1318 users online (224 members and 1094 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1122
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    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.

    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?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    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.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
    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.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NC Coast
    Posts
    1,353
    Quote Originally Posted by bloghooligan View Post
    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.
    Last edited by momof7; 04-30-2011 at 10:15 AM.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    671
    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?
    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.
    "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
    Groucho Marx

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
    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.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    183
    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?

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
    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.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    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

    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.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
    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.


  11. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    89
    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.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    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.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    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.
    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.
    Hoisted with his own Petard

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    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?
    "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
    Groucho Marx

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by macd View Post
    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!

Page 4 of 75 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... 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