Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 71 of 71

Thread: Discussions with a juror

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    279
    ... My negative feelings are directed entirely at the CPD, prosecution, and judge in this case, and I've expressed them through the appropriate channels.
    Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.

    The jury imo did the best they could with what they had.
    I think they had a really good piece of evidence in the google search. The items brought forth here, especially by macd, indicate that the DT was trying to use smoke and mirrors to provide reasonable doubt rather than explaining specifically what occurred with proof it was planted, etc.

    ... but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation.
    I think the letter is pretty close to the jury's thoughts on the process: the google search pretty much nailed him. The tech guy on the jury probably sealed the deal by dismissing the defense's main argument with the timestamps, etc. To me, if it were offered that he did use Vista and he was using a beta version of Internet with the buggy private browsing, then the items offered here pretty much explain that. A retrial will most likely include testimony about the supposed router use on Jul 11.

    I think his goose will remain cooked either way.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to EnvoyDriver61 For This Useful Post:


  3. #52
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by Just the Fax View Post
    "I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation."

    I live in Raleigh and most people i have spoken with agree with the verdict.
    Perhaps I just run in a different circle?
    I should have worded that differently. I'm only talking about people who do not agree with the verdict - that is my impression of what they are feeling. My point is that I don't think the jurors should feel threatened by the public if and when the others choose to talk about their experience.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to fromageball For This Useful Post:


  5. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by EnvoyDriver61 View Post
    Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.
    I'm not sure, but I didn't keep up with the Duke lacrosse case so I don't know the details of that. I'm not against LE or even the CPD. I've had good experiences with the Cary Police - Detective Young specifically - and other officers I've interacted with.

    Oh, and I agree with you that it should have been a 3 week trial. The jury seems to agree with that as well.

  6. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    6,253
    The state is the entity that put together the trial (not the CPD). The DA (and the DA's office) decides what to present during trial, decides which witnesses to call, etc. L.E. has no say in any of that. They have, by the time of trial, turned over everything they've collected to the DA's office, including notes, interviews, etc.

    The DAs office should have trimmed that behemoth down to no more than 4 weeks, and cut the number of friends testifying down to 4 or 5, maximum.

    I know why they hauled in every single piece of evidence they collected and tested--to prove they did collect and test as many items as they could, even though there were no DNA results and the crime scene (the house) had been cleaned, as had the car trunk. To not bring those items in would have the defense screaming "they didn't TEST!" So they had to prove they did, even though there was nothing to be found, forensically. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

    Unfortunately the rules of evidence don't allow you to just show a list of all the items you collected and then say, "but none of them had blood or DNA or anything identifiable, so we're not going to bring each one into court." You have to go through each and every one if you want it to be part of the court record. Tedious as heck though.

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:


  8. #55
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,433
    Quote Originally Posted by fromageball View Post
    I can only speak for myself, as someone who was completely shocked at the verdict, but I have no negative feelings towards the jury members. My negative feelings are directed entirely at the CPD, prosecution, and judge in this case, and I've expressed them through the appropriate channels.

    Ok that's not entirely true - I didn't think too much of the juror who sent the note about wanting his/her life back. I think that was uncalled for, even if I understood the sentiment, but I realize that person did not speak for the entire jury.

    The jury imo did the best they could with what they had. I think you said something about the lady you know not wanting to appear on Dateline and I don't blame her at all - I wouldn't want to either. I'm kind of alarmed at how concerned the jury seems to be at public perception of them, or even concerns for their own safety.

    I think a lot of the people who have reacted negatively to the verdict are extremely frustrated and some of the frustration unfortunately came out in the form of attacks on the jury. I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation. I don't think this is an situation where the "crazies" are going to come out.

    I've got open ears and an open mind for any jurors who are willing to talk about the extremely difficult task they faced.


    Excellent post.

  9. #56
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,433
    Quote Originally Posted by EnvoyDriver61 View Post
    Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.



    I think they had a really good piece of evidence in the google search. The items brought forth here, especially by macd, indicate that the DT was trying to use smoke and mirrors to provide reasonable doubt rather than explaining specifically what occurred with proof it was planted, etc.



    I think the letter is pretty close to the jury's thoughts on the process: the google search pretty much nailed him. The tech guy on the jury probably sealed the deal by dismissing the defense's main argument with the timestamps, etc. To me, if it were offered that he did use Vista and he was using a beta version of Internet with the buggy private browsing, then the items offered here pretty much explain that. A retrial will most likely include testimony about the supposed router use on Jul 11.

    I think his goose will remain cooked either way.

    I appreciate macd's efforts with regards to the timestamps. I simply don't understand why the "FBI" or prosecution team didn't offer some type of reasonable explanation for them. If these issues with vista and IE are so well known, why wouldn't the people that should know this best offer an explanation. Instead, all we got was "I don't have an explanation as to what happened with those file, but I don't think there was tampering". That was enough for the jury, but not enough for a lot of people following this trial.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  11. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,246
    I too wonder why the prosecution team did not offer reasonable explanation for the timestamps. Personally, I believe the prosecution "experts" truly were not experienced enough to render a detailed explanation so they said they did not think it was tampering. After all, the expert witness is allowed to render an opinion based on their knowledge and experience. It never says how much knowledge and experience are required. IMO, I believe also that the prosecution was afraid of something on the computer that might cause the timestamp to be questioned strongly. I have never seen a prosecution fight so hard to keep testimony out of a case.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to cody100 For This Useful Post:


  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
    I appreciate macd's efforts with regards to the timestamps. I simply don't understand why the "FBI" or prosecution team didn't offer some type of reasonable explanation for them. If these issues with vista and IE are so well known, why wouldn't the people that should know this best offer an explanation. Instead, all we got was "I don't have an explanation as to what happened with those file, but I don't think there was tampering". That was enough for the jury, but not enough for a lot of people following this trial.
    I agree. It was not enough for me, which is why I'm (sadly) still researching it.
    Neither side offered well formed conclusions on the data.
    State expert: Don't know.
    State: Window's is buggy.
    Defense expert: Makes me want to dig more.
    Defense: Tampering.
    It makes me a little scared for our country's (or at least county's) judicial system. The lawyers, judges, juries, and even experts do not seem well equipped to deal with digital evidence, at least from this techie's point of view.

    I'm not sure what the right answer is. I watched the DNA presentation from the OJ trial where they spent 2 weeks over-presenting the science of DNA to a non-scientist jury. It was a disaster. I'm glad that the lawyers in this case did not put on a 2 week class on software and operating systems, but I think they should have given a little more background.

    I do think the defense was able to put their best theory and evidence forward. Kurtz did a good job getting the evidence in through JW and in his closing arguments. Even better for him, he was not subject to cross examination. I think had GM taken the stand with his half-formed opinions, we would have been embarrassed on cross exam.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,246
    I also have no doubt that the general population in NC question more strongly LE, prosecution, and even judges now than they did before the Duke Lacrosse case and use of cameras in the courtroom. Have they turned on LE? I don't think the majority have, but people, justifiably so, legitimately and understandably question what happens in a case, from A to Z. This site is living proof that people are extremely interested and concerned about our law enforcement and judicial system. Otherwise, we would be out shopping, playing games with our kids, or just watching television or movies-------anything but debating and exchanging ideas from courtroom cases. IMO, this pressure from the public requires LE, judicial system, and all experts surrounding a case to be extremely accountable for every action, test, or set of notes made in a case.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to cody100 For This Useful Post:


  16. #60
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by EnvoyDriver61 View Post
    Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.
    I followed the Duke case closely and I thought it was obvious that the DA and detectives engaged in misconduct, while other parties willfully turned a blind eye. I found it obvious that all of the lacrosse players were 100% innocent.
    I followed this case closely, and I thought it was obvious that, while somewhat bumbling, the DA and detectives were honest and the evidence genuine and damning.
    For both cases, everyone I know in meat-space was only vaguely aware the cases were going on. They only saw the one-minute sound-bites each day from the local news. Other than on the Internet, I have not met anyone who feels strongly one way or the other for either case. And I look for people to talk with me about this stuff. :-)

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:


  18. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by cody100 View Post
    I too wonder why the prosecution team did not offer reasonable explanation for the timestamps. Personally, I believe the prosecution "experts" truly were not experienced enough to render a detailed explanation so they said they did not think it was tampering. After all, the expert witness is allowed to render an opinion based on their knowledge and experience. It never says how much knowledge and experience are required. IMO, I believe also that the prosecution was afraid of something on the computer that might cause the timestamp to be questioned strongly. I have never seen a prosecution fight so hard to keep testimony out of a case.
    Here's a slide of the timestamp info for the cursor files.
    I think it is clear that the correct time for these files is 7/11/08 17:14 UTC.
    I don't think it needs further explanation.
    The time was corroborated by other personal computer activity before and after this time.
    The time was corroborated by witnesses placing him with the computer at that time.

    The defense did a yeoman's job finding questions that they could not answer in that data, and trying to lead the jury to the conclusion that this somehow creates doubt.

    But really? Can you look at that slide, understand the corroborating details, and genuinely believe that these files are anything other than a by-product of a search done at 7/11/08 17:14 UTC? Really?

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


  20. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by macd View Post
    I followed the Duke case closely and I thought it was obvious that the DA and detectives engaged in misconduct, while other parties willfully turned a blind eye. I found it obvious that all of the lacrosse players were 100% innocent.
    I followed this case closely, and I thought it was obvious that, while somewhat bumbling, the DA and detectives were honest and the evidence genuine and damning.
    For both cases, everyone I know in meat-space was only vaguely aware the cases were going on. They only saw the one-minute sound-bites each day from the local news. Other than on the Internet, I have not met anyone who feels strongly one way or the other for either case. And I look for people to talk with me about this stuff. :-)
    I guess we run in different circles. The majority of the folks I know talked frequently about both cases-----now I do know other people in judicial.legal system. But even outside of that group, people I know would talk openly and frequently about it. I guess this indicates the need for forums like this. BTW, thanks for your input on timestamp issues.

  21. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by cody100 View Post
    I guess we run in different circles. The majority of the folks I know talked frequently about both cases-----now I do know other people in judicial.legal system. But even outside of that group, people I know would talk openly and frequently about it. I guess this indicates the need for forums like this. BTW, thanks for your input on timestamp issues.
    What are our thoughts on the Duke case?
    What is common sentiment you find?
    I hate when I run into a "something must have happened" person, even to this day. I don't think the degree of police and prosecutor misconduct ever came through to people who did not follow the case closely.

  22. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,246
    MACD, i still can't see your slide very well. I have seen several slides but not sure where you found that one. Not disputing your opinion or your source, just wondering where this slide originated or if you had a clearer image of it. Honestly, MACD, I am not a computer expert and I was not in court for all of the evidence that was presented during the blackouts.

  23. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by cody100 View Post
    MACD, i still can't see your slide very well. I have seen several slides but not sure where you found that one. Not disputing your opinion or your source, just wondering where this slide originated or if you had a clearer image of it. Honestly, MACD, I am not a computer expert and I was not in court for all of the evidence that was presented during the blackouts.
    jrb posted it [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6475341&postcount=21"]here.[/ame] It was part of GM's proffer.

    It shows the eight timestamps for two files. Seven of the eight timestamps are valid and consistent with the files being part of a google search done Friday before lunch. One timestamp is described as "invalid", but no information was offered how or why that timestamp is invalid.

    If the evidence was planted the planters were clever enough to get 7 timestamps correct but missed one, I guess.

  24. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    I don't think enough information was really provided by either side to say the files were or were not tampered with in any way . In everything I have seen the discussions have all been around comparing the timestamps to each other and all timestamps being compared seem to be SIA timestamps. It would be better to compare the SIA timestamps to the FNA timestamps which would make it much more clear that things had or had not been changed.

    I agree there was no explanation at all as to what they were referring to when they said "invalid timestamps" there are also too many things that can cause a timestamp to be invalid and with no definition of what they meant by "invalid" it was pretty useless information.

    I do think it was suspicious that the main thing Boz wanted to keep out of JW's testimony was any reference at all to the registry. There could be some key information in there and I don't think GM had gotten that far into his exam to offer any insight on the registry itself.

    Vista throws a lot of monkey wrenches into the picture as well just y virtue of the number of changes done o things like timestamp modification, security permissions, etc. that need to be addressed in reference to the conclusions being made which weren't mentioned at all really.

    All in all I don't really have confidence in anything that was presented from either side as far as evidence coming from the laptop. The lack of follow-up with Google to get verification, with Cisco to get verification, etc. make it pretty much a complete failure.
    Hoisted with his own Petard

  25. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,433
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthinNC View Post
    I don't think enough information was really provided by either side to say the files were or were not tampered with in any way . In everything I have seen the discussions have all been around comparing the timestamps to each other and all timestamps being compared seem to be SIA timestamps. It would be better to compare the SIA timestamps to the FNA timestamps which would make it much more clear that things had or had not been changed.

    I agree there was no explanation at all as to what they were referring to when they said "invalid timestamps" there are also too many things that can cause a timestamp to be invalid and with no definition of what they meant by "invalid" it was pretty useless information.

    I do think it was suspicious that the main thing Boz wanted to keep out of JW's testimony was any reference at all to the registry. There could be some key information in there and I don't think GM had gotten that far into his exam to offer any insight on the registry itself.

    Vista throws a lot of monkey wrenches into the picture as well just y virtue of the number of changes done o things like timestamp modification, security permissions, etc. that need to be addressed in reference to the conclusions being made which weren't mentioned at all really.

    All in all I don't really have confidence in anything that was presented from either side as far as evidence coming from the laptop. The lack of follow-up with Google to get verification, with Cisco to get verification, etc. make it pretty much a complete failure.


    That's the frustrating part. Google could have made all of this tampering stuff irrelevant. Simply show a google search for that area code at that time (to match the evidence) and the defense claims wouldn't have mattered.

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  27. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    I'm a little bit dumbfounded of the expectation for police to prove that they didn't fabricate this evidence.

    The search files on the computer tell the story of zooming in on the cul-de-sac.
    The MFT table gives timestamps of when the search was done.
    The browser history gives information of what the search was.
    The event log gives information that BC logged into the computer shortly before the search.
    Other files show BC logging personal credentials into other sites around the same time as the search.
    Eyewitnesses have him in his office with his computer at the time of the search.

    Sure... it would be nice if there was a sixth form of corroboration, but at some point isn't it just piling on?

    If you're not convinced at this point, I don't think a log from Cisco or Google would convince you.

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


  29. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    The fact that it is extremely easy to change the date and time, do a search and change the time back combined with the fact that the files and timestamps on the computer do not look like "normal" operations along with a computer that was not properly handled makes the evidence less than crystal clear. To have this fuzzy evidence be the "smoking gun" to convict somebody to life in prison is enough to make me want some sort of clarifying evidence.

    I don't understand why having real data and fabricated data occur on the same day seems to be an impossibility to some people. Data manipulation exactly like this happens ALL the time. It is an extremely common security exploit.

    If CPD didn't do such a crappy job extra validation might not be as important, but they did do a crappy job, the extra information was ridiculously easy to get and wasn't, if you have a chance for a slam dunk, why not do it?

    And who were these phantom eyewitnesses that have him in his office with his computer at the time of the search? The evidence is sketchy enough without added embellishment.
    Last edited by SleuthinNC; 06-07-2011 at 03:19 PM. Reason: eyewitnesses
    Hoisted with his own Petard

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to SleuthinNC For This Useful Post:


  31. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthinNC View Post
    And who were these phantom eyewitnesses that have him in his office with his computer at the time of the search? The evidence is sketchy enough without added embellishment.
    The co-workers he had lunch with. They said they left the office together and all left their laptops in the office. The search was done very soon before they left for lunch.

  32. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    22,851
    Quote Originally Posted by macd View Post
    The co-workers he had lunch with. They said they left the office together and all left their laptops in the office. The search was done very soon before they left for lunch.
    I first learned that there were records of his personal login searches before and after map search during closing arguments, and it was but a brief one-liner. Was there blacked-out testimony about Cooper searching bank records before and after the map search?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •