money, in this ravaged economy, to train members of their own units to deal with these issues. But IIRC, is it Chappel who is so widely scorned here because he's not 'really FBI'. You can't have it both ways. Yes, FBI is by far the best we have in the U.S. for dealing with digital crime, but they are attempting to train individuals within local LE's across the country, to understand and grasp the new digital crimes they are facing. I think to call Boz a liar is petty and childish and amatuer. Watch 20 years of trials, opening statments to closing arguments. You will see this trial doesn't differ any from the norm. If anything, this trial was exceedingly *polite* if you will. Far less theatrics than normally go on in the courtroom, from both sides. If you want to *fear* for anyone, 'fear for the victims', because they criminals 'out-gun' the good guys.' Fear for yourself or one of your family members being a victim of crime. It's far more likely for that to happen, than for you to be mistaken as a 'bad guy.' MOO MOO MOO Any maybe go back and familiarize yourself with some 'other' trials, to see how things work besides this trial and O.J. Familiarize yourself with the kinds of horrific crimes are being committed against our children, women, and the weakest members of our society. JMO

Not against Gracielee, but does anyone else see the irony in the parts I bolded and made red in the above comments as a whole?

Regarding the comment as a whole, we can't protect ourselves to a degree against ourselves that we cannot also enjoy freedom. Bad things happen, I wish they didn't, they do, and it has and will happen throughout the existence of humanity, unless we want to give up freedoms as a whole.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, February 1775

gracielee
04-30-2011, 12:20 PM
Did you not see court video yesterday? They didn't have the money to pay experts. Additional funds were denied. There is your logical explanation for not using the other 2 experts that were on their list. Again JW and GM were both pro bono.

What I saw was the judge telling him 'this isn't the place nor time to discuss this issue.' Do you have a specific site to post where proper paperwork was presented to the court prior to trial to obtain funds for experts and that motion was denied???

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:24 PM
I didn't think it was from the time the search warrant was served, I thought it was from the time the house was sealed, awaiting a search warrant to be obtained and served???

It was from the time the house was secured, at which time everything was in CPDs custody until the search warrant was served and then for an additional 12 or so hours after the search warrant was served the computer remained on. The total time it was in the custody of the CPD until it was turned off was 27 hours and the FBI was not even aware that the evidence had not been properly handled. The point being the CPD had custody of all the items from the time that they secured the house, anything disturbed or changed after that is on their hands.

cityslick
04-30-2011, 12:26 PM
That makes more sense.

They didn't seal the house until after the body was found and identified, correct? July 15th late day?

The search warrant was issued July 16th, 2am. So I don't think there was a ton of time between sealing the house and getting a search warrant.

cityslick
04-30-2011, 12:28 PM
What I saw was the judge telling him 'this isn't the place nor time to discuss this issue.' Do you have a specific site to post where proper paperwork was presented to the court prior to trial to obtain funds for experts and that motion was denied???

You do understand the defense is being paid by the taxpayers through the public defender and that they are limited to what funds they can obtain?

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:28 PM
Ducks, sticks, earrings and necklaces prove nothing. We now know the ducks were not destroyed in a fight, JA was wrong about seeing them the day before. As far as the necklace goes, who wears an expensive diamond necklace to a pool with kids hanging all over them, I have seen pictures of the necklace it was not on a strong chain, could have easily broken in the pool and would have been gone forever, NC had enough smarts to know this, it is not on the HT picture, but the bathing suit appears on under the cover up; therefore, it is logical to conclude that she had been at the pool without the necklace, so HP is mistaken.

Now, let's talk about the earrings she never took off. Have any of you ever tried to sleep in post earrings? I have and I can tell you that you will take them off at night as the posts will stick in the back of your neck if you roll onto your side. My friends will also tell you I always wear my diamond earrings and they would be correct, but they are not with me at night when I take them off so I can sleep, I imagine NC did the same thing, also showering with them in is a dangerous bet as your hair can tangle in them and they can come off. So it makes sense that she always wore them and may even have jogged in them or the necklace, but no doubt she took them off from time to time. So the earrings, the necklace or lack thereof, does not indicate anything to anyone. No one can know what anyone else does when they are alone.

As far as the faint line around her neck, it is most likely there from the necklace when she wore it in the sun and the area it covered could not tan, IMO that is what you are seeing in the HT video, not the necklace. We do not have one piece of forensic evidence that ties BC to the crime.

There are several others with motive, means and opportunity, BC is not alone in this. The google search means nothing as the time stamps may or may not be invalid. Don't get me wrong I want NC's killer caught and brought to justice, I am just not sure we have the right person. If the CPD made mistakes in the investigation and they did admittedly so, no one is perfect, how then is it that BC can commit this crime and not leave a trace, he would have made a mistake as well. People keep bringing up the running shoes, if you go back and read the statements the running shoes even though they were two left shoes were not NC's size, her other pair of running shoes have never been recovered, so the Det. thinks she returned them, well there is nothing to indicate she did so. Lots of things are in boxes, maybe if we look, we will find the two right shoes, who knows.

Absolutely no proof of spoofed calls, again having the ability does not mean it happened and it would leave a trace somewhere on something, so far nothing has proven this did happen only that it did not. I am prefectly ready to eat crow if Cisco produces a router showing he made this spoof call and if they do I will gladly and readily admit he is guilty. At this point with nothing to go on, I am going to change my opinion get off of the fence and say, I believe Brad Cooper is not guilty.

Excellent Post. I am in total agreement.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 12:30 PM
:seeya: Hi Boz....I hope you can live the rest of your career with the unethical choices you've made in this trial. I hope we aren't paying your salary any more and you can go be a defense lawyer. Your antics fit in very well with the perception of defense lawyers.

At least the female ADA (sorry forget her name) seems to be a class act.

Cummings meltdowns on Thursday really surprised me. He seems very slow to anger...maybe because he talks....so....slow. But did anyone else think the reason Cummings lost it is because he realized the state had no case????

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:31 PM
IIRC, she had the remainder of the money she earned painting, after the paint and supplies were paid for. That was the money she used to purchase their part of the dinner that night.

So, if she had money, why was she calling BC every other minute of the day on Friday (slight embellishment, not much) asking him for money because she had none?

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:34 PM
Yes, Brad's mother was the 'missing link' to all the questionable items. Strange, isn't it? The ducks, the necklace, and the phone. It was Brad the liars mom who handled or had possession of all of them.

Oddly, all of them were in the house while it was in CPDs custody and they found nothing.

momof7
04-30-2011, 12:37 PM
So, if she had money, why was she calling BC every other minute of the day on Friday (slight embellishment, not much) asking him for money because she had none?

Just out of curiosity and nothing more, is it testimony from her friends saying she phoned repeatedly for the money or BC said that was what she was calling about? I have listened to original testimony from NC's friend and I don't recall? I will have to go back and watch the depo because I do believe BC addressed the calls?

NC also told family and friends that during her vacation with family she did not speak to BC at all, yet on avidavits, there were several calls from cited from her phone to his. He explained she asked for directions etc as she was lost? I understand that call log is not anything he could lie about, the content of the calls he could certainly lie about since no one can dispute that but the calls themselves were documented IIRC.

cityslick
04-30-2011, 12:41 PM
Just out of curiosity and nothing more, is it testimony from her friends saying she phoned repeatedly for the money or BC said that was what she was calling about? I have listened to original testimony from NC's friend and I don't recall? I will have to go back and watch the depo because I do believe BC addressed the calls?

I don't know if it's ever been addressed. I know there has been speculation here that was the reason (money) she was calling but I haven't seen that testified too (or I can't remember).

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:42 PM
Just out of curiosity and nothing more, is it testimony from her friends saying she phoned repeatedly for the money or BC said that was what she was calling about? I have listened to original testimony from NC's friend and I don't recall? I will have to go back and watch the depo because I do believe BC addressed the calls?

NC also told family and friends that during her vacation with family she did not speak to BC at all, yet on avidavits, there were several calls from cited from her phone to his. He explained she asked for directions etc as she was lost? I understand that call log is not anything he could lie about, the content of the calls he could certainly lie about since no one can dispute that but the calls themselves were documented IIRC.

I would say both.

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 12:42 PM
At least the female ADA (sorry forget her name) seems to be a class act.

Cummings meltdowns on Thursday really surprised me. He seems very slow to anger...maybe because he talks....so....slow. But did anyone else think the reason Cummings lost it is because he realized the state had no case????

Yes, I think they are acting this way because they were arrogant enough to think they "had it in the bag" by parading all the "friends" out with stories of affairs and financial difficulties and necklaces and ducks and painting. Defense showed there is FAR more to this case than that. They clearly were unprepared and completely clueless about the technical aspects of the case. But they had over two years to prepare. It's clear defense took the time to learn the technical stuff. The state didn't think they had to, clearly that was a huge mistake and that is why they are scrambling now. I have no respect for any of them.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 12:47 PM
At least the female ADA (sorry forget her name) seems to be a class act.

Cummings meltdowns on Thursday really surprised me. He seems very slow to anger...maybe because he talks....so....slow. But did anyone else think the reason Cummings lost it is because he realized the state had no case????



Yes, I think they are acting this way because they were arrogant enough to think they "had it in the bag" by parading all the "friends" out with stories of affairs and financial difficulties and necklaces and ducks and painting. Defense showed there is FAR more to this case than that. They clearly were unprepared and completely clueless about the technical aspects of the case. But they had over two years to prepare. It's clear defense took the time to learn the technical stuff. The state didn't think they had to, clearly that was a huge mistake and that is why they are scrambling now. I have no respect for any of them.

Bottom line, they rushed to judgment, although they want us to think they did not, it appears that did not look at any other suspects, and basically you really have to wonder why and on what evidence they had him arrested. I bet the State is embarassed they took so much faith into the original calls and supposed facts they were given. They have to know this is making them all look like buffoons.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 12:48 PM
Hi Gracielee! Even though we're on opposite sides of the fence, I've loved interacting with you on this forum.

I know you have very closely watched this entire case, and I know you are firmly BDI.

Could you please give explain to us why you firmly believe BDI at this point in the trial?

I'm NOT being snarky, and I won't rip apart any reply. I'm genuinely curious to get both sides, and perhaps that could give us some perspective on what jurors on each side of the fence may believe.

Thanks in advance!

jrb0124
04-30-2011, 01:28 PM
Ducks, sticks, earrings and necklaces prove nothing. We now know the ducks were not destroyed in a fight, JA was wrong about seeing them the day before. As far as the necklace goes, who wears an expensive diamond necklace to a pool with kids hanging all over them, I have seen pictures of the necklace it was not on a strong chain, could have easily broken in the pool and would have been gone forever, NC had enough smarts to know this, it is not on the HT picture, but the bathing suit appears on under the cover up; therefore, it is logical to conclude that she had been at the pool without the necklace, so HP is mistaken. Now, let's talk about the earrings she never took off. Have any of you ever tried to sleep in post earrings? I have and I can tell you that you will take them off at night as the posts will stick in the back of your neck if you roll onto your side. My friends will also tell you I always wear my diamond earrings and they would be correct, but they are not with me at night when I take them off so I can sleep, I imagine NC did the same thing, also showering with them in is a dangerous bet as your hair can tangle in them and they can come off. So it makes sense that she always wore them and may even have jogged in them or the necklace, but no doubt she took them off from time to time. So the earrings, the necklace or lack thereof, does not indicate anything to anyone. No one can know what anyone else does when they are alone. As far as the faint line around her neck, it is most likely there from the necklace when she wore it in the sun and the area it covered could not tan, IMO that is what you are seeing in the HT video, not the necklace. We do not have one piece of forensic evidence that ties BC to the crime. There are several others with motive, means and opportunity, BC is not alone in this. The google search means nothing as the time stamps may or may not be invalid. Don't get me wrong I want NC's killer caught and brought to justice, I am just not sure we have the right person. If the CPD made mistakes in the investigation and they did admittedly so, no one is perfect, how then is it that BC can commit this crime and not leave a trace, he would have made a mistake as well. People keep bringing up the running shoes, if you go back and read the statements the running shoes even though they were two left shoes were not NC's size, her other pair of running shoes have never been recovered, so the Det. thinks she returned them, well there is nothing to indicate she did so. Lots of things are in boxes, maybe if we look, we will find the two right shoes, who knows. Absolutely no proof of spoofed calls, again having the ability does not mean it happened and it would leave a trace somewhere on something, so far nothing has proven this did happen only that it did not. I am prefectly ready to eat crow if Cisco produces a router showing he made this spoof call and if they do I will gladly and readily admit he is guilty. At this point with nothing to go on, I am going to change my opinion get off of the fence and say, I believe Brad Cooper is not guilty.

ditto...ditto...ditto, thank you. I couldn't have written this better.

re: the BBM section - if it couldbe proven BC spoofed the call I would be firmly in the guilty camp.

On the other hand, even if its is testified/evidenced simply that he had the 3825 in his house the night before, I still think he is NG. Why? The router/modem/phone SW was executed in Oct, well after JA&co had suggested to CPD that BC could have spoofed the call. This was not top secret info at the time, BC knew it. Any innocent person in their right mind would be less than cooperative with helping LE locate a piece of evidence that could implicate them in the State's theory.

Kimster
04-30-2011, 01:38 PM
Some posts were removed and this is why:

1) Any complaint campaigns must go directly to Tricia. If you feel there needs to be one in this case, contact her for approval. Only SHE can post them. Per Tricia.

2) Don't say negative things about other posters, even in general. Period.

:tyou:

macd
04-30-2011, 01:43 PM
We've been talking about whether or not the contents of the windows system event log should be admitted. The question is whether it properly falls under the scope of rebuttal. I Googled "scope of rebuttal testimony". On the first returned link, I found the following quote from an appellate ruling in federal court. (Maybe someone can find an example of case law from North Carolina that would be more applicable.) I quote it below, bolding two important points from the decision.



Generally, a district court must exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of presenting evidence with the goal that the presentation be effective for ascertaining the truth. Fed. R. Evid. 611(a). Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’ and is not limited by the fact that the plaintiff could have introduced the proffered evidence in his case-in-chief.

The district court has broad discretion to determine the scope of rebuttal in admitting evidence, and in this case it was clearly within the district court's discretion to admit the evidence in question. When Mr. Caraway raised the inference of misidentification through the testimony of the property clerk who described the items Mr. Caraway was wearing when he was booked, the government was entitled to introduce the jacket and shirt to rebut that inference. The Government did not have to negate the testimony of the property clerk in its case-in-chief and the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jacket and shirt into evidence to question the defense's theory of misidentification.

In this case, the appellate court upheld the admission of rebuttal evidence. The defense only made an inference to a theory, and the court let in new clothing evidence. That the rebuttal was broader than the inference and that the new evidence was late were both dismissed as arguments against admitting the evidence.

So, applying this ruling, for the windows system event log evidence:
It doesn't matter if this evidence is new.
It doesn't matter if this evidence is late.
It doesn't matter if this evidence does more or less than negate a statement or inference made in the defense case in chief.

It is proper to admit this evidence to rebut.

macd
04-30-2011, 01:50 PM
CF was talking about his own network that he is hired to monitor and control. He was not called as an expert, given the task of pulling and then analyzing data. He was charged with pulling information from his own network. I haven't heard from him so I'm only going by the little snippet but it is my understanding that his primary role in this portion was taking the MAC address and matching it up with a particular router that had been in their inventory and is now unaccounted for. That doesn't require any level of expertise to match up a number.

Right, not an expert, so he won't be able to form any opinions.
He will only be able to say what he did, and what we saw.

I predict a lot of objections during his testimony.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 01:50 PM
We've been talking about whether or not the contents of the windows system event log should be admitted. The question is whether it properly falls under the scope of rebuttal. I Googled "scope of rebuttal testimony". On the first returned link, I found the following quote from an appellate ruling in federal court. (Maybe someone can find an example of case law from North Carolina that would be more applicable.) I quote it below, bolding two important points from the decision.



In this case, the appellate court upheld the admission of rebuttal evidence. The defense only made an inference to a theory, and the court let in new clothing evidence. That the rebuttal was broader than the inference and that the new evidence was late were both dismissed as arguments against admitting the evidence.

So, applying this ruling, for the windows system event log evidence:
It doesn't matter if this evidence is new.
It doesn't matter if this evidence is late.
It doesn't matter if this evidence does more or less than negate a statement or inference made in the defense case in chief.

It is proper to admit this evidence to rebut.

Sure if you disregard the initial assertion:

"Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’"

This evidence does not meet that initial criteria.

macd
04-30-2011, 02:03 PM
Sure if you disregard the initial assertion:

"Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’"

This evidence does not meet that initial criteria.

The judge disagrees with you.

I submit that by discussing the size of the router, the defense is making an inference that it was too big to be removed from the house while BC was under surveillance. The prosecution certainly made the inference that the FXO was small enough to be removed from the house.

The evidence that the router was in the house rebuts the inference that the router was too big to be removed from the house.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 02:10 PM
Again as I have said many times, data leaves trails. If the prosecution brings this evidence in they need to show that he actually made the calls. If the address of 3825 shows up in the arp table on the pc then the 3825 was connected to the LAN and not just via console cable. If it was on the LAN have they looked at the other router to see what was going on there? have they located a different switch? What other data connections were made to the 3825?

None of that is information that would come off the PC so not really understanding the extent of the investigation that is being done.

johnfear
04-30-2011, 02:10 PM
Sure if you disregard the initial assertion:

"Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’"

This evidence does not meet that initial criteria.

It's not just negating a case in chief point.

It's on the heels of the defense negating in pattern form the foundation of a large deal of the pros case in chief in an untimely manner that may take more time than allowed to in this case. The cross and rebuttal of the evidence may be pointlessly prejudicial and not as probative as it seems from first glance.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 02:13 PM
The judge disagrees with you.

I submit that by discussing the size of the router, the defense is making an inference that it was too big to be removed from the house while BC was under surveillance. The prosecution certainly made the inference that the FXO was small enough to be removed from the house.

The evidence that the router was in the house rebuts the inference that the router was too big to be removed from the house.

That last statement doesn't even make sense. There is still no evidence that the router was removed from the house if it was ever in the house and it is still too big to put in your pocket.

macd
04-30-2011, 02:27 PM
It's not just negating a case in chief point.

It's on the heels of the defense negating in pattern form the foundation of a large deal of the pros case in chief in an untimely manner that may take more time than allowed to in this case. The cross and rebuttal of the evidence may be pointlessly prejudicial and not as probative as it seems from first glance.

That was part of the appellate ruling I quoted. It does not matter if the new evidence does not directly negate a case-in-chief point or does more than just negate a point.

The defense witness said "that router is big".
That was not said just to entertain the jury.
That was part of a new theory offered by the defense.
Something like: "no one found an fxo capable router in the house, and they are big. Someone would have seen one if there was one there."

The prosecution is allowed to enter new evidence that rebuts the new theory offered by defense, even if the theory was offered only by inference.

GhostCrab
04-30-2011, 02:30 PM
I think I am going to try and shuffle some things around and go to court Monday morning...anyone else?

macd
04-30-2011, 02:34 PM
Again as I have said many times, data leaves trails. If the prosecution brings this evidence in they need to show that he actually made the calls. If the address of 3825 shows up in the arp table on the pc then the 3825 was connected to the LAN and not just via console cable. If it was on the LAN have they looked at the other router to see what was going on there? have they located a different switch? What other data connections were made to the 3825?

None of that is information that would come off the PC so not really understanding the extent of the investigation that is being done.

Before windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is no direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment to make a spoofed call on or around 7/12.

After windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment on or around 7/12.

So, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence to add to the pile.
I think a pretty big piece.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 02:43 PM
If all they have to show is a single ip mismatch entry their idea of "proof" is very thin.

jrb0124
04-30-2011, 02:47 PM
Before windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is no direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment to make a spoofed call on or around 7/12.

After windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment on or around 7/12.

So, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence to add to the pile.
I think a pretty big piece.

1) If he had a fax machine or modem he and anyone else in the state of NC with either or had the necessary equipment the morning of 7/12.

2) If you meant to imply equipment to spoof the call using an FXO + router, where would the driect evidence be that he had the FXO?

jrb0124
04-30-2011, 02:52 PM
If all they have to show is a single ip mismatch entry their idea of "proof" is very thin.

I assume CF is certain that the equipment he believes maps is for sure the Integrated 3825, and not a residential Gateway 3825.

This may be a moot point, but there are other 3825 named router models that have nothing to do with VOIP. I doubt CF would make a mistake like that (even in haste)...but ya never know.

macd
04-30-2011, 03:01 PM
If all they have to show is a single ip mismatch entry their idea of "proof" is very thin.

Kind of like a fingerprint.

A single fingerprint is direct evidence that a person was in contact with a specific surface.

A single event log with a hardware mac address on one device is direct evidence that one device was directly connected to another device at a specific time.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 03:08 PM
Kind of like a fingerprint.

A single fingerprint is direct evidence that a person was in contact with a specific surface.

A single event log with a hardware mac address on one device is direct evidence that one device was directly connected to another device at a specific time.

Really not a direct analogy at all.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 03:10 PM
I assume CF is certain that the equipment he believes maps is for sure the Integrated 3825, and not a residential Gateway 3825.

This may be a moot point, but there are other 3825 named router models that have nothing to do with VOIP. I doubt CF would make a mistake like that (even in haste)...but ya never know.

He did say it was a 3825 Integrated Services Router but even then that doesn't tell us a whole lot. A 3825 is essentially a shell that you can mix and match whatever interfaces you want. It supports nearly every network module and interface card that Cisco makes.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 03:12 PM
My point is this. They have the network devices that were found in the home, they are implying the 3825 was connected to the LAN, they have the right people to look at all of this information, they should be able to put this issue to rest so let's see if they actually do it.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 03:17 PM
Hi Gracielee! Even though we're on opposite sides of the fence, I've loved interacting with you on this forum.

I know you have very closely watched this entire case, and I know you are firmly BDI.

Could you please give explain to us why you firmly believe BDI at this point in the trial?

I'm NOT being snarky, and I won't rip apart any reply. I'm genuinely curious to get both sides, and perhaps that could give us some perspective on what jurors on each side of the fence may believe.

Thanks in advance!

Don't forget me Gracielee! I think you're initial reply may have been deleted, but I'm sure you will give us your case when you have some time this weekend.

All - I believe Gracielee is being extremely gracious in offering to give us her thoughts. Please be respectul. There are obviously two sides of opinion, and her rational can give us all, on both sides of the fence, a lot of insight. :great:

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 03:17 PM
That was part of the appellate ruling I quoted. It does not matter if the new evidence does not directly negate a case-in-chief point or does more than just negate a point.

The defense witness said "that router is big".
That was not said just to entertain the jury.
That was part of a new theory offered by the defense.
Something like: "no one found an fxo capable router in the house, and they are big. Someone would have seen one if there was one there."

The prosecution is allowed to enter new evidence that rebuts the new theory offered by defense, even if the theory was offered only by inference.

1. Prosecution said during their case they had Procurement email showing BC ordered 3200 in February along with FXO port. They continued that FXO port, obfuscating the information for both Jury and Judge, fit in a pocket, was the size of a credit card (even more obfuscation), could easily be disposed of.
2. JW showed 3200 on stand to give idea of size, Boz asked if it had an FXO port, JW said no.
3. Prosecution now wants to bring in evidence of 3825 which was not brought up at all by Defense, nor JW, or even the State in their case.

This is new evidence and not rebuting any theory that the Defense brought up no matter how it is twisted and turned.

Just the Fax
04-30-2011, 03:23 PM
If any new evidence is introduced, Kurtz has the right to call his own witness to counter.
What's the big deal?
Personally, I want to see all the evidence so we know the truth.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 03:40 PM
On the other hand, even if its is testified/evidenced simply that he had the 3825 in his house the night before, I still think he is NG. Why? The router/modem/phone SW was executed in Oct, well after JA&co had suggested to CPD that BC could have spoofed the call. This was not top secret info at the time, BC knew it. Any innocent person in their right mind would be less than cooperative with helping LE locate a piece of evidence that could implicate them in the State's theory.
I may be mistaken here, but weren't there photos and/or testimony that indicate that the router was not there on or about 7/16? So, in your hypothetical here, if it is shown that he had it on 7/11 and it wasn't there on 7/16, this would suggest that sometime either while his wife was missing or after she was found dead, he took the time to do something with a router. While of course that doesn't prove that he spoofed a call, it seems like an odd thing to invest your time in during that period.

NCEast
04-30-2011, 03:41 PM
Don't forget me Gracielee! I think you're initial reply may have been deleted, but I'm sure you will give us your case when you have some time this weekend.

All - I believe Gracielee is being extremely gracious in offering to give us her thoughts. Please be respectul. There are obviously two sides of opinion, and her rational can give us all, on both sides of the fence, a lot of insight. :great:

I am backing out of the technical talk, letting the pros do it. I am reading the posts, still confused, but find it interesting that there are many thoughts on the technology that may or may not have been used, the equipment that may or may not have been used and the methods that may or may not have been used.
Gracielee may be doing much of the same.

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 03:47 PM
I may be mistaken here, but weren't there photos and/or testimony that indicate that the router was not there on or about 7/16? So, in your hypothetical here, if it is shown that he had it on 7/11 and it wasn't there on 7/16, this would suggest that sometime either while his wife was missing or after she was found dead, he took the time to do something with a router. While of course that doesn't prove that he spoofed a call, it seems like an odd thing to invest your time in during that period.

Or maybe it was sitting in the house somewhere, just like the ducks and the necklace.

johnfear
04-30-2011, 03:53 PM
Macd, Sorry for posting from the iphone earlier. I was out playing and basically screwed up my commas.

What I was saying to you and SleuthinNC was this:

It doesn't matter what the rules say.

You are asking a JURY to look at a new piece of evidence in a case where the defense offered NO theory at all. They simply set about disproving the pros theory.

Bad, bad timing all around. Here's why:

Opening statement:

Ducks, money,necklace,wrong color dress,domestic violence, spoofed phone call, he dunnit.

Closing Statement:

Oops on the ducks, oops on the necklace, oops on the wrong color dress, oops on the spoofed phone call, BUT, he did Google Maps the body dumpsite for 41 seconds. He had a router in his house. She might have been in a black dress with no necklace buying stuff on that HT video you saw, but domestic violence. Here's a router log. He dunnit.

Do you see how this is kind of a mess? If not, I'll just wait to see the rest and we can fight it out in the replays. I wasn't disagreeing that the evidence could be allowed or not. I was saying/typing that the problem is not with it's introduction, it's with it being contradicted in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to date, being asked questions by the prosecution, who are now gonna recall the same witnesses and ask NEW questions about the same things with different answers and risk this:

GIVING THE IMPRESSION TO THE JURY THAT EVEN THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT...they are just gonna keep shaking the evidence tree seeing what fruit may fall.

And this is a jury who is saying: Can we go home now?

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 04:01 PM
Or maybe it was sitting in the house somewhere, just like the ducks and the necklace.
Yes, which falls under the umbrella of having done something with it. To have gotten duplicate IP address errors on the laptop, it had to be on the same LAN as the laptop. So that still seems to suggest that at a minimum he decided to move it somewhere within the house during all of the stress of 7/11 to 7/16.

johnfear
04-30-2011, 04:04 PM
Yes, which falls under the umbrella of having done something with it. To have gotten duplicate IP address errors on the laptop, it had to be on the same LAN as the laptop. So that still seems to suggest that at a minimum he decided to move it somewhere within the house during all of the stress of 7/11 to 7/16.

Maybe they used it to pay the attorneys. :)

gracielee
04-30-2011, 04:04 PM
Colon Willoughby has been the DA of Wake County since I was a child, and without hesitation I have voted for him for reelection every time.

Of course, given this trial, I will likely be changing my vote. The only way I can see supporting him in his next reelection bid (2012 I believe?) is based on how he addresses the outcome of this case.

Thought I'd add this since we KNOW the Wake County DA's office reads W/S religiously. :)

Any thoughts on what he may say???

I don't know that I"d base my vote on this one case. How many times do we have a super-duper computer whiz murder his wife and use computers/routers/VOIP, etc., as part of his MO. All of this new technology takes time and money to train and purchase equipment, etc. for their employees. Much like the attorney's of today have learned DNA technology, upcoming lawyers and members of LE will become better in the technology of the digital world IMO. The economy of these last eight years left little room for the money it takes to hire more people and educate them. Even with DNA, we don't have the money to keep up with the many samples needing to be tested still.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 04:07 PM
Macd, Sorry for posting from the iphone earlier. I was out playing and basically screwed up my commas.

What I was saying to you and SleuthinNC was this:

It doesn't matter what the rules say.

You are asking a JURY to look at a new piece of evidence in a case where the defense offered NO theory at all. They simply set about disproving the pros theory.

Bad, bad timing all around. Here's why:

Opening statement:

Ducks, money,necklace,wrong color dress,domestic violence, spoofed phone call, he dunnit.

Closing Statement:

Oops on the ducks, oops on the necklace, oops on the wrong color dress, oops on the spoofed phone call, BUT, he did Google Maps the body dumpsite for 41 seconds. He had a router in his house. She might have been in a black dress with no necklace buying stuff on that HT video you saw, but domestic violence. Here's a router log. He dunnit.

Do you see how this is kind of a mess? If not, I'll just wait to see the rest and we can fight it out in the replays. I wasn't disagreeing that the evidence could be allowed or not. I was saying/typing that the problem is not with it's introduction, it's with it being contradicted in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to date, being asked questions by the prosecution, who are now gonna recall the same witnesses and ask NEW questions about the same things with different answers and risk this:

GIVING THE IMPRESSION TO THE JURY THAT EVEN THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT...they are just gonna keep shaking the evidence tree seeing what fruit may fall.

And this is a jury who is saying: Can we go home now?

I agree it's like the big finale to the 3-ring circus. I think think the upcoming testimony is going to be interesting to watch from the strategery perspective.

That's why I was saying the prosecution better bring in a slam dunk and prove the calls once and for all in front of this jury but it doesn't seem as though that is what will happen.

If the venue were anything other than a courtroom I would expect boos and throwing of rotten tomatoes when Boz begins weaving his router tapestry.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 04:08 PM
Maybe they used it to pay the attorneys. :)
True. I suspect that between 7/11 and 7/16 he was foreseeing some mounting legal fees in his future. :)

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 04:08 PM
Maybe they used it to pay the attorneys. :)

Kurtz is using it as the office PBX :)

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 04:10 PM
I don't know that I"d base my vote on this one case. How many times do we have a super-duper computer whiz murder his wife and use computers/routers/VOIP, etc., as part of his MO. All of this new technology takes time and money to train and purchase equipment, etc. for their employees. Much like the attorney's of today have learned DNA technology, upcoming lawyers and members of LE will become better in the technology of the digital world IMO. The economy of these last eight years left little room for the money it takes to hire more people and educate them. Even with DNA, we don't have the money to keep up with the many samples needing to be tested still.

I think you mean:

"How many times do we have a super-duper computer whiz ALLEDGEDLY murder his wife and use computers/routers/VOIP, etc., as part of his MO.

johnfear
04-30-2011, 04:10 PM
Kurtz is using it as the office PBX :)

LMAO. Two sleuths for the price of one today. You and SS rock.

I can hear BC now: You guys want to put some videos online? I have a router we can use to tap in, set up a server and throw them on there. Let's do it.

gracielee
04-30-2011, 04:16 PM
Don't forget me Gracielee! I think you're initial reply may have been deleted, but I'm sure you will give us your case when you have some time this weekend.

All - I believe Gracielee is being extremely gracious in offering to give us her thoughts. Please be respectul. There are obviously two sides of opinion, and her rational can give us all, on both sides of the fence, a lot of insight. :great:

I haven't forgotten you, but I don't know why my reply would have been deleted, so perhaps something I said is forbidden? What did I say that was cause for it to be deleted? I don't want to make the same mistake. Just taking a 'planting break' here. Gardening is HARD WORK. Pheewww!

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 04:19 PM
FWIW, if the speculation is true that what is going to be introduced is a Windows event log containing a duplicate IP address error, it sounds like it is likely Event ID 4199 (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc727689%28WS.10%29.aspx).

JBean
04-30-2011, 04:24 PM
I haven't forgotten you, but I don't know why my reply would have been deleted, so perhaps something I said is forbidden? What did I say that was cause for it to be deleted? I don't want to make the same mistake. Just taking a 'planting break' here. Gardening is HARD WORK. Pheewww!
Since you asked I looked it up for you. Your post was removed because you made a derogatory comment about other members.
That is verboten anywhere on WS.

hth

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 04:28 PM
FWIW, if the speculation is true that what is going to be introduced is a Windows event log containing a duplicate IP address error, it sounds like it is likely Event ID 4199 (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc727689%28WS.10%29.aspx).

That's what I thought and also why I am confused as to why an IP mismatch of the router would show up in the windows event log.

johnfear
04-30-2011, 04:29 PM
FWIW, if the speculation is true that what is going to be introduced is a Windows event log containing a duplicate IP address error, it sounds like it is likely Event ID 4199 (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc727689%28WS.10%29.aspx).

Proof of the card as well? Hence the duplicate error?

NCEast
04-30-2011, 04:38 PM
I haven't forgotten you, but I don't know why my reply would have been deleted, so perhaps something I said is forbidden? What did I say that was cause for it to be deleted? I don't want to make the same mistake. Just taking a 'planting break' here. Gardening is HARD WORK. Pheewww!

We're planting the garden today--the same garden I was supposed to plant last Tuesday. Also flowers. The air was chilly this morning, felt so good, but it's warm now. I'm too old to be a farmer any more.

borndem
04-30-2011, 04:42 PM
Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
If I'm understanding this correctly, what some are saying here is that because the police left the computer on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served any evidence found on the computer should be thrown out because of "spoilage"? I can't say that I would be able to accept that if I was on the jury.


Not that's it's really similar, but what if an analogy can be made, like what if a DNA sample was left in an unsecured/unsterile lab for 27 hours. Would you consider that sample to have 'spoilage'?

I'm not arguing that it's spoiled either, just throwing the thought out there.

The Cooper house was not at all like an unsecured lab. As soon as police assumed control over the house under the SW, they put the familiar yellow tape around it, posted police in marked patrol cars at the house 24/7, and no one was allowed inside unless authorized.

Usually when a house is under LE control, entry by only one person is not allowed -- this most certainly includes LEOs. So no single individual could enter. The computer was still plugged in, along with everything else in the house because they were not planning to do the search/seizure at that time.

When the computer was seized, two specialized individuals performed it, or if they were separated, it was done in the presence of other LEOs on the scene. The computers were unplugged, not turned off, batteries were removed, and the items were taped, put in sealed "Evidence" envelopes which were signed by the seizing officers, and taken directly to the evidence locker. All of the officers, in their various cars, "caravanned" (word?) there, making no stops.

This "dual control" protocol is not just in LE situations -- when employees in certain jobs have to be bonded for insurance or legal reasons, dual control protocol is requred by the bonding company. Any time important items are in custody, no single individual is left alone with such items. It relieves a single person from possible accusal of tampering or theft, and it does not give a single person with bad intentions an opportunity to tamper or steal. Collusion, of course, could occur and then it's katie-bar-the-door with such evidence, but there we get quite afield, IMO.

Just sayin' ...

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 04:44 PM
Part of the N&O article:

Defense objects

Investigators never found that router.

Fry said he found evidence that Cooper had checked out two routers from Cisco and that only one had been returned.

The defense argued that it was late in the trial to come up with new information. The team urged the judge to suppress the evidence and to not let Fry testify because he was not a forensic computer expert.

The judge denied both requests, but he said Fry would only be able to testify about matters that rebutted evidence presented by the defense.

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/30/1165058/defense-rests-the-jury-doesnt.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1L2bKiAeO

Does it bother anyone else that we've continued to hear over and over that "they never found ____" when it should say "investigators never looked for _______". Misstating it that way really slants things.

They did this with the dress, BC's shoes, the necklace, the ducks and now the router, if that turns out to be true. The state didn't even know what type of router to look for until defense brought it up in the trial, showing that there was not one present in the photos of the computer equipment.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 04:50 PM
I don't know that I"d base my vote on this one case. How many times do we have a super-duper computer whiz murder his wife and use computers/routers/VOIP, etc., as part of his MO. All of this new technology takes time and money to train and purchase equipment, etc. for their employees. Much like the attorney's of today have learned DNA technology, upcoming lawyers and members of LE will become better in the technology of the digital world IMO. The economy of these last eight years left little room for the money it takes to hire more people and educate them. Even with DNA, we don't have the money to keep up with the many samples needing to be tested still.
I disagree to a certain extent. This case isn't really about wiz-bang technology and VoIP magic, etc, even though the lawyers have tried to make it about that.

If he really did it, yet is found NG, it's not going to be because he managed some mastery with his technical knowledge. He won't have beat the CPD and DA's office because of some computer/phone heroics. His real feat is going to have been pulling this off with two children in the house and not leaving any real physical evidence or having been seen by anyone dumping the body. Being [presumably] an inexperienced killer and managing to do all of that while under a lot of stress and not make any mistakes is pretty incredible.

The reason anyone is caring about all of this technical stuff is because [if he did it] he was so surprisingly good at covering his non-technical tracks.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 04:51 PM
Proof of the card as well? Hence the duplicate error?
If you mean FXO card, no, that error tells us nothing one way or the other about that.

gracielee
04-30-2011, 04:52 PM
We're planting the garden today--the same garden I was supposed to plant last Tuesday. Also flowers. The air was chilly this morning, felt so good, but it's warm now. I'm too old to be a farmer any more.

No kidding. we too are working on vegetables & shrubs/perrenials. We planted six rhododendrons the other day, and three lilac bushes. Yesterday I bought some more azaleas & lilies. Way too old to be a farmer anymore. My husband has taken an interest in heirloom seed vegetable gardens, so we've grown our own tomato, pepper, etc. plants from the heirloom seeds he's bought online. We are attempting to get away from all the genetically altered seeds of today.

gracielee
04-30-2011, 04:57 PM
Don't forget me Gracielee! I think you're initial reply may have been deleted, but I'm sure you will give us your case when you have some time this weekend.

All - I believe Gracielee is being extremely gracious in offering to give us her thoughts. Please be respectul. There are obviously two sides of opinion, and her rational can give us all, on both sides of the fence, a lot of insight. :great:

I think I might just take a pass on this one, RN. :( The Moderator said I said something negative about other posters. I can't recall what it was I said, as I've been trying to just ignore those that tend to upset me, for lack of a better word. I'd really been trying to ignore so much, especially this past few days. I'm pretty much afraid to say anything right about now. :(

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 05:02 PM
That's what I thought and also why I am confused as to why an IP mismatch of the router would show up in the windows event log.
I'm guessing here, but, assuming he had the 3825 and it caused a Duplicate IP Address error on the laptop, this could be because:


The 3825 was on a private subnet within the house (possibly just the typical 192.x.x.x network for home routers)
He connected the Ethernet port on the laptop to something that put it on the same LAN as the router (e.g. a switch) to telnet into the router
Because he didn't have DHCP enabled on the router, he hand configured an address for the Ethernet port on the laptop
He screwed up and picked as the address for the laptop the same address that he had configured for the router
He got the Duplicate Address Error and then reconfigured either the laptop or the router to have a different address
He then telnet'd into the router

justthinking2008
04-30-2011, 05:12 PM
I think I might just take a pass on this one, RN. :( The Moderator said I said something negative about other posters. I can't recall what it was I said, as I've been trying to just ignore those that tend to upset me, for lack of a better word. I'd really been trying to ignore so much, especially this past few days. I'm pretty much afraid to say anything right about now. :(

C'mon Gracie I would like to hear it too and I do not care if you call me names.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 05:15 PM
I'm guessing here, but, assuming he had the 3825 and it caused a Duplicate IP Address error on the laptop, this could be because:


The 3825 was on a private subnet within the house (possibly just the typical 192.x.x.x network for home routers)
He connected the Ethernet port on the laptop to something that put it on the same LAN as the router (e.g. a switch) to telnet into the router
Because he didn't have DHCP enabled on the router, he hand configured an address for the Ethernet port on the laptop
He screwed up and picked as the address for the laptop the same address that he had configured for the router
He got the Duplicate Address Error and then reconfigured either the laptop or the router to have a different address
He then telnet'd into the router


Ok we are thinking along the same lines. Which means with this scenario I can add an OR

OR

He connected the laptop to the LAN which previously had the IP address of the 3285 statically mapped in the router, got the duplicate IP address error, reconfigured his IP and went about his business. The 3825 wasn't really there but the IP address was and the MAC was still in the ARP table.

justthinking2008
04-30-2011, 05:25 PM
Please allow me to once again apologize for my grammatical incorrectness. My last post was not meant to say I am good with grammar, spelling or punctuation. It meant to say the opposite, I am mathematician with an advanced degree in applied mathematics. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are something I leave up to my personal assistant. So sorry I was not trying to say I am good those, to be truthful I am the antithesis of those things. Several of you have seen fit to send me private messages regarding this, please save your criticism, I know. My posts are logical and I only consider things that statistical and logical. Have a great day, sorry for the confusion.

Shadow722
04-30-2011, 05:28 PM
Please allow me to once again apologize for my grammatical incorrectness. My last post was not meant to say I am good with grammar, spelling or punctuation. It meant to say the opposite, I am mathematician with an advanced degree in applied mathematics. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are something I leave up to my personal assistant. So sorry I was not trying to say I am good those, to be truthful I am the antithesis of those things. Several of you have seen fit to send me private messages regarding this, please save your criticism, I know. My posts are logical and I only consider things that statistical and logical. Have a great day, sorry for the confusion.

You're doing just fine, madam or sir. Just keep plugging away, and posting in your concise logical manner. Thanks for your efforts.

NCEast
04-30-2011, 05:35 PM
Please allow me to once again apologize for my grammatical incorrectness. My last post was not meant to say I am good with grammar, spelling or punctuation. It meant to say the opposite, I am mathematician with an advanced degree in applied mathematics. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are something I leave up to my personal assistant. So sorry I was not trying to say I am good those, to be truthful I am the antithesis of those things. Several of you have seen fit to send me private messages regarding this, please save your criticism, I know. My posts are logical and I only consider things that statistical and logical. Have a great day, sorry for the confusion.

I don't read typos, incorrect verb usage, etc. in posts and would never call somebody out about them. I understand that most people are typing quickly--as I do--and trying to get their thoughts down in a timely manner. I have made my share of mistakes.
I am in awe of anybody who can do math. Is that the right or left side of the brain.
Anyhow, we welcome your thoughts on this case. There are always people who disagree with nearly each post but I am not opposed to anybody having a different view than my own--sometimes I need a good poke to see things in a different light.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 05:38 PM
Hinky meter red-lined. :panic:

gracielee
04-30-2011, 05:47 PM
I think you mean:

"How many times do we have a super-duper computer whiz ALLEDGEDLY murder his wife and use computers/routers/VOIP, etc., as part of his MO.

I'm not on the jury, please don't attempt to change the meaning of my posts. I said what *I* believe. MOO

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 05:53 PM
Ok we are thinking along the same lines. Which means with this scenario I can add an OR

OR

He connected the laptop to the LAN which previously had the IP address of the 3285 statically mapped in the router, got the duplicate IP address error, reconfigured his IP and went about his business. The 3825 wasn't really there but the IP address was and the MAC was still in the ARP table.
But in the ARP cache of what? The laptop? ARP cache entries age in minutes, not days or months. If the 3285 was no longer there, it couldn't have sent out a gratuitous ARP. I can't really think of a scenario where the 3825 IP/MAC mapping could have become known to the laptop if the 3825 was not there.

:twocents:

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 05:54 PM
I think I might just take a pass on this one, RN. :( The Moderator said I said something negative about other posters. I can't recall what it was I said, as I've been trying to just ignore those that tend to upset me, for lack of a better word. I'd really been trying to ignore so much, especially this past few days. I'm pretty much afraid to say anything right about now. :(

Aww, I hope you do answer soon. I don't understand why the mods deleted your post either. I haven't ever noticed you say negative things about those who disagree with you.

I did once get one of my posts snipped for using a word which the mods felt was "bad"....I didn't really think it was a bad word. It happens to the best of us, no worries!

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 06:02 PM
But in the ARP cache of what? The laptop? ARP cache entries age in minutes, not days or months. If the 3285 was no longer there, it couldn't have sent out a gratuitous ARP. I can't really think of a scenario where the 3825 IP/MAC mapping could have become known to the laptop if the 3825 was not there.

:twocents:

I meant on the router or switch that was providing the LAN between the laptop and the 3285.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 06:07 PM
I guess the whole scenario is not making much sense to me. There shouldn't have been any need to connect the 3285 to a LAN unless he didn't have a console cable and had to use the LAN to communicate via telnet or ssh with the router.

If he was communicating with the router using telnet or ssh there would be a distinct data trail. Entries in the CSA log, on the switch, on the other router if he accessed remotely on TWC network, etc.

It should either be a one benign event log entry anomaly or plenty of data trail to follow.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 06:08 PM
I meant on the router or switch that was providing the LAN between the laptop and the 3285.
Ah, ok. Not saying that it's impossible, but, I still see no reason that such a device would blurt out ARP info for a device that was no longer there. Some devices do gratuitous ARPs, but it's of their own address, not someone else's.

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 06:17 PM
I guess the whole scenario is not making much sense to me. There shouldn't have been any need to connect the 3285 to a LAN unless he didn't have a console cable and had to use the LAN to communicate via telnet or ssh with the router.

If he was communicating with the router using telnet or ssh there would be a distinct data trail. Entries in the CSA log, on the switch, on the other router if he accessed remotely on TWC network, etc.

It should either be a one benign event log entry anomaly or plenty of data trail to follow.

I know nothing about this router stuff so I'm glad some of you here are able to talk it through. I'm just reading the posts here and trying to make sense of at least a tiny bit of this.

I'm very anxious for Monday to arrive to see what this is all about. And to think I actually thought for a minute I would have a free weekend not obsessing over this trial:).

It should be interesting.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 06:20 PM
I guess the whole scenario is not making much sense to me. There shouldn't have been any need to connect the 3285 to a LAN unless he didn't have a console cable and had to use the LAN to communicate via telnet or ssh with the router.

If he was communicating with the router using telnet or ssh there would be a distinct data trail. Entries in the CSA log, on the switch, on the other router if he accessed remotely on TWC network, etc.

It should either be a one benign event log entry anomaly or plenty of data trail to follow.
Well, when PG (Cisco VoIP expert) was on the stand, Zell had put the equipment that was seized from the house up in front of him and left it there. When Howie questioned him, he asked PG if he had been asked to look at logs from any of that equipment. He said that he didn't know about the TWC box, but none of the other devices had logs other than in-memory logging that would be lost at power-down.

That was when Howie pulled some Zell-esque slight-of-hand by repeating "so you didn't look at logs on any of these devices?" PG said "no". Well, that's technically true but it was because there were no logs to look at.

Anyway, point is, it seems like the only places that there might have been any tracking info available is on the router (which is MIA) or the laptop. I'm not sure that a telnet session is necessarily logged on the laptop in some way but can try it later to see.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 06:27 PM
I don't know that I"d base my vote on this one case. How many times do we have a super-duper computer whiz murder his wife and use computers/routers/VOIP, etc., as part of his MO. All of this new technology takes time and money to train and purchase equipment, etc. for their employees. Much like the attorney's of today have learned DNA technology, upcoming lawyers and members of LE will become better in the technology of the digital world IMO. The economy of these last eight years left little room for the money it takes to hire more people and educate them. Even with DNA, we don't have the money to keep up with the many samples needing to be tested still.

Thanks for your insight. I suppose how you would vote in Willoughby's next election also depends on which side of the fence you are on.

If BC is found G, I can't imagine voting for Willoughby. Unless he were to say "We knew BC was guilty for certain based on xyz evidence which is inadmissible in court, so we did our best with the evidence which was allowed". But I can't imagine that to be the case.

If BC is found NG, I'd really like to see exactly what Willoughby says to the public. Most importantly, I'd want to hear him say immediately that the case of NC's murder is open, unsolved and still actively being investigated.

JMO.

borndem
04-30-2011, 06:28 PM
It was from the time the house was secured, at which time everything was in CPDs custody until the search warrant was served and then for an additional 12 or so hours after the search warrant was served the computer remained on. The total time it was in the custody of the CPD until it was turned off was 27 hours and the FBI was not even aware that the evidence had not been properly handled. The point being the CPD had custody of all the items from the time that they secured the house, anything disturbed or changed after that is on their hands.

Apparently no CPD "computer-seizure-authorized" person (whatever the term is, so excuse my terminology) was in the home or available at the time the house was seized and secured. So they had to let it remain in whatever condition it was at the time. Or this was their normal SOP. If this was discussed, I've forgotten it, and please forgive.

Maybe this was a CPD oversight or those persons were not on duty or were on another case or were on vacation or were on the moon at the time, but no one there was duly authorized to even unplug the power cord and remove the battery (or, heaven forbid, we could have problems such as the NC phone problem, Lions & Tigers & Bears, oh my!!). That is a very good reason the computer was left as is.

Just the Fax
04-30-2011, 06:28 PM
Oh, this whole thing was devastating. I think one thing we can all agree on here is that we all want justice for Nancy.

But since I think BC is innocent, I want justice for him too. The thought of an innocent man sitting in prison for 2 1/2 years and losing his kids is very sad.
Yes, this whole thing was devastating.
Since I think BC is guilty, I want justice for Nancy, the girls and the Rentz's.
The thought of a guilty man walking is very sad.

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 06:30 PM
Yes, this whole thing was devastating.
Since I think BC is guilty, I want justice for Nancy, the girls and the Rentz's.
The thought of a guilty man walking is very sad.

You don't expect that to happen though, right?

Just the Fax
04-30-2011, 06:35 PM
You don't expect that to happen though, right?

This trio of ADA's botched the case.
Unfortunately, I see him walking...yes, very sad.

CrimeAddict
04-30-2011, 06:39 PM
This trio of ADA's botched the case.
Unfortunately, I see him walking...yes, very sad.

I am still holding on to some hope something will pull together in the end :(

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 06:41 PM
This trio of ADA's botched the case.
Unfortunately, I see him walking...yes, very sad.

I'm a little surprised to hear you say that, and Welcome Back, by the way.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 06:46 PM
Please allow me to once again apologize for my grammatical incorrectness. My last post was not meant to say I am good with grammar, spelling or punctuation. It meant to say the opposite, I am mathematician with an advanced degree in applied mathematics. Spelling, grammar and punctuation are something I leave up to my personal assistant. So sorry I was not trying to say I am good those, to be truthful I am the antithesis of those things. Several of you have seen fit to send me private messages regarding this, please save your criticism, I know. My posts are logical and I only consider things that statistical and logical. Have a great day, sorry for the confusion.

No need for apologies, I thought your post was great! I was able to read it.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6415575#post6415575)
If I'm understanding this correctly, what some are saying here is that because the police left the computer on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served any evidence found on the computer should be thrown out because of "spoilage"? I can't say that I would be able to accept that if I was on the jury.



The Cooper house was not at all like an unsecured lab. As soon as police assumed control over the house under the SW, they put the familiar yellow tape around it, posted police in marked patrol cars at the house 24/7, and no one was allowed inside unless authorized.

Usually when a house is under LE control, entry by only one person is not allowed -- this most certainly includes LEOs. So no single individual could enter. The computer was still plugged in, along with everything else in the house because they were not planning to do the search/seizure at that time.

When the computer was seized, two specialized individuals performed it, or if they were separated, it was done in the presence of other LEOs on the scene. The computers were unplugged, not turned off, batteries were removed, and the items were taped, put in sealed "Evidence" envelopes which were signed by the seizing officers, and taken directly to the evidence locker. All of the officers, in their various cars, "caravanned" (word?) there, making no stops.

This "dual control" protocol is not just in LE situations -- when employees in certain jobs have to be bonded for insurance or legal reasons, dual control protocol is requred by the bonding company. Any time important items are in custody, no single individual is left alone with such items. It relieves a single person from possible accusal of tampering or theft, and it does not give a single person with bad intentions an opportunity to tamper or steal. Collusion, of course, could occur and then it's katie-bar-the-door with such evidence, but there we get quite afield, IMO.

Just sayin' ...

The CPD secured the house about 10 hours before they had the search warrant, they told BC to leave. At that point all evidence was in the hands of the CPD, in their possession. We don't know when they entered the house specifically, or if they followed protocol. We don't know if even two LEOs did go in togther if they stayed together once inside, and it appears there are many rooms in the house. Once they obtained the SW it was another 12+ hours before the laptop was powered down. In total the laptop was powered up for 27 hours. The reasoning given was that unplugging it would have corrupted data. They have not been able to adequately explain what made the 27th hour the magic hour.

We do know that the FBI agent was unaware of this lapse of protocol. We also know that CPD has not released the chain of evidence records for the laptop. Finally, we know that they erased NC's Blackberry, and that protocol was not followed with that at all, they didn't even have a SW when they erased it and requested the SW after they had erased it.

Danielle59
04-30-2011, 07:01 PM
Hinky meter red-lined. :panic:

Why has it redlined?

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 07:03 PM
Well, when PG (Cisco VoIP expert) was on the stand, Zell had put the equipment that was seized from the house up in front of him and left it there. When Howie questioned him, he asked PG if he had been asked to look at logs from any of that equipment. He said that he didn't know about the TWC box, but none of the other devices had logs other than in-memory logging that would be lost at power-down.

That was when Howie pulled some Zell-esque slight-of-hand by repeating "so you didn't look at logs on any of these devices?" PG said "no". Well, that's technically true but it was because there were no logs to look at.

Anyway, point is, it seems like the only places that there might have been any tracking info available is on the router (which is MIA) or the laptop. I'm not sure that a telnet session is necessarily logged on the laptop in some way but can try it later to see.

I think it would be shown in the CSA log, at the very least a TCP connect since it showed all of the traceroute and port connection attempts.

Tink56
04-30-2011, 07:06 PM
No kidding. we too are working on vegetables & shrubs/perrenials. We planted six rhododendrons the other day, and three lilac bushes. Yesterday I bought some more azaleas & lilies. Way too old to be a farmer anymore. My husband has taken an interest in heirloom seed vegetable gardens, so we've grown our own tomato, pepper, etc. plants from the heirloom seeds he's bought online. We are attempting to get away from all the genetically altered seeds of today.

I'm behind in my planting, too. I am just sprouting heirloom tomatoes, beans, peppers, and peas. (My "green" child ordered them for me.) I have raised beds, but he organic soil brings lots of little flies. I'm trying to be "healthier," but I may just have to spray these nasty flies pretty soon. I'm trying to come up with a good rationalization for doing so...:bananalama:

momof7
04-30-2011, 07:08 PM
I'm behind in my planting, too. I am just sprouting heirloom tomatoes, beans, peppers, and peas. (My "green" child ordered them for me.) I have raised beds, but he organic soil brings lots of little flies. I'm trying to be "healthier," but I may just have to spray these nasty flies pretty soon. I'm trying to come up with a good rationalization for doing so...:bananalama:

Try some dawn dish soap in a water bottle. Honestly, it has done wonders for my garden and the bugs and I don't worry about the sprays and the dogs.

Kelly

NCEast
04-30-2011, 07:12 PM
Thanks for your insight. I suppose how you would vote in Willoughby's next election also depends on which side of the fence you are on.

If BC is found G, I can't imagine voting for Willoughby. Unless he were to say "We knew BC was guilty for certain based on xyz evidence which is inadmissible in court, so we did our best with the evidence which was allowed". But I can't imagine that to be the case.

If BC is found NG, I'd really like to see exactly what Willoughby says to the public. Most importantly, I'd want to hear him say immediately that the case of NC's murder is open, unsolved and still actively being investigated.

JMO.

I don't live in Wake County so my opinion doesn't mean much. However, from what I see on the news and read, CW has a pretty decent reputation--personal and legal. I would not cast my vote, if I had one, against him just based on this one trial. If the JY trial seems to be as shoddy, and since it's a high profile case as well, then that would be my reason to question his leadership in the Wake County DA's office when it's all said and done. I agree with you with respect to a BC not guilty verdict, would hope to have a firm statement from CW addressing it and why they even brought it to trial. And hope the CPD will continue to investigate. A 'real' investigation the next go round.

borndem
04-30-2011, 07:17 PM
We've been talking about whether or not the contents of the windows system event log should be admitted. The question is whether it properly falls under the scope of rebuttal. I Googled "scope of rebuttal testimony". On the first returned link, I found the following quote from an appellate ruling in federal court. (Maybe someone can find an example of case law from North Carolina that would be more applicable.) I quote it below, bolding two important points from the decision.



In this case, the appellate court upheld the admission of rebuttal evidence. The defense only made an inference to a theory, and the court let in new clothing evidence. That the rebuttal was broader than the inference and that the new evidence was late were both dismissed as arguments against admitting the evidence.

So, applying this ruling, for the windows system event log evidence:
It doesn't matter if this evidence is new.
It doesn't matter if this evidence is late.
It doesn't matter if this evidence does more or less than negate a statement or inference made in the defense case in chief.

It is proper to admit this evidence to rebut.


BBM in above post.

I am going to try to find a case law example, but in the meantime, here is the law for section on Rebuttal in Superior Criminal Court in NC. Short & sweet. It is very similar to what you found, macd.

Case law in this point would be interesting, I agree.

Here is what is stated in the North Carolina General Statutes:

Chapter 15A: Criminal Procedure Act.
.
.
.
.


Article 73 - Criminal Jury Trial in Superior Court. (http://www.websleuths.com/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_15A/Article_73.html)
.
.
.
.

15A‑1226. Rebuttal evidence; additional evidence.
(a) Each party has the right to introduce rebuttal evidence concerning matters elicited in the evidence in chief of another party. The judge may permit a party to offer new evidence during rebuttal which could have been offered in the party's case in chief or during a previous rebuttal, but if new evidence is allowed, the other party must be permitted further rebuttal.
(b) The judge in his discretion may permit any party to introduce additional evidence at any time prior to verdict. (1977, c. 711, s. 1.)

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 07:20 PM
Ah, ok. Not saying that it's impossible, but, I still see no reason that such a device would blurt out ARP info for a device that was no longer there. Some devices do gratuitous ARPs, but it's of their own address, not someone else's.


It wouldn't necessarily blurt it out it would just be there when the IP address conflict occurs.

you can statically map devices in both the routing table and arp table on Cisco routers. If you suck at data networking, which I kinda think BC does, static mapping is much easier to manage than dynamic. If you recall there was a lot of bad connections going on when he had the VoIP setup on his home line so it wouldn't be unreasonable to statically map things to see if that helped with the data connection.

bloghooligan
04-30-2011, 07:21 PM
<snipped>

The thought of a guilty man walking is very sad.

The thought of an innocent person spending their life in jail is worse in so many ways (including that the guilty person still walks free).

borndem
04-30-2011, 07:28 PM
Sure if you disregard the initial assertion:

"Evidence introduced on rebuttal serves to ‘rebut new evidence or new theories proffered in the defendant's case-in-chief,’"

This evidence does not meet that initial criteria.


Please see my earlier post citing NCGS 15A-1226 in a response to macd. There seems to be a lot of latitude in this ruling...

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 07:37 PM
Please see my earlier post citing NCGS 15A-1226 in a response to macd. There seems to be a lot of latitude in this ruling...

True and the fact is, it is being allowed. Now the next question will be what kind of shenanigans go on in regard to what is allowed of the defense for rebuttal of the rebuttal.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 07:45 PM
This trio of ADA's botched the case.
Unfortunately, I see him walking...yes, very sad.

If tomorrow was verdict day and I was a juror, I'd have to vote not guilty because I am not sure. It seems likely he may have done it, but it also seems likely JP could have done it.

With that said, however, how many people are EVER acquitted of a murder charge? Besides high-profile OJs and Robert Blakes? I googled i and came up with a wikipedia page and most of the defendants were from the 1800's! And it's not like there were thousands to begin with. So, I wonder if they will just consider him guilty because he probably is (and they're too confused with all the evidence, arguing, and lying).

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 07:46 PM
I don't live in Wake County so my opinion doesn't mean much. However, from what I see on the news and read, CW has a pretty decent reputation--personal and legal. I would not cast my vote, if I had one, against him just based on this one trial. If the JY trial seems to be as shoddy, and since it's a high profile case as well, then that would be my reason to question his leadership in the Wake County DA's office when it's all said and done. I agree with you with respect to a BC not guilty verdict, would hope to have a firm statement from CW addressing it and why they even brought it to trial. And hope the CPD will continue to investigate. A 'real' investigation the next go round.

Thanks for the response! I'm really interested to hear all opinions here.

CW has been DA since I was a child, and I'm a native, and I've voted for him everytime he's been up for reelection...no hesitation. I've held him in extremely high regard.

But what really gets me, is based on last week's blackberry testimony, I'm convinced LE tampered with evidence. Many people were saying that from the very beginning, but I did not believe any evidence tampering was deliberate. Until last week....

DA's office presented their case for 8.5 weeks....defense for 1 week.

Then we have Cummings losing it more than once on Thursday....

Now we have Boz twisting facts to get a "rebuttal" witness, after the DA's office has dragged this case on and on and on.

I know people have attacked Boz for this rebuttal witness, but I'm more hesitant to attack Boz. Because he works for CW. So where is Boz getting his direction?

Not only do I now question the ethics of LE, but I question the ethics of the Wake County DA's office under CW.

My biggest fear is the victim will never see justice in this case. I do hope BC is found not guilty, and maybe it's unrealistic, but I'm hoping LE and the DA continue to search for her killer.

Grammy Jean
04-30-2011, 07:50 PM
I am rather new to posting here but I am one of the people who feel BDI! One thing I think should be made more of and I was glad the ADA included this when she cross examined the PI about the route Brad claims he took, and that is Brad has admitted to lying in his deposition. In my mind if one is truly innocent one will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

CrimeAddict
04-30-2011, 07:52 PM
I'm behind in my planting, too. I am just sprouting heirloom tomatoes, beans, peppers, and peas. (My "green" child ordered them for me.) I have raised beds, but he organic soil brings lots of little flies. I'm trying to be "healthier," but I may just have to spray these nasty flies pretty soon. I'm trying to come up with a good rationalization for doing so...:bananalama:

I am doing a lot of herbs this year, and I keep hearing I need to plant marigolds.. have you tried that next to your plants to help? I am running out tomorrow to get some, hope it helps!

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 07:53 PM
If tomorrow was verdict day and I was a juror, I'd have to vote not guilty because I am not sure. It seems likely he may have done it, but it also seems likely JP could have done it.

With that said, however, how many people are EVER acquitted of a murder charge? Besides high-profile OJs and Robert Blakes? I googled i and came up with a wikipedia page and most of the defendants were from the 1800's! And it's not like there were thousands to begin with. So, I wonder if they will just consider him guilty because he probably is (and they're too confused with all the evidence, arguing, and lying).

I don't know. I would have to research that a bit, but I do know that there have been hundreds of overturned convictions and that is pretty unsettling.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 07:54 PM
I am still holding on to some hope something will pull together in the end :(
I'm still of the opinion (which is worth what you pay for it) that there is little chance he will be found NG. I see the chances of a hung jury having climbed, but I am thinking that he will be found guilty. The prosecution will probably find some way to put NC's mother and/or sister back on the stand in rebuttal and will recapture thereby the emotion of it all.

My thinking all along is that there is not going to be enough evidence that he should be found guilty, but he will be nonetheless.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 07:55 PM
If tomorrow was verdict day and I was a juror, I'd have to vote not guilty because I am not sure. It seems likely he may have done it, but it also seems likely JP could have done it.

With that said, however, how many people are EVER acquitted of a murder charge? Besides high-profile OJs and Robert Blakes? I googled i and came up with a wikipedia page and most of the defendants were from the 1800's! And it's not like there were thousands to begin with. So, I wonder if they will just consider him guilty because he probably is (and they're too confused with all the evidence, arguing, and lying).

Thanks BrownRice. I can't recall a defendent in Wake County being acquitted of a murder charge. It's certainly very rare. I thought there was a case of a murder acquittal last year; but I believe it was in another county? Maybe someone can clarify that for me...it was not a high profile case.

Just curious, do you think it could have been a stranger? I'm also suspicious of JA and JP, but personally I think a stranger is most likely.

RaleighNative
04-30-2011, 07:58 PM
I am doing a lot of herbs this year, and I keep hearing I need to plant marigolds.. have you tried that next to your plants to help? I am running out tomorrow to get some, hope it helps!

LOVE my herb garden, as my hubby and I love to cook! I've found all the critters don't touch my herbs due to their natural scent. I have heard marigolds can help around vegatables though.

NCEast
04-30-2011, 07:59 PM
Thanks for the response! I'm really interested to hear all opinions here.

CW has been DA since I was a child, and I'm a native, and I've voted for him everytime he's been up for reelection...no hesitation. I've held him in extremely high regard.

But what really gets me, is based on last week's blackberry testimony, I'm convinced LE tampered with evidence. Many people were saying that from the very beginning, but I did not believe any evidence tampering was deliberate. Until last week....

DA's office presented their case for 8.5 weeks....defense for 1 week.

Then we have Cummings losing it more than once on Thursday....

Now we have Boz twisting facts to get a "rebuttal" witness, after the DA's office has dragged this case on and on and on.

I know people have attacked Boz for this rebuttal witness, but I'm more hesitant to attack Boz. Because he works for CW. So where is Boz getting his direction?

Not only do I now question the ethics of LE, but I question the ethics of the Wake County DA's office under CW.

My biggest fear is the victim will never see justice in this case. I do hope BC is found not guilty, and maybe it's unrealistic, but I'm hoping LE and the DA continue to search for her killer.

I was browsing over the Wake County DA's website this morning. I remembered that somebody earlier this week said H. Cummings was next under CW. I assume tenure must be in play. I don't know how much 'hands-on' CW has spent with the ADAs in this case. He may have given them free reign. I can only imagine his anger this past week with the same issues we all witnessed from the ADAs. I don't like what I've seen play out in this trial either, by the CPD or some of the ADA's methods. Cummings' losing it the other day was a jolt. I certainly understand, and agree, with everything you feel. I would hate to think, though, that CW would lose his job just based on this one case. Would like to know what the stats, w-vs-l, are for capital crimes since he's been in office. He has been there a long time.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:01 PM
I am doing a lot of herbs this year, and I keep hearing I need to plant marigolds.. have you tried that next to your plants to help? I am running out tomorrow to get some, hope it helps!

I've heard marigolds are good for deer and bunnies. Never heard it for flies, but it can't hurt! I have a lot of squirrels in Indiana (moved up here this year from NC), and we have to wait, supposedly, until after Memorial Day for planting here. I'm going to try marigolds for squirrels too.

CrimeAddict
04-30-2011, 08:03 PM
If tomorrow was verdict day and I was a juror, I'd have to vote not guilty because I am not sure. It seems likely he may have done it, but it also seems likely JP could have done it.

With that said, however, how many people are EVER acquitted of a murder charge? Besides high-profile OJs and Robert Blakes? I googled i and came up with a wikipedia page and most of the defendants were from the 1800's! And it's not like there were thousands to begin with. So, I wonder if they will just consider him guilty because he probably is (and they're too confused with all the evidence, arguing, and lying).

Interesting thought, I watch a lot of crime shows and it seems like the more interesting NG verdicts they play because I seem to see a lot of the NG verdict episodes. In these shows jurors claim "we think he/she did it but they did not seem to have enough evidence" I recall hearing that time and time again so that's the first thing that comes to mind in this case with thinking about a verdict. I bet those jurors think he killed her, that is my gut feeling. I think they will try to follow the law and instructions and then just have to talk about it. I think there be some that have to be swayed either way. I can't imagine they all will agree 100% right away.

Without getting into all the technical mumbo-jumbo about the possible spoofed call and the google search. Just HEARING that stuff to the jurors may sway them enough to just think YEP he did it. This is what I am holding on to.. regardless of any defense witnesses talking about tampering, etc.. The first thought of their minds when they heard there was 10 ways he could have done the spoofing and the DPD officer displaying the google search on the big screen.. add that with the weird depos and all the cleaning and I just think we still have a chance of guilty here...

Amster
04-30-2011, 08:03 PM
I am rather new to posting here but I am one of the people who feel BDI! One thing I think should be made more of and I was glad the ADA included this when she cross examined the PI about the route Brad claims he took, and that is Brad has admitted to lying in his deposition. In my mind if one is truly innocent one will tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

:welcome:

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:04 PM
I don't know. I would have to research that a bit, but I do know that there have been hundreds of overturned convictions and that is pretty unsettling.

Oh yes, that is a completely different subject. I have been reading a book, Mean Justice, about a man who (the author supposes) was convicted wrongly of murdering his wife. Interestingly, it is parallel to BC in many respects (gossipy neighbors, no evidence, lying/inept police). In the back of the book, he has a lengthy index of overturned convictions. And this book was written in '99 so I'm sure there's much more.

NCEast
04-30-2011, 08:06 PM
I'm still of the opinion (which is worth what you pay for it) that there is little chance he will be found NG. I see the chances of a hung jury having climbed, but I am thinking that he will be found guilty. The prosecution will probably find some way to put NC's mother and/or sister back on the stand in rebuttal and will recapture thereby the emotion of it all.

My thinking all along is that there is not going to be enough evidence that he should be found guilty, but he will be nonetheless.

Until this past week, I was thinking that a guilty verdict was pretty much set. I began having my doubts on Tuesday. Don't know exactly if there was one thing or several that made me start thinking they were going to find him not guilty. And then the note from the jury made me feel even more sure they are thinking not guilty.....they just want to go home. I want to give them more credit than that, and hope they will take their time in deliberations, that's the only way this long and tedious trial will end well regardless of the verdict.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:08 PM
Just curious, do you think it could have been a stranger? I'm also suspicious of JA and JP, but personally I think a stranger is most likely.

Oh, sure. I have no problem believing it could have been random (serious, not sarcasm). I was just very suspicious of the JP testimony, and pushed the random act out of my mind after that. But certainly, could have been a guy off the street. I run a lot and see a bunch of creeps. It could easily happen. And with the eyewitness testimony going back and forth it wasn't discounted in my opinion.

NCEast
04-30-2011, 08:10 PM
Thanks BrownRice. I can't recall a defendent in Wake County being acquitted of a murder charge. It's certainly very rare. I thought there was a case of a murder acquittal last year; but I believe it was in another county? Maybe someone can clarify that for me...it was not a high profile case.

Just curious, do you think it could have been a stranger? I'm also suspicious of JA and JP, but personally I think a stranger is most likely.

I was NOT impressed in the least with JP but I never got a feel that he was desperate enough to kill her. Even with the paternal issues that may prove to be positive at some point in the future. If Brad didn't do it, then I think a stranger on the jog is the best case scenario.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:10 PM
I'm still of the opinion (which is worth what you pay for it) that there is little chance he will be found NG. I see the chances of a hung jury having climbed, but I am thinking that he will be found guilty. The prosecution will probably find some way to put NC's mother and/or sister back on the stand in rebuttal and will recapture thereby the emotion of it all.

My thinking all along is that there is not going to be enough evidence that he should be found guilty, but he will be nonetheless.

Exactly.

Tink56
04-30-2011, 08:11 PM
I am doing a lot of herbs this year, and I keep hearing I need to plant marigolds.. have you tried that next to your plants to help? I am running out tomorrow to get some, hope it helps!

LOL...I did and "something" ate all the leaves in 24 hours. (That was a first for me!)

I even considered that one of our canyon critters might have taken a liking to Marigolds, but decided to put out Corey's snail bait and snagged about 20 snails around the marigolds. How they are getting in the raised beds and out without me seeing them is quite a feat. I live in California, but this seems early to me for such a large infestation. I even found snails on the lemon trees. :maddening:

I keep thinking the tiny flies will "move on," but they hover over the soil. Maybe I was too thrify in my choice of organic soil. Tomorrow A.M. early, I'm off to the local nursery for advice, but I do appreciate all other suggestions, too!

Herbs are part of this year's crop here, too; the nursery had different flavored basil and oregano among other things. This is the best time of the year, isn't it. We're supposed to have a "heat wave" this week, so I hope everything survives.

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 08:14 PM
If tomorrow was verdict day and I was a juror, I'd have to vote not guilty because I am not sure. It seems likely he may have done it, but it also seems likely JP could have done it.

With that said, however, how many people are EVER acquitted of a murder charge? Besides high-profile OJs and Robert Blakes? I googled i and came up with a wikipedia page and most of the defendants were from the 1800's! And it's not like there were thousands to begin with. So, I wonder if they will just consider him guilty because he probably is (and they're too confused with all the evidence, arguing, and lying).

Just doing a little bit of searching I came across this article, talking about public defender trials and interestingly:


70 percent of homicide trials resulting in acquittals, hung juries or mixed verdicts.

also from the article:

People often think that if someone is charged with a crime, there must be overwhelming evidence,” he said. “In fact, juries did not find enough to convict in nearly half the jury trials.”

Link to article:
http://sfpublicdefender.org/media/2011/01/year-report-public-defenders-win-48-percent-jury-trials/

I was unable to find statistics for the US but I'm curious now so I'll see what I can find.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:16 PM
Interesting thought, I watch a lot of crime shows and it seems like the more interesting NG verdicts they play because I seem to see a lot of the NG verdict episodes. In these shows jurors claim "we think he/she did it but they did not seem to have enough evidence" I recall hearing that time and time again so that's the first thing that comes to mind in this case with thinking about a verdict. I bet those jurors think he killed her, that is my gut feeling. I think they will try to follow the law and instructions and then just have to talk about it. I think there be some that have to be swayed either way. I can't imagine they all will agree 100% right away.

Without getting into all the technical mumbo-jumbo about the possible spoofed call and the google search. Just HEARING that stuff to the jurors may sway them enough to just think YEP he did it. This is what I am holding on to.. regardless of any defense witnesses talking about tampering, etc.. The first thought of their minds when they heard there was 10 ways he could have done the spoofing and the DPD officer displaying the google search on the big screen.. add that with the weird depos and all the cleaning and I just think we still have a chance of guilty here...

Yes, I think most of the NG verdicts are on tv, so we forget it's fiction and assume there is really a chance the defendant (not BC in particular) may get acquitted. But he/she hardly ever does. Sure, there are hung trials and the defendant may go to court 3x, but he always gets his sentence one way or another.

Disclaimer: I watch too much Dateline and 48 Hours.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:19 PM
Just doing a little bit of searching I came across this article, talking about public defender trials and interestingly:



also from the article:


Link to article:
http://sfpublicdefender.org/media/2011/01/year-report-public-defenders-win-48-percent-jury-trials/

I was unable to find statistics for the US but I'm curious now so I'll see what I can find.

This is insane. That 70% makes no sense (only with my experience of following trials).

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 08:21 PM
Thanks BrownRice. I can't recall a defendent in Wake County being acquitted of a murder charge. It's certainly very rare. I thought there was a case of a murder acquittal last year; but I believe it was in another county? Maybe someone can clarify that for me...it was not a high profile case.

Just curious, do you think it could have been a stranger? I'm also suspicious of JA and JP, but personally I think a stranger is most likely.

I thought it was likely a stranger in the beginning but no longer do. I think it's very possible the murderer was on the stand in this trial. There are too many suspicious things about some of these people. I hope the truth comes out some day.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 08:23 PM
With that said, however, how many people are EVER acquitted of a murder charge? Besides high-profile OJs and Robert Blakes? I googled i and came up with a wikipedia page and most of the defendants were from the 1800's! And it's not like there were thousands to begin with. So, I wonder if they will just consider him guilty because he probably is (and they're too confused with all the evidence, arguing, and lying).
This (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/SPMUREX.TXT) is pretty old DOJ data (1988) but is very pertinent to the topic at hand (spouse murder cases).

Some factoids:


Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 232--or 43%--pleaded guilty to killing their spouse, and 238--44%--pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The remaining 70 persons--or 13%--were not prosecuted.
Of the 238 who pleaded not guilty, 63% were tried by a jury and the remaining 37% were tried by a judge. Together, judges and juries acquitted 16% of the 238 spouse murder defendants and convicted 84%--or 199 persons--of killing their spouse.
Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 431 (or 80%) were ultimately convicted of killing their spouse. Their conviction was the result of either pleading guilty (232 persons) or being convicted at trial (199 persons).

NCEast
04-30-2011, 08:26 PM
This (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/SPMUREX.TXT) is pretty old DOJ data (1988) but is very pertinent to the topic at hand (spouse murder cases).

Some factoids:


Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 232--or 43%--pleaded guilty to killing their spouse, and 238--44%--pleaded not guilty and stood trial. The remaining 70 persons--or 13%--were not prosecuted.
Of the 238 who pleaded not guilty, 63% were tried by a jury and the remaining 37% were tried by a judge. Together, judges and juries acquitted 16% of the 238 spouse murder defendants and convicted 84%--or 199 persons--of killing their spouse.
Of the 540 spouse murder defendants, 431 (or 80%) were ultimately convicted of killing their spouse. Their conviction was the result of either pleading guilty (232 persons) or being convicted at trial (199 persons).


These are great stats, surprising, thanks so much! I had no idea the conviction rates were that high overall.

SleuthSayer
04-30-2011, 08:26 PM
Until this past week, I was thinking that a guilty verdict was pretty much set. I began having my doubts on Tuesday. Don't know exactly if there was one thing or several that made me start thinking they were going to find him not guilty. And then the note from the jury made me feel even more sure they are thinking not guilty.....they just want to go home. I want to give them more credit than that, and hope they will take their time in deliberations, that's the only way this long and tedious trial will end well regardless of the verdict.
I took the juror's note differently. I figured it meant (like I speculated here earlier) that they decided he was guilty weeks ago and we are just going through the motions at this point.

sunshine05
04-30-2011, 08:27 PM
This is insane. That 70% makes no sense (only with my experience of following trials).

I haven't followed many so it's hard for me to say. I think there are a lot that are barely mentioned in the media if they aren't high profile cases. Most likely the acquittal rate in high profile cases is especially low because all eyes are on it.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:29 PM
These are great stats, surprising, thanks so much! I had no idea the conviction rates were that high overall.

So with the info Sunshine posted, looks like most people who are on trial for spouse homicide are convicted, yet others (general murders) have a much higher rate of getting off. Obviously I am making a lot of assumptions, but that seems more likely.

I still wonder where the 16% of spouse murder acquittals are - I seldom hear of them. But obviously it does happen.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:32 PM
I took the juror's note differently. I figured it meant (like I speculated here earlier) that they decided he was guilty weeks ago and we are just going through the motions at this point.

It could go either way - I have thought it out both ways and have equal scenarios. Regardless, I'm starting to find the jury pretty obnoxious. Sure, we (on this forum) complain, but we didn't take oaths in court. If I was there, I'd be taking notes and paying attention and doing my job. You (a prospective juror) always need to assume there is going to be a delay or something unexpected.

unc70
04-30-2011, 08:34 PM
I'm guessing here, but, assuming he had the 3825 and it caused a Duplicate IP Address error on the laptop, this could be because:


The 3825 was on a private subnet within the house (possibly just the typical 192.x.x.x network for home routers)
He connected the Ethernet port on the laptop to something that put it on the same LAN as the router (e.g. a switch) to telnet into the router
Because he didn't have DHCP enabled on the router, he hand configured an address for the Ethernet port on the laptop
He screwed up and picked as the address for the laptop the same address that he had configured for the router
He got the Duplicate Address Error and then reconfigured either the laptop or the router to have a different address
He then telnet'd into the router


I have another possibility:

* He move the laptop from the office lan to his home network while it was hibernating, etc. When it is resuming it might first tried to continue with the saved network settings. I sometimes see that happen on my own systems.

There are a lot things that can combine to cause this. I don't have much time until Sunday night to do any testing.

I believe in testimony or a post here said that Cisco employees routinely just close the laptop when moving inside their facility and only shutdown at the end of the day. If I could see the log from when he was still at Cisco until a few minutes after this event the answer might be obvious.

I haven't tested this yet, but I believe the IP on the Cisco lan for the 3825 that was somehow cached/retained was the same as one already in used on the home net or being assigned by the home DHCP.

This scenario I believe could explain how a single reference could appear without other network traffic on the home lan.

Am I missing something, or is this another possiblity?

ncsu95
04-30-2011, 08:34 PM
The CPD secured the house about 10 hours before they had the search warrant, they told BC to leave. At that point all evidence was in the hands of the CPD, in their possession. We don't know when they entered the house specifically, or if they followed protocol. We don't know if even two LEOs did go in togther if they stayed together once inside, and it appears there are many rooms in the house. Once they obtained the SW it was another 12+ hours before the laptop was powered down. In total the laptop was powered up for 27 hours. The reasoning given was that unplugging it would have corrupted data. They have not been able to adequately explain what made the 27th hour the magic hour.

We do know that the FBI agent was unaware of this lapse of protocol. We also know that CPD has not released the chain of evidence records for the laptop. Finally, we know that they erased NC's Blackberry, and that protocol was not followed with that at all, they didn't even have a SW when they erased it and requested the SW after they had erased it.

They didn't even need to turn the laptop off. All they had to do was unplug the cable modem or router. That would have isolated it unless the laptop was set to automatically connect to a different network.

momof7
04-30-2011, 08:37 PM
I read an article today tht I don't think I can post a link to. It was a very interesting article re: FBI, Wi - Fi unsecured connections and child pornography.

It made me very sure mistakes can happen.


Kelly

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:40 PM
I read an article today tht I don't think I can post a link to. It was a very interesting article re: FBI, Wi - Fi unsecured connections and child pornography.

It made me very sure mistakes can happen.


Kelly

I think I read that last week. About a guy who basically planted info to bust his neighbor stealing his wifi connection - he wrote some stuff that incriminated himself to be a child porn user, or something like that - and the FBI came breaking down his door. Is that the case?

3doglady
04-30-2011, 08:40 PM
Until this past week, I was thinking that a guilty verdict was pretty much set. I began having my doubts on Tuesday. Don't know exactly if there was one thing or several that made me start thinking they were going to find him not guilty. And then the note from the jury made me feel even more sure they are thinking not guilty.....they just want to go home. I want to give them more credit than that, and hope they will take their time in deliberations, that's the only way this long and tedious trial will end well regardless of the verdict.

I feel the same way. I just have the feeling the jury thinks the state has screwed up so many times they don't trust anything they say now. I think BC is mostly likely guilty but I haven't seen the proof.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 08:42 PM
I read an article today tht I don't think I can post a link to. It was a very interesting article re: FBI, Wi - Fi unsecured connections and child pornography.

It made me very sure mistakes can happen.


Kelly

The case in Western NY?

NCEast
04-30-2011, 08:43 PM
I took the juror's note differently. I figured it meant (like I speculated here earlier) that they decided he was guilty weeks ago and we are just going through the motions at this point.

I will always believe in my heart of hearts that he did it. However, I wanted more evidence....and as the trial has progressed, there has been less.
Like another poster said earlier, I would rather he walk than to think he would have to spend the rest of his life in prison if he didn't do it.
And if he is guilty and the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict, he spent 2.5 years of his life behind bars. That's the same thing I said about OJ when his not guilty verdict came back. I think everybody in the world who followed that trial, including his own friends, knew he killed Nicole. The jury just didn't want to consider that one of America's heroes could ever do something that bad.
I just want more evidence, more. You guys and girls with all of the technology good sense can work through the router/phone/computer technology and get a much better grasp on things than those of us who have no idea what it means. I depend on you all so much to give me insight on the most simple things regarding that.
Well, if the jury is thinking with their hearts and not their heads--and their seeing the photos of the dump site, the ME's photos, the deposition video-- all of those very tangible things, I can more easily see a guilty verdict.

momof7
04-30-2011, 08:44 PM
The case in Western NY?

Yes, it was. Even the FBI gets it wrong from time to time.

Kelly

Cheyenne130
04-30-2011, 08:44 PM
I think I read that last week. About a guy who basically planted info to bust his neighbor stealing his wifi connection - he wrote some stuff that incriminated himself to be a child porn user, or something like that - and the FBI came breaking down his door. Is that the case?

I thought it was the opposite. I thought the guy left his wireless unsecured and his neighbor was involved in child porn. Because he was on this guys network, it traced back to him. They obviously got it figured out but initially this innocent guy was under suspicion because it was showing up on his wireless network.

SleuthinNC
04-30-2011, 08:46 PM
Yes, it was. Even the FBI gets it wrong from time to time.

Kelly

I agree that was a very scary story. And surprisingly relevant to what is going on in this case.

BrownRice
04-30-2011, 08:46 PM
I thought it was the opposite. I thought the guy left his wireless unsecured and his neighbor was involved in child porn. Because he was on this guys network, it traced back to him. They obviously got it figured out but initially this innocent guy was under suspicion because it was showing up on his wireless network.

Oh, oops. that is what happens when I skim an article.