April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[Cheyenne130]

Starting midnight tomorrow night, I'm giving up websleuth's for Lent.

:floorlaugh: First time I've ever used that little guy. But this post was worthy.

 

[ncsu95]

Yeah. I've wondered about the Dell and the HP. Those were taken into evidence but there has been no mention of any forensic exam. That tells me that they found nothing. If one or both had been wiped with D-Ban, I would think that would have come up.

Right, that would most definitely have been presented. I believe the prosecution was hinting at this with the missing Sony laptop until the defense showed that it was purchased for someone else. So absolutely no computer evidence to show call manager software on any of the home computers. No computer evidence to show any call generator software (not using the routers or anything else). No fax machine mentioned in the house. Nothing at all to even remotely link any of the ways mentioned during testimony or mentioned here.

 

[momof7]

Hahaha great idea! I want a sleuthy tiara!

I believe he did, yes. However, he didn't on the 12th based on the pictures. And here is my issue with this...if he was smart enough to get rid of router equipment that LE would have no concept could be used in conjunction with a call manager to spoof a call, then he would have been smart enough to know that a web search of the dump site before would likely be found. It's fairly common knowledge that your activity on a computer isn't "erased" when you clear your internet cache, etc. And the call manager would need to run on some type of computer, yet that software or traces of it weren't found on any computer in the house (or at least weren't discussed in this trial). I have a hard time reconciling those things.

It is difficult to imagine this one piece of evidence, the computer equipment, the spoofed calls, all the computer testimony we have been privy to isn't the smoking gun. It pushed me right into being sure he did do the crime, I was pretty sure before but I couldn't validate all NC friends in my head.

But where exactly is the proof? Where is the equipment? Where is the data? What exactly does JW testimony mean, really?

I have hard time reconciling murder first degree. He did murder her put if that is the only option on the table, I have a hard time believing he will not be found not guilty.

Kelly

 

[Madeleine74]

Okay 2 for he's likely guilty but state may not have proved it, 2 for "random attacker," and 2 for "it was someone who knew Nancy."

For those who think it was a random attacker (i.e. someone who did not know Nancy and who Nancy did not know), this 'laptop hacking' scenario doesn't fit with that scenario.

Laptop hacking to place incriminating evidence fits with the 'someone who knew Nancy' scenario. That is, if you believe someone actually hacked into the BC's computer and did such a thing.

 

[ncsu95]

Starting midnight tomorrow night, I'm giving up websleuth's for Lent.

Come on...you should at least make it hurt a little. Do it at 11:59.

 

[Cheyenne130]

That, coupled with what NCSU was saying re: cleaning EVERYTHING else up but the 41 second search is what has me stumped. Besides the fact that a lot of the technology stuff is likely to be both the Anchor and Net in many criminal cases to come, it's a little "too clean" for me.

I'm not so sure but that maybe the invalid timestamps came from deleting files and thinking that everything was gone but the analysis of the computer allowed them to access those maps. Not all techy people are knowledgeable in every aspect of computers and networks. I think he tried and failed to erase that evidence. MOO

 

[FullDisclosure]

That, coupled with what NCSU was saying re: cleaning EVERYTHING else up but the 41 second search is what has me stumped. Besides the fact that a lot of the technology stuff is likely to be both the Anchor and Net in many criminal cases to come, it's a little "too clean" for me.

Were you there for Chappell's testimony for the State? Very interesting cross, IMO. I'm really hoping they get a google rep to clear up some things.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Starting midnight tomorrow night, I'm giving up websleuth's for Lent.

I gave up lint for Lent. I'm looking forward to doing laundry on Sunday.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Right, that would most definitely have been presented. I believe the prosecution was hinting at this with the missing Sony laptop until the defense showed that it was purchased for someone else. So absolutely no computer evidence to show call manager software on any of the home computers. No computer evidence to show any call generator software (not using the routers or anything else). No fax machine mentioned in the house. Nothing at all to even remotely link any of the ways mentioned during testimony or mentioned here.

Eh, you don't need a fax machine. The IBM Thinkpad could have done that. If the call wouldn't show up as a fax, that would be the easiest way to do it.

 

[johnfear]

Were GPS devices standard on BMW's circa 2007 on?

 

[ncsu95]

It is difficult to imagine this one piece of evidence, the computer equipment, the spoofed calls, all the computer testimony we have been privy to isn't the smoking gun. It pushed me right into being sure he did do the crime, I was pretty sure before but I couldn't validate all NC friends in my head.

But where exactly is the proof? Where is the equipment? Where is the data? What exactly does JW testimony mean, really?

I have hard time reconciling murder first degree. He did murder her put if that is the only option on the table, I have a hard time believing he will not be found not guilty.

Kelly

But again, there is the big problem. The "smoking gun" appears to be the web search. And if he did the web search, it show clear premeditation. So it has to be 1st degree or not guilty. This was not a crime of passion.

 

[johnfear]

Were you there for Chappell's testimony for the State? Very interesting cross, IMO. I'm really hoping they get a google rep to clear up some things.

I think I sat near a couple of you guys, but that was a day I ended up being pulled away and came back later and missed pretty much everything I wanted to hear.

I am still lost on what the state would be able to say "was not exculpatory" and yet "was work product and privileged". Talk about your holy-grail red herring...

 

[FullDisclosure]

Come on...you should at least make it hurt a little. Do it at 11:59.

Noooooooooooooo!!!!!

 

[Towhee]

Yeah. I've wondered about the Dell and the HP. Those were taken into evidence but there has been no mention of any forensic exam. That tells me that they found nothing. If one or both had been wiped with D-Ban, I would think that would have come up.

When a computer is wiped by D-Ban or any other DOD-grade cleaner, there is no way to know what application actually did the wiping. All you have left over is a hard drive with no meaningful data (all 0's, all 1's, alternating 0's and 1's).

Wasn't there a computer that was wiped for resale or recycling by Brad? Thought I recalled that in prior discussions.

ETA: Not saying a wiped computer is evidence of nefarious intentions, only that it's possible.

 

[ncsu95]

Okay 2 for he's likely guilty but state may not have proved it, 2 for "random attacker," and 2 for "it was someone who knew Nancy."

For those who think it was a random attacker (i.e. someone who did not know Nancy and who Nancy did not know), this 'laptop hacking' scenario doesn't fit with that scenario.

Laptop hacking to place incriminating evidence fits with the 'someone who knew Nancy' scenario. That is, if you believe someone actually hacked into the BC's computer and did such a thing.

I believe if the laptop was messed with, then it was CPD that did it.

 

[johnfear]

Eh, you don't need a fax machine. The IBM Thinkpad could have done that. If the call wouldn't show up as a fax, that would be the easiest way to do it.

They can find a google search from the day before, but they can't recreate a call history from the thinkpad? I think that's reaching. (technical trail-wise at least)

But, again, like I said...chuck that puppy into Lake Wheeler and call it a day.

 

[unc70]

Where is the evidence that she continued to see this person once she was back in North Carolina? The only testimony that I heard is that she invited him to her sisters wedding.

CW testified that NC "kept doing things and using her as an alibi". CW was not comfortable with being used like that and they drifted apart as a result.

ETA: Just relistened to her testimony. She was so nervous because something from her personal life came up briefly. Anyway, on cross when CW mentioned NC's lover being "politically connected", it gets really really quiet for a bit before the cross continues.

 

[ncsu95]

Were you there for Chappell's testimony for the State? Very interesting cross, IMO. I'm really hoping they get a google rep to clear up some things.

Can you explain more about the cross. I've seen you mention this a few times. I also find it interesting that Chappell is actually a Durham police detective and not really an FBI agent.

 

[johnfear]

When a computer is wiped by D-Ban or any other DOD-grade cleaner, there is no way to know what application actually did the wiping. All you have left over is a hard drive with no meaningful data (all 0's, all 1's, alternating 0's and 1's).

Wasn't there a computer that was wiped for resale or recycling by Brad? Thought I recalled that in prior discussions.

It was another thing that would have tied up a lot of loose ends but did not fit into the timeline (wipewise) as being useful to all of this madness.

But, hey, who knows...maybe somebody fishing out at Jordan lake will come up with an FXO, a router and a hard drive sometime in the next couple of years.

 

[Cheyenne130]

When a computer is wiped by D-Ban or any other DOD-grade cleaner, there is no way to know what application actually did the wiping. All you have left over is a hard drive with no meaningful data (all 0's, all 1's, alternating 0's and 1's).

Wasn't there a computer that was wiped for resale or recycling by Brad? Thought I recalled that in prior discussions.

ETA: Not saying a wiped computer is evidence of nefarious intentions, only that it's possible.

I think you are right but I don't know what the time frame was. It would have had to happen on July 12th or at least before the early morning of the 16th. I would think (HOPE) I would remember that if it had been testified to.