Post verdict discussion of evidence

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottle Cap said:
Read the ex-girlfriend's affidavit for a clue as to his behavior the last time someone tried to leave him.
Click to expand...

I have read the ex's stuff and I'm sorry, but to me it is heresay because it is one-sided. I don't believe there is an affidavit. If so, please post the link because I have seen nothing more than messages from her here.

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.
 
jumpstreet said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sunshine05 said:
I would love to have confirmation on this one way or another because I recall it was late '09? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...

I have a memory of reading an article right after the google evidence came out that prosecutors had had the google evidence since early October 2008. I have looked and looked for that article (I want to think I read it on WRAL.com) and can't find it. It's driving me nuts. I want to know for sure, too.
 
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.
 
lib's mom said:
I have a memory of reading an article right after the google evidence came out that prosecutors had had the google evidence since early October 2008. I have looked and looked for that article (I want to think I read it on WRAL.com) and can't find it. It's driving me nuts. I want to know for sure, too.
Click to expand...

I'll keep searching too.
 
Madeleine74 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, but this thread is about discussion of the BC case and lingering questions pertaining to that. How does that case fit in here?
 
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.
 
sunshine05 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
sunshine05 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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...] :)
 
gritguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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/2008/10/13/3726247/20081013092834786.pdf
 
momto3kids said:
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/2008/10/13/3726247/20081013092834786.pdf
Click to expand...

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.
 
sunshine05 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

Attachments

  • Small-Business-VoIP-with-FXO.jpg
    Small-Business-VoIP-with-FXO.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 21
jumpstreet said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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. :floorlaugh:
 
momto3kids said:
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. :floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

It's interesting that JA had way more lies than BC but she was never investigated at all.
 
SleuthSayer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
gritguy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
SleuthSayer said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 185 more.
Total: 2,449 (members: 186, guests: 2,263)

Online statistics

Members online
186
Guests online
2,263
Total visitors
2,449
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,536
Messages
17,954,215
Members
228,527
Latest member
rxpb
Back
Top