1282 users online (225 members and 1057 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 75 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1122
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 View Post
    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.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
    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.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    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.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 View Post
    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?

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    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.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    554
    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.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 View Post
    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.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Thornton, CO
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    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.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    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.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
    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?


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    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.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    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

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Danielle59; 04-30-2011 at 09:38 AM. Reason: Typo

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 75 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 52 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness
    By CrimeAddict in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 1522
    Last Post: 04-25-2011, 09:43 AM
  2. Brad Cooper April 1st Weekend
    By Cheyenne130 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 676
    Last Post: 04-04-2011, 10:34 AM

Tags for this Thread