Will there be a public release of the transcript from the offer of proof given by CF on the subject of the windows system event log?
I think that info will show that 3825 was in the house and being configured at 10:21pm on 7/11, but that router was not in the house on 7/12.
Seems like if we could have a more interesting discussion about the router if we had info from that testimony that was not streamed.
He cleaned the floor
He did laundry
His trunk was clean - did anyone ever photograph the rest of the car to see if it was also clean? We're told it was not, but I haven't seen evidence or missed it if it was presented. Plus SBI said some dirt was found in the trunk. It was not showroom clean.
I'm not even going to talk about the google evidence here because he was arrested for murder before that was even found.
I think the Google search may have been found before arrest. Not totally sure on that, but I think so.
Being divorced in and of itself probably is not a motive--but the money that is required to get divorced and then the settlements of property, assets, 401K, stock, etc, etc, can add up to a significant amount. Then there's alimony and child support.
Financial pressure or incentive is often a reason or a motive for crimes, including murder. Add in anger/rage and it's a potent cocktail.
People who were pointing their finger at JP used financial pressure as their reason for a 'motive' for him. Except JP wasn't under any financial pressure from Nancy.
Brad was, or would have been.
I disagree about financial pressure. He made decent money and his income would have continued to go up. He knew that.
Until we hear from the jury (if we do), we won't know for sure how 'big' the google search was, but my guess is that it was a 'swing factor'. Anyone else think they would have convicted if that were off the table?
For discussion purposes, if state had entered evidence of the router being in the home on 7/11, I wonder if that would have served as an adequate 'smoking gun' as well.
Sure, the defense might have refuted it (claim it was 'disposed of', claim it was 'returned', claim the logs indicating presence of router were 'planted' too)...but I'm not sure how effective they would have been.
I'm just wondering whether folks still on the fence (or, not convinced the state met the burden) would change position if evidence of the router being present in the home on 7/11 was established.
He had no problem with her going drinking with her friends and on extended vacations without him, even with other men. That is not a possessive/controlling husband characteristic.
Can't believe I forgot one of the most famous cases that's been followed/argued for 33+ years. Jeffrey MacDonald (NC). Convicted in 1979 for killing his pregnant wife and 2 young daughters in 1970 and has been serving a life sentence. Was the subject of a famous book by Joe McGinnis and that book was made into a TV Movie starring Gary Cole.
Yep, he's had people arguing his innocence ever since, to no avail. And his case was long before there was DNA testing available. In that case there was a lot of blood evidence. Each of the victims and MacDonald had different blood types, so investigators were able to determine who was where in the apt based on blood type. MacDonald's story didn't match the blood evidence.
My recollection is that the ex fiancé bc couldn't remember the name of even though he was engaged to her just before starting a relationship with NC filed an affidavit in the custody case but did not submit testimony in the murder trial. I do not know if the child custody ruling relied on that affidavit in any way.
[ Router (set up as standalone device), with FXO card, could originate a call on the landline, either via remotely controlled script, or via automated script... ]
Establishing the presence of such a router in the home on 7/11 wouldn't prove this was done, but certainly (if said router remained unaccounted for, and unexplained) would be potentially compelling I would think...
It's a good question, and JM is indeed an example of same (along with several others mentioned previously I think...).
IIRC JM is also somewhat unique in that he was actually acquitted once (though in a military tribunal), then later convicted (in civilian court). [ double-jeapordy, shmeapordy...]
Here's his ex's affidavit:
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." ~Mark Twain~