April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[Albert]

For everyone who believes that, after the laptop was seized and powered off, and at some point later it was powered on I have the following question. Why did anyone for the defense not look at the Application or System Event Viewer logs and notice the entry that indicates the previous shut down was done unexpectedly. Windows will log such a message for each of its various OS. Surely the defense would have jumped all over this is evidence that the laptop was powered on after the CPD seized the laptop.

 

[oenophile]

To me this is the most compelling fact:

Why were her running shoes not missing? Serious runners wear their shoes out, so you would fully expect her to be wearing her newest shoes that her running partner said she runs in. She didn't rotate.

Her running shoes were missing. That was part of the testimony. Out of curiosity, do you change your theory based on that?

 

[ncsu95]

You are right about the 22 seconds but I also remember some discussion around the 1 second seizure time. Chris had no idea about seizure time and some people thought that 1 + 22 could account for the 23 second call.

The seizure time wouldn't be included in the call duration. Regardless, if that was a test call, it apparently worked. And if the test call worked, why wouldn't he use the exact same method on the real call? If not, what was the point of the test call?

 

[Albert]

It was also one of the State's expert witnesses that testified to that.

The testimony also included other ways to have the call automated. There was one method where the call length could be as long as you desired.

 

[bloghooligan]

Actually we found out the other day that irregardless of a DNA test, since the child was born during the marriage, BC would be on the hook for child support no matter what, not JP.

I recall the discussion you reference but I'm not convinced. I did a bit of research and couldn't find it in the statues and found something to the contrary at a family law website (it said something to the effect of a court order being necessary if paternity is in question). Can someone point me to something (e.g. NCGS or rules) that says that a husband has to pay child support for a child that is proven not to be his, biologically?

 

[gbay]

The seizure time wouldn't be included in the call duration. Regardless, if that was a test call, it apparently worked. And if the test call worked, why wouldn't he use the exact same method on the real call? If not, what was the point of the test call?

I think the police think that this in fact was not a test call but was supposed to be the real thing.....however his cell phone was either set so all calls went to voice mail or not turned on. This per Detective Daniels testimony that the first two spoofed calls failed.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

Actually, there is proof that he didn't do it. Stomach contents, alcohol content, caffeine. All irrefutable physical evidence consistent with her being alive through the night and going out for a run in the morning.

We don't know if she was killed at 12:30am when she walked in the door or at 4am or at 7:30am via some stalker. Do you know what she drank at the party (Diet Coke, Coffee)? Do you know the exact time she had her last (if any at all) alcoholic drink? Do you know if she drank something when she got home? That is not irrefutable.

 

[metafizik]

For everyone who believes that, after the laptop was seized and powered off, and at some point later it was powered on I have the following question. Why did anyone for the defense not look at the Application or System Event Viewer logs and notice the entry that indicates the previous shut down was done unexpectedly. Windows will log such a message for each of its various OS. Surely the defense would have jumped all over this is evidence that the laptop was powered on after the CPD seized the laptop.

Jay Ward showed how easy it is to boot a live Linux CD to mount and manipulate files on the host system's hard drive. This would not show up in the Windows System event log as a system startup because the Windows Operating System had not been started.

 

[Palomine]

Empty stomach and alcohol content indicate morning hours. Caffeine indicates during a jog.
We do know the last meal, lots of ribs (testified numerous times) and other foods that were at the party. She was eating into the night. If she was killed when she got home, everything stops. That means that there should be a lot more than a piece of onion left.

Agreed, but she was known to drink coffee before jogging, and there was nothing with caffeine served at the party. As to HP testimony about drinking a diet coke, that is more than doubtful.

Right, she ingested a lot of wine at the party, but her alcohol content (note I didn't mention blood, as the ME said there was no blood, it was based on other measurements) was consistent with decomp. If she had been drinking a lot before she died, there should have been more alcohol in the body. The ME practically said that.

People with Chron's disease don't normally eat a large meal at dinner time because of the digestion time.

She probably picked the onions out of the salad ..but missed one..onions are not something people with Chron's eat because they tend not to digest and come out whole on the other end

She could have made a cup of coffee when she came home at night..Brad made a big deal of the one cup coffee maker they had

She may have been a small drinker and could have had the same drink all night long and just drank slower

People with Chron's usually stick to the same regiment ..especially if they have had it a long time

 

[Bottle Cap]

looks like I am outnumbered 20-1.
WTH are the Bradley is guilty posters?????

Right here, but the arguments remain the same and there's only so many times you can say the same darn thing. Like, I could do this or I could slam the laptop shut on my head a few times - same result either way. :crazy:

 

[Palomine]

I think the police think that this in fact was not a test call but was supposed to be the real thing.....however his cell phone was either set so all calls went to voice mail or not turned on. This per Detective Daniels testimony that the first two spoofed calls failed.

he definitely was fiddling with his phone in the store check out...and it couldn't have been a call from Nancy because he would have just turned around and went back into the store without leaving...so what was he doing with his phone

 

[diphi]

looks like I am outnumbered 20-1.
WTH are the Bradley is guilty posters?????

I'm standing with you, JTF, and have been wondering the same thing. I've been following this case since July 2008 and there are just too many things for me to discount about his behavior/activities. So many things just don't add up.

I am concerned, though, that given this case so far, a guilty man may end up going free. It's very disheartening...

IMO

 

[gbay]

We don't know if she was killed at 12:30am when she walked in the door or at 4am or at 7:30am via some stalker. Do you know what she drank at the party (Diet Coke, Coffee)? Do you know the exact time she had her last (if any at all) alcoholic drink? Do you know if she drank something when she got home? That is not irrefutable.

I agree...I am sure the medical examiner could not really pinpoint the time of death either. I did not take from his testimony that the evidence was consistant with her being alive at 7:00 am. I rather thought it was inconclusive.

 

[Bottle Cap]

FWIW, I can never get a complete answer to an entire alternate theory. As soon as a question pops up, we go back to someone else lying on the stand. Or what a heinous individual BZ must be. Or something that was eaten. Or not eaten. Or ducks. Or Facebook. At this point, the best I can work out from the SODDI folks is that JP did it to avoid child support although there seem to be no DNA test results in existence to support this - he either met her at Java Jive where she brought a child to prove its existence, or he abducted her into a van when no one was looking and made a beeline for Fielding. JA covered for him because she was mad at NC for having a friend who had the same name as her own husband and didn't get invited to the same party.

 

[bloghooligan]

Just as i think both defense 'experts' lied on the stand.

Do you think they lied about facts or lied/misled in their opinions?

I have a hard time believing an expert would lie about facts. Although not unheard of, most experts make at least a part of their living testifying. They would be risking their job/livelyhood if caught lying on the stand. It could easily be proven if they lie about facts.

What do you think they lied about?

 

[Cheyenne130]

he definitely was fiddling with his phone in the store check out...and it couldn't have been a call from Nancy because he would have just turned around and went back into the store without leaving...so what was he doing with his phone

That was some sort of data usage, not a call.

 

[NCEast]

We don't know if she was killed at 12:30am when she walked in the door or at 4am or at 7:30am via some stalker. Do you know what she drank at the party (Diet Coke, Coffee)? Do you know the exact time she had her last (if any at all) alcoholic drink? Do you know if she drank something when she got home? That is not irrefutable.

She drank red wine and beer at the party. Don't have any testimony about what she drank after she got home or the last time she had anything to drink at the party.

 

[gbay]

I'm standing with you, JTF, and have been wondering the same thing. I've been following this case since July 2008 and there are just too many things for me to discount about his behavior/activities. So many things just don't add up.

I am concerned, though, that given this case so far, a guilty man may end up going free. It's very disheartening...

IMO

I agree with you. If this board is any indication then the Prosecution has done an very ineffective job. Heck...people that were sure he was guilty don't think he is now. I too am worried that a guilty man will walk,

 

[gracielee]

I believe that is not correct. From what I remember, she testified that she had just finished untangling her dog. Then the jogger passed her and said hello. So she would have had more than one second to view the jogger.

I gave what I considered to be my memories of Rosemary's testimony. Were I a member of the jury, I stated what I heard and retained from her testimony. It appears we have differing memories of her testimony.

 

[NCEast]

Right here, but the arguments remain the same and there's only so many times you can say the same darn thing. Like, I could do this or I could slam the laptop shut on my head a few times - same result either way. :crazy:

I have been reading but not posting much this afternoon. I am confused about the tech stuff so I stay out of it. When some of the other posts began showing up this afternoon I went outside....it's just not worth bickering over. The jurors are the ultimate decision makers and all of us will have to wait to hear their verdict. And be ok with it, both sides.