Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 247
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    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.
    Okay, but this thread is about discussion of the BC case and lingering questions pertaining to that. How does that case fit in here?


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:


  3. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    1,059
    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.


  4. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    No, because it was more than just the physical presence of the router. There was no record of the call on the Cisco IT system.
    Okay, but I thought Giralt explained how the call could (theoretically) be spoofed even if the router wasn't connected to Cisco IT at that particular time.
    [ 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...


  5. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    Okay, but this thread is about discussion of the BC case and lingering questions pertaining to that. How does that case [ J. Macdonald] fit in here?
    I think it was just in response to an earlier post of other State of NC cases where folks have been convicted, yet where there remained an ongoing public dialog as to whether or not they were wrongly convicted. (Similar to how it seems this case will unfold...)

    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...]


  6. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,678
    Quote Originally Posted by gritguy View Post
    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.
    GG...I didn't hear anything during the custody hearing or her name mentioned. Again BC NEVER uttered a word or declared his love for his daughters either to save having them taken out of the country. BUT....his affidavit states he told them he loved them all the time.

    Here's his ex's affidavit:

    http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...3092834786.pdf
    “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~


  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to momto3kids For This Useful Post:


  8. #51
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Raleigh
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by momto3kids View Post
    GG...I didn't hear anything during the custody hearing or her name mentioned. Again BC NEVER uttered a word or declared his love for his daughters either to save having them taken out of the country. BUT....his affidavit states he told them he loved them all the time.

    Here's his ex's affidavit:

    http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...3092834786.pdf
    Thank you. My recollection is that he was asked her name and gave the correct first name but incorrect last name, but that may not have been at the custody depo.

    On the rest of your comment, as a father I cannot wrap my mind around being removed from my child, for any reason. Everybody is different, but for me that would close to the worst thing possible.


  9. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    No, because it was more than just the physical presence of the router. There was no record of the call on the Cisco IT system.
    There is no reason for the call to have appeared on any Cisco records. In fact, if it did show up there, it would not have had the effect that he wanted it to (looking like it came from the home phone).

    I posted the diagram attached below before. It shows how this would have been connected if he did it. It does not involve the Cisco network at all.
    Attached Images Attached Images


  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SleuthSayer For This Useful Post:


  11. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by jumpstreet View Post
    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.
    My bet is 'no'. Some folks here that are in BC's corner here went a bit wobbly when the Google maps search testimony broke. But, within a couple of days, they had bucked up and were buying the defense's absurd evidence planting/tampering claims. I would expect that the same pattern would hold in the case of the router as well.


  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to SleuthSayer For This Useful Post:


  13. #54
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,678
    Many of us couldn't wait for the results in Oct 2008 from this blogger.
    "Eyes for Lies Blog: A closer look at Brad Cooper.


    An absolute unbias person who quickly pulled lies BC told.
    As anyone knows, "it is easier to remember the truth, than the lie you told."
    IMHO...BC found that to be true.
    “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~


  14. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by momto3kids View Post
    Many of us couldn't wait for the results in Oct 2008 from this blogger.
    "Eyes for Lies Blog: A closer look at Brad Cooper.


    An absolute unbias person who quickly pulled lies BC told.
    As anyone knows, "it is easier to remember the truth, than the lie you told."
    IMHO...BC found that to be true.
    It's interesting that JA had way more lies than BC but she was never investigated at all.


  15. The Following User Says Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:


  16. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wake Forest, NC
    Posts
    1,914
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthSayer View Post
    There is no reason for the call to have appeared on any Cisco records. In fact, if it did show up there, it would not have had the effect that he wanted it to (looking like it came from the home phone).

    I posted the diagram attached below before. It shows how this would have been connected if he did it. It does not involve the Cisco network at all.
    I'm not going to keep arguing the same thing over and over with you. I disagree with what you are trying to show here and it has been gone over and over, etc.


  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sunshine05 For This Useful Post:


  18. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,678
    Quote Originally Posted by gritguy View Post
    Thank you. My recollection is that he was asked her name and gave the correct first name but incorrect last name, but that may not have been at the custody depo.

    On the rest of your comment, as a father I cannot wrap my mind around being removed from my child, for any reason. Everybody is different, but for me that would close to the worst thing possible.
    IMO he let them go and didn't fight because he knew what was getting ready to occur in just a matter of time.
    As the saying goes, "mess with my child and you're messing with me."
    “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~


  19. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,678
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshine05 View Post
    It's interesting that JA had way more lies than BC but she was never investigated at all.
    And you think she murdered NC?
    “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~


  20. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,678
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthSayer View Post
    My bet is 'no'. Some folks here that are in BC's corner here went a bit wobbly when the Google maps search testimony broke. But, within a couple of days, they had bucked up and were buying the defense's absurd evidence planting/tampering claims. I would expect that the same pattern would hold in the case of the router as well.
    I say no also. What matters is the Jury spoke, loud & clear. They wanted to hear BC's deposition again (lies he told), the master bath photo, cell record, shopping record and NC photo. They kept it simple and used common sense rather than let the smoke screen get them a hung verdict.
    Inconsistencies do matter and BC had plenty of them.
    “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~


  21. The Following User Says Thank You to momto3kids For This Useful Post:


  22. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    814
    Ummm. You guys just gonna wait it out here until the appeal?


  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to johnfear For This Useful Post:


Page 4 of 17 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. GUILTY x 3 !!! - Verdict discussion
    By Kimster in forum Sheri, Garrett and Gavin Coleman
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 05-10-2011, 06:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •