949 users online (124 members and 825 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 75 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1122
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    [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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by CrimeAddict View Post
    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?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    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?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,823
    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.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 View Post
    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

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
    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!

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by momof7 View Post
    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by momof7 View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    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!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostCrab View Post
    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


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    554
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    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.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    752
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheyenne130 View Post
    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.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    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

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    183

    Nifong

    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

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    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 Originally Posted by momof7 View Post
    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.

Page 3 of 75 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... 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