873 users online (163 members and 710 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 73 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1091
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    just beyond infinity
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    What a gorgeous picture, LAWsy! You are a very talented lady.
    Thanks! IT helps if you stand back to view the piece of work...hehehe.
    Not everyone can paint a realistic portrait, because it is so difficult to attend to all the details, but all of us can view the piece of work. (5,000 details in the human face)

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by LAWsy_ME View Post
    Jessica....Just wanted you to know....I admire the way you used your insight and intuition to track the beast. I have painted a tribute to you and Nancy and I will send it to you as soon as it is ready! Thank you for being there in such a potent way to bring justice for Nancy. She has been "in my head" and I have listened to her. Every woman wants a friend JUST LIKE YOU if she has faced the intruder and lost. Thank you for showing women how it is done! You are a true friend. Take care of yourself. Jenny
    However, she may have helped send an innocent man to prison. If so, that's nothing to admire or celebrate. I hope an appeal (topic of this thread BTW) will give BC a chance at a fair trial - one based on evidence and the right to confront it...not one based on an investigation engineered by those with an agenda.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by macd View Post
    Does this put to rest the theory that the search files were planted?
    No it does not. There is much more to it than "last accessed" timestamps, which I have seen intermixed with "last modified" which is not a piece of metadata that will remain static or unaltered.

    There is the issue of deleted files, the Google cookie & watermark, the array of invalid timestamps and the period for those.

    GM testified that yes, timestamps can be altered after the fact to make it seem as if files were created at an earlier time.

    There is the intentionally wiped Blackberry. Yes, I say intentionally because that is the B Levitan's conclusion was...just that the pros objected to him being able to state that this was his conclusion, and the judge sustained it...same way he sustained the conclusions of JW, even though GM said JW was more than qualified to make the conclusions he was prepared to testify to.

    There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory. It's a miscarriage of justice IMO that BC could not confront this evidence with his own witnesses, especially given that this was the only piece of incriminating evidence.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by jrb0124 View Post
    No it does not. There is much more to it than "last accessed" timestamps, which I have seen intermixed with "last modified" which is not a piece of metadata that will remain static or unaltered.

    There is the issue of deleted files, the Google cookie & watermark, the array of invalid timestamps and the period for those.

    GM testified that yes, timestamps can be altered after the fact to make it seem as if files were created at an earlier time.

    There is the intentionally wiped Blackberry. Yes, I say intentionally because that is the B Levitan's conclusion was...just that the pros objected to him being able to state that this was his conclusion, and the judge sustained it...same way he sustained the conclusions of JW, even though GM said JW was more than qualified to make the conclusions he was prepared to testify to.

    There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory. It's a miscarriage of justice IMO that BC could not confront this evidence with his own witnesses, especially given that this was the only piece of incriminating evidence.
    This is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

    However, unless you've actually seen the computer, its files, and the phone, plus have the expertise to examine them all, IMO your conclusions are no more reliable than mine.
    "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
    Groucho Marx

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by jrb0124 View Post
    There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory.
    I've snipped most of your post, hope you don't mind.

    This really caught my attention, because as I understand it, the defence was trying to discredit the digital testimony, not establish that it showed Brad did not do it.

    If there is any exculpatory digital evidence, I'd be interested to hear what that is. I presume you understand what exculpatory evidence is... it is positive evidence suggesting innocence.

    For example, the bug expert testified to a range for time of death in direct. In cross, the defence did a good job of showing that the bug expert could not be certain and that the time of death could have been after she *cough* went running. This is not exculpatory because it only served to dull the impact of the prosecution's evidence, it was not positive evidence she died after 7 am.

    I'd argue there was not one piece of exculpatory evidence presented in either the trial or in any "offer of proof" or "voir dire" as it is more commonly called. At each stage the defence was challenging the validity of evidence as opposed to demonstrate positive innocence.

    Compare this to the JY trial about to start. His defence is, he was elsewhere, could not have done it. If they present evidence he was elsewhere, that is exculpatory, whether or not the jury decides to accept that evidence.
    Last edited by calgary123; 05-21-2011 at 12:10 AM.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by calgary123 View Post
    This really caught my attention, because as I understand it, the defence was trying to discredit the digital testimony, not establish that it showed Brad did not do it.

    If there is any exculpatory digital evidence, I'd be interested to hear what that is. I presume you understand what exculpatory evidence is... it is positive evidence suggesting innocence.
    I think your definition here (BBM) is a bit too narrow. Exculpatory tends towards disproving guilt broadly, moreso than proving innocence specifically. 'Positive evidence suggesting innocence' is exculpatory, but so is evidence which points away from the accused to someone else or evidence which points to (in this case) intentional tampering with evidence.

    The defense was trying to establish that 'someone' changed the timestamps on files on BC's computer - particularly the files which incriminated him. GM testified there was evidence of human interface. Remember, his examination was incomplete at the time he testified, and since then Kurtz has made some very strong statements.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,911
    Bradley is still locked in Max security Central Prison.
    His next custody review date is 11-1-11.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Tink56 View Post
    However, unless you've actually seen the computer, its files, and the phone, plus have the expertise to examine them all, IMO your conclusions are no more reliable than mine.
    The two defense experts (500+ and 9+) who examined the computer had more expereince individually than the 'expert' who had examined 5 computers. I would tend to believe their conclusions (disallowed by the judge in testimony of course). Pros expert did not find as many issues as the defense experts had, and GM directly contradicted the pros expert in testimony.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    Quote Originally Posted by jrb0124 View Post
    I think your definition here (BBM) is a bit too narrow. Exculpatory tends towards disproving guilt broadly, moreso than proving innocence specifically. 'Positive evidence suggesting innocence' is exculpatory, but so is evidence which points away from the accused to someone else or evidence which points to (in this case) intentional tampering with evidence.

    The defense was trying to establish that 'someone' changed the timestamps on files on BC's computer - particularly the files which incriminated him. GM testified there was evidence of human interface. Remember, his examination was incomplete at the time he testified, and since then Kurtz has made some very strong statements.

    Take this fwiw, but don't put too much stock on what Mr. Kurtz says. He's a defense attorney and he just lost a huge case. He was praying he could get Brad off and it would cement his career into the big time. But now he's trying to justify the loss by saying there's evidence that proves him innocent but the judge wouldn't allow it. That is a COMMON claim by defense attorneys who loose. Mr. Garegos used that in the Scott Peterson trial as well. It was a big conspiracy, LE incompetency, planted and altered evidence.

    Scott is still on death row and Mr. Geragos has moved on to client, after client. But guess what? Mr. Geragos reputation, or celebrity if you will, was severly damaged by the Peterson case. His pandering to the cameras was recognized for what it was worth........nothing, just like the exculpatory evidence he said he had, that was never presented.

    Although there MAY be sufficient evidence to warrant throwing out the verdict in this case, it is a VERY REMOTE possibility at best.

    JMHO
    fran

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    N.C.
    Posts
    4,097
    Quote Originally Posted by fran View Post
    Take this fwiw, but don't put too much stock on what Mr. Kurtz says. He's a defense attorney and he just lost a huge case. He was praying he could get Brad off and it would cement his career into the big time. But now he's trying to justify the loss by saying there's evidence that proves him innocent but the judge wouldn't allow it. That is a COMMON claim by defense attorneys who loose. Mr. Garegos used that in the Scott Peterson trial as well. It was a big conspiracy, LE incompetency, planted and altered evidence.

    Scott is still on death row and Mr. Geragos has moved on to client, after client. But guess what? Mr. Geragos reputation, or celebrity if you will, was severly damaged by the Peterson case. His pandering to the cameras was recognized for what it was worth........nothing, just like the exculpatory evidence he said he had, that was never presented.

    Although there MAY be sufficient evidence to warrant throwing out the verdict in this case, it is a VERY REMOTE possibility at best.

    JMHO
    fran
    You are so right, Fran. I've yet to see a defense attorney that doesn't pander his losses. Especially high profile ones. Wasn't it David Rudolph who lost the Rae Carruth case? He went on and on about the Carruth appeal, and old Rae has been 'doin' his time' now for what, about ten years or so? What amazes me is that these attorney's continue to find people who will believe their pandering. Look at Jeffrey MacDonald.


  11. #71
    Madeleine74's Avatar
    Madeleine74 is online now Of course it's my opinion; who else's would it be?
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    10,221
    Even good 'ole Wade Smith had to take the hit when his client, Jeffrey MacDonald went down (1979) for the triple murder of his pregnant wife and 2 little girls in 1970.

    One of Kurtz experts says he wasn't finished with his exam or report. Had this expert been hired or contacted sooner maybe Kurtz would have had a shot.

    BTW, I heard that Kurtz had 2 other computer experts on his list. He didn't call them because they did not find evidence of tampering (i.e. someone intentionally planting or changing BC computer files) and would not get on the stand and testify to what he wanted them to say. His whole "we didn't have any money" is bogus. He spent money on a P.I. who was not needed. He played a game of poker and bluffed and lost. The kind of maneuvering done behind the scenes might surprise lots of people. And I'm talking from the defense side. It is NOT about getting to the truth, it is only about trying to get a client off or minimize their sentence.

    I'll be very surprised if BC's case wins an appeal or turnover.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by calgary123 View Post
    I've snipped most of your post, hope you don't mind.

    This really caught my attention, because as I understand it, the defence was trying to discredit the digital testimony, not establish that it showed Brad did not do it.

    If there is any exculpatory digital evidence, I'd be interested to hear what that is. I presume you understand what exculpatory evidence is... it is positive evidence suggesting innocence.

    For example, the bug expert testified to a range for time of death in direct. In cross, the defence did a good job of showing that the bug expert could not be certain and that the time of death could have been after she *cough* went running. This is not exculpatory because it only served to dull the impact of the prosecution's evidence, it was not positive evidence she died after 7 am.

    I'd argue there was not one piece of exculpatory evidence presented in either the trial or in any "offer of proof" or "voir dire" as it is more commonly called. At each stage the defence was challenging the validity of evidence as opposed to demonstrate positive innocence.

    Compare this to the JY trial about to start. His defence is, he was elsewhere, could not have done it. If they present evidence he was elsewhere, that is exculpatory, whether or not the jury decides to accept that evidence.
    I thought the voir dire is what was done to show someone was an expert and the offer of proof was showing what the expert would have testified to if he were allowed to testify. I never heard of either of these terms prior to the trial, so I'm not basing this on any level of expertise....just how it was used in the trial.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
    Even good 'ole Wade Smith had to take the hit when his client, Jeffrey MacDonald went down (1979) for the triple murder of his pregnant wife and 2 little girls in 1970.

    One of Kurtz experts says he wasn't finished with his exam or report. Had this expert been hired or contacted sooner maybe Kurtz would have had a shot.

    BTW, I heard that Kurtz had 2 other computer experts on his list. He didn't call them because they did not find evidence of tampering (i.e. someone intentionally planting or changing BC computer files) and would not get on the stand and testify to what he wanted them to say. His whole "we didn't have any money" is bogus. He spent money on a P.I. who was not needed. He played a game of poker and bluffed and lost. The kind of maneuvering done behind the scenes might surprise lots of people. And I'm talking from the defense side. It is NOT about getting to the truth, it is only about trying to get a client off or minimize their sentence.

    I'll be very surprised if BC's case wins an appeal or turnover.

    And where exactly did you hear this information? All I know is what came out in court, and money was the reason.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,911


    Latest mug from Central Prison....

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by jrb0124 View Post
    No it does not. There is much more to it than "last accessed" timestamps, which I have seen intermixed with "last modified" which is not a piece of metadata that will remain static or unaltered.
    I have to think that Kurtz would be discussing his strongest piece of tampering evidence in this interview. I have to conclude that lastAccess==Created is the strongest, yet that situation is normal.
    There is a lot of digital testimony which was never heard...all of it exculpatory.
    Some of the unheard digital testimony is inculpatory. The windows system event log that shows BC configuring a vox capable router in his home at 10:21pm (a time he told police he was sleeping). Also the Cisco VPN logs; we never heard what they showed.
    It's a miscarriage of justice IMO that BC could not confront this evidence with his own witnesses, especially given that this was the only piece of incriminating evidence.
    We agree somewhat on this point. I do think he should have gotten a better expert on the stand. But, I think the best he could have gotten from it would be something like "the police didn't follow procedures".

Page 5 of 73 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 765
    Last Post: 10-29-2014, 05:28 PM
  2. Brad Cooper
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 211
    Last Post: 04-13-2014, 11:09 PM
  3. State v Brad Cooper 4-8-2011
    By cityslick in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 592
    Last Post: 04-09-2011, 08:30 PM
  4. Brad Cooper Indicted #2
    By CW in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-10-2009, 04:08 PM
  5. Brad Cooper Indicted
    By courtney in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 738
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 08:42 PM

Tags for this Thread