April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
otto said:
It's been floated that when there is remorse, the victim is partially covered. Wasn't Michelle Young under a pillow? OJs wife was murdered on her front step, so I don't think that counts (he had to get outta there fast). We don't know about Scott Peterson because Laci was found 4 months later after washing ashore, but there was something about duct tape. She may have been covered, in part, with something after the murder and before going into the ocean. Drew Peterson's last wife is still missing.

I think the theory relates to people that are murdered and left to be found by someone else. Ridgeway, for example, left his victims in positions that suggested it was a random murderer with no connection to the victim. I think that is what people are seeing with Nancy - that she was left in a similar position.
Click to expand...

So...either Brad put her bra on, or a remorseful boyfriend put her bra on, or a random attacker did.
 
ncsu95 said:
Can you explain more about the cross. I've seen you mention this a few times. I also find it interesting that Chappell is actually a Durham police detective and not really an FBI agent.
Click to expand...

Cross went on for a good while, because Chappell was stonewalling big time. I have pages of notes, but I'll try to hit some high points. (Perhaps some of you with more tech experience will show me that this all meant nothing, but it seemed compelling to me.)

K-When did you export the file table from FTK? (forensic tool kit)
C-About 3 weeks ago when I did the report.
K-When you did the extraction you became aware of invalid time stamps. You didn't note those on the report, did you?
C-Correct.
K-Is that something you omitted intentionally?
C-I omitted lots of things I didn't find relevant.
K-Did you note that all 500(?) files in this 41 seconds had invalid time stamps?
C-I was satisfied that the other 7 time stamps were correct.
K-Why didn't you put your name and the date on your report?
C-It was really just notes, not a report.

Kurtz then asks Chappell to take us step-by-step --show us what the State alleges BC did. This is not to demonstrate how long it takes. Just show us the exact steps.

K-You don't know how/when google updates.
C-No, but I'm satisfied that my results were the same. For the record, I want to say that 3 years later, it may be different.
Boz-objection-overruled--let Jury decide weight to give the testimony.
C-Level of zoom was 11/default. Went to almost maximum
K-Not my question. How many actual levels of zoom...
C-(Shut Kurtz down at this point.)

K-Went to 41 second question. asked if he thought BC found/decided where to dump his wife's body in 41 sec.
C-41 seconds is a long time.

K-presents Def. exhibit 84--Ward's report on tampering, appendix states "In fact, these files contain both the active and the deleted files..."
C-There is one missing --related to google ads
C-One google cookie can do different things.
K-Google cookies 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 are all there. Missing cookie 4.
K-Can you show us that cookie?
K-Would that cookie show intermediate access? Not just first and last activity?
K-Was any google cookie activity modified on July 11? Is it your testimony?
(shut down by C)
K-Not a single cookie that corresponds with this visit on the machine.
C-Not that we can see from this side.
K-In your "non report" you said there WAS a cookie.
C-That's what I believed at the time.
K-So it isn't true?
C-It was inaccurate.
K-If you'd had a cookie, it would have been a significant piece of evidence.
C-We found lots of cookies.
K-If you had found that PARTICULAR cookie.
C-It would have been nice.

Kurtz got C to say they did not get court order for google. C-"We sent a preservation letter." K-produced letter--You didn't ask to preserve cookies? C-(Read letter) K-Did you zero in on 1:14 in letter? C-No. That would have been a way to make sure it was preserved.
K-Is it your opinion that Mr. Cooper deleted the single cookie and shredded it? C-It is possible. K-You know BC has a degree in comp sci? You think he would go to time/trouble to clear that ONE cookie but fail to get rid of temporary internet files?
K-Did you evaluate routers? C-No. K-Any other hardware? An external hard drive, thumb drive...
Boz--OBJECTION! DUMB QUESTION...

More later....re:time stamps and CSA logs....
 
SleuthSayer said:
Well, here was my position from before and I'm sticking to it. I posted that before the Google evidence. After that, I'm even more sure that he will be found Guilty.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of it except I do think they have evidence.

Once the verdict is rendered no matter how it falls I think that the response won't be so much "I knew it!" but "Who knew?" I think we will all be scratching our heads when we find out what the jury chose to focus on. I base that on experience in following a number of cases.
 
Cheyenne130 said:
Not once they got back to North Carolina. If the second part of what you said actually happened, it should have been brought up by the defense. The dropped that whole line of questioning like a hot potatoe. MOO
Click to expand...

What do you think she meant when she said that Nancy was using her as an alibi and she wasn't comfortable with that?
 
ncsu95 said:
I don't believe NC was having an affair at the time of her murder. But it doesn't mean I'm not going to offer my opinion on what was possible. The point about police not visiting every random tipster has nothing to do with them not finding the real killer. It has everything to do with CPD immediately pointing all blame on BC then building a case based on that, ignoring the option that someone else did it.
Click to expand...

And swearing, on the stand, and before in affidavits, that THEY did not do that.

That's what made me feel like Kurtz was on to something. They did engage in what is known was "test-i-lying" when it came to that. I would have much rather heard them say it from the get-go that they had focused on him early and he was their killer and do the investigation right, as opposed to all of this...well, it was just a missing persons investigation and we only wanted to do what we could for "prosperity's"(sic) sake.

Just say: We thought we had something serious on our hand and the husband did it from the moment the first inconsistent statement came out of his mouth and we did everything we could to A) build THAT case and B) substantiate it. We went back later and ruled out the rest.

Instead they said: Well, it started as a missing persons case, then we finally got around to Brad as the suspect and he stuck. He was in our mind from the outset, but these questions and inconsistencies, etc. etc. He spoofed a call we have no proof of for an alibi and dumped his wife in a ditch in a way that left absolutely no evidence for us whatsoever. But, his trunk was soooo clean. (SBI said soiled). His statements were odd. His behavior were odd. (It wasn't like his wife and the mother of his children had been murdered) He was a liar. He slept with women. He was a bad dad. He was a bad husband. He was a snoopy, nosy, scared dude. He ran triathalon-thingys and worked with the technology-i-cal stuff. We don't have any experts to prove much of anything that we think happened. We wiped a blackberry that wasn't important to a case mainly based in technology. We needed the FBI to come in and rebuild his hard drive and there's this one minute from the day before her death.


It all starts sounding "too convenient" and you start to wonder if the defense saying "Inept" and "Dishonest" was accurate in this case after all.
 
ncsu95 said:
But how on the technology? Again, we have had so much discussion about the router/fxo and none about the PC required to run the call manager or any other call generator program.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I believe that Call Manager Express can run on the [possibly existent, possibly not] router itself.
 
unc70 said:
No, that is not the choice. The choice is G beyond a reasonable doubt or NG.

BTW In another week, I expect you might have a couple of new options. Hold onto your seats.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate?
 
unc70 said:
No, that is not the choice. The choice is G beyond a reasonable doubt or NG.

BTW In another week, I expect you might have a couple of new options. Hold onto your seats.
Click to expand...

Well, isn't THAT ominous. You're connected in some way to some information.
 
Madeleine74 said:
Okay so people are thinking:

Random attacker abducted and killed Nancy AND someone hacked into BC laptop to help things along. Specifically his work laptop, which appears to be the more difficult one to access because it had the most security software on it. The Mac was available for hacking as well, just an fyi.

That hacker was either really lucky that no physical evidence tied anyone to the murder, or they knew on 7/16/08, before any DNA or crime scene or fiber or anything was back from CCBI that there would not be physical evidence to tie someone else to the murder since the hacking is alleged to have taken place on 7/16/08.

Unless.... you think this hacking took place after 7/16/08 inside the CPD and/or the FBI.
Click to expand...


If it happened, that is what I believe. And again, it wasn't the FBI. It was a Durham police detective.
 
Bottle Cap said:
So...either Brad put her bra on, or a remorseful boyfriend put her bra on, or a random attacker did.
Click to expand...

Or, her bra rolled when she was dragged to the location where she was found.
 
jmflu said:
Who would have thought a witness would come here and post directly to us the day he testified?

If he had posted anonymously, would people ridicule the very idea that a witness would post here?

Ex-lover, witness, neighbor, mother, defense, prosecution... any one of us who believe 100% in our conviction with no leeway that BC is either guilty or innocent could be one of those people.
Click to expand...

I was shocked to see a witness post, before a verdict. This discussion about AL/book, is nothing compared to a witness posting on a forum during a trial. I personally think the judge would 'you know what' a brick if he discovered a witness posting to a message board. You saw the fit he had about tweeting.
 
otto said:
Or, her bra rolled when she was dragged to the location where she was found.
Click to expand...

Woulda rolled in the opposite direction. It was rolled under. That can only be accomplished when putting it on/pulling it down over the body. This is one of those minute details called CE that no one has really been discussing of late.
 
FullDisclosure said:
Cross went on for a good while, because Chappell was stonewalling big time. I have pages of notes, but I'll try to hit some high points. (Perhaps some of you with more tech experience will show me that this all meant nothing, but it seemed compelling to me.)

K-When did you export the file table from FTK? (forensic tool kit)
C-About 3 weeks ago when I did the report.
K-When you did the extraction you became aware of invalid time stamps. You didn't note those on the report, did you?
C-Correct.
K-Is that something you omitted intentionally?
C-I omitted lots of things I didn't find relevant.
K-Did you note that all 500(?) files in this 41 seconds had invalid time stamps?
C-I was satisfied that the other 7 time stamps were correct.
K-Why didn't you put your name and the date on your report?
C-It was really just notes, not a report.

Kurtz then asks Chappell to take us step-by-step --show us what the State alleges BC did. This is not to demonstrate how long it takes. Just show us the exact steps.

K-You don't know how/when google updates.
C-No, but I'm satisfied that my results were the same. For the record, I want to say that 3 years later, it may be different.
Boz-objection-overruled--let Jury decide weight to give the testimony.
C-Level of zoom was 11/default. Went to almost maximum
K-Not my question. How many actual levels of zoom...
C-(Shut Kurtz down at this point.)

K-Went to 41 second question. asked if he thought BC found/decided where to dump his wife's body in 41 sec.
C-41 seconds is a long time.

K-presents Def. exhibit 84--Ward's report on tampering, appendix states "In fact, these files contain both the active and the deleted files..."
C-There is one missing --related to google ads
C-One google cookie can do different things.
K-Google cookies 1,2,3,5,6,7,8 are all there. Missing cookie 4.
K-Can you show us that cookie?
K-Would that cookie show intermediate access? Not just first and last activity?
K-Was any google cookie activity modified on July 11? Is it your testimony?
(shut down by C)
K-Not a single cookie that corresponds with this visit on the machine.
C-Not that we can see from this side.
K-In your "non report" you said there WAS a cookie.
C-That's what I believed at the time.
K-So it isn't true?
C-It was inaccurate.
K-If you'd had a cookie, it would have been a significant piece of evidence.
C-We found lots of cookies.
K-If you had found that PARTICULAR cookie.
C-It would have been nice.

Kurtz got C to say they did not get court order for google. C-"We sent a preservation letter." K-produced letter--You didn't ask to preserve cookies? C-(Read letter) K-Did you zero in on 1:14 in letter? C-No. That would have been a way to make sure it was preserved.
K-Is it your opinion that Mr. Cooper deleted the single cookie and shredded it? C-It is possible. K-You know BC has a degree in comp sci? You think he would go to time/trouble to clear that ONE cookie but fail to get rid of temporary internet files?
K-Did you evaluate routers? C-No. K-Any other hardware? An external hard drive, thumb drive...
Boz--OBJECTION! DUMB QUESTION...

More later....re:time stamps and CSA logs....
Click to expand...

11/default would not be a very significant zoom on google maps, fyi.
 
gracielee said:
I was shocked to see a witness post, before a verdict. This discussion about AL/book, is nothing compared to a witness posting on a forum during a trial. I personally think the judge would 'you know what' a brick if he discovered a witness posting to a message board. You saw the fit he had about tweeting.
Click to expand...

It is interesting you should repost my post at this particular moment, just as unc has forecast that something is about to be revealed that will shock us.

Now, he can recant if he likes. But as I have been saying, people know people and they know things, that eventually come out as their being biased on this board.
 
Cheyenne130 said:
You might need to listen to that testimony again. The expert explained how it could be accomplished and leave no record.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Everybody's an expert now it would seem. Especially the brad-pack. :floorlaugh:
 
Okay. Wife killers don't like to leave their dead wives naked, I get that part...like, they might want to cover up some small part. Nancy had a rolled under bra on her person, indicating someone put it on her. I get that part too.

2+2 = 4
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 4,064 (members: 182, guests: 3,882)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
3,882
Total visitors
4,064
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,827
Messages
17,959,683
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top