...the case of the purloined PDA...

golfmom said:
Yes, but we had absolutely no proof-positive that it was Raven. It was completely unconfirmed.

We almost need to start a new system here since there is so much online information. Like if we know something as a fact we put CONFIRMED or UNCONFIRMED if we aren't 100% sure.
Good idea!
 
ewwwinteresting said:
Good idea!

This would let people know what items to work on too. If it's unconfirmed everyone can pitch in to help either confirm it or deny it!
 
I found that post about buying a new PDA the other day and though I struck gold also. I forget my steps, but I somehow managed to track that pocketpcguy to ebay (my heart rate went up further), but the ebay name was something completely different and the history was completely out of Jamestown, NY. Now, I don't know for sure that it's NOT him, but I'm inclined to think it isn't.

As an aside, there actually seems to be a few pocketpcguys. I believe Raven used his as PocketPCGuy, someone else has pocketpcguy, and another has PocketPcGuy, and so on... Of course, they all show up on the google search because it doesn't distinguish capitalizations as far as I can tell.
 
...the idea of a PDA or PC "sleight-of-hand" is NOT out of the realm of possibility for this dude...(So I am now only a demi-dumba$$, 'k?) :D

If I were the forensic computer jock assigned to this case, I would find out what brands of PC/laptop/PDA he purchased, and when, and from who...also, ANYTHING HE SOLD I would try to recover...
 
cappuccina said:
If I were the forensic computer jock assigned to this case, I would find out what brands of PC/laptop/PDA he purchased, and when, and from who...also, ANYTHING HE SOLD I would try to recover...
I totally agree. Again, if LE did not collect any computers, why not? Were they told that they were lost, stolen, sold ... ? If so, wouldn't LE be sure to tell Raven to turn them over if they should happen to resurface? I wonder if it's his sister-in-law's computer he's using to surf MySpace. Or could it be his own laptop?
 
Just a question here...

How do you folks know for a fact that only one search warrant has been served? How do you know law enforcement hasnt checked computers, PDA's etc? Because only one has been released wouldnt lead me to think only one has been served.
 
Timex said:
Just a question here...

How do you folks know for a fact that only one search warrant has been served? How do you know law enforcement hasnt checked computers, PDA's etc? Because only one has been released wouldnt lead me to think only one has been served.

We know for a fact that there have been TWO search warrants. But, there could easily have been more that were not released to the news.
 
So, the police could have the PDA and or computer or could have had them and returned them to him?
 
I guess I would have to assume they have indeed done so. Unless we are talking a Barney Fife type investigator, I would think taking computers etc would be investigation 101. Either to eliminate or to incriminate.
 
Timex said:
I guess I would have to assume they have indeed done so. Unless we are talking a Barney Fife type investigator, I would think taking computers etc would be investigation 101. Either to eliminate or to incriminate.

Yep. If they were accessible to LE I'm sure that they took them. If they weren't then where were they? That's why that the idea of a computer was stolen causes some excitability.
 
Timex said:
So, the police could have the PDA and or computer or could have had them and returned them to him?
From my understanding (from reading the initial search warrant, and subsequently a news report that quotes the Durham Police Dept), the series of events is as follows:

1) Murder occurs sometime the evening of April 26
2) Search warrant #1, executed early morning of April 27
3) On Thursday, April 28, at some point LE interviews Raven. Based on that interview, they obtained a 2nd search warrant, that specified a search of the "vehicle" (presumably the Dodge Durango they had searched previously)..based on information obtained in the interview with Raven. (this is sited in the link below)

4) Same day, April 28, they search the "vehicle" again.
5) May 3rd. The initial search warrant is made public.
6) The copy of the 2nd warrant, we've never seen. Although, in the news article below, the DPD is quoted as saying it was for "the vehicle." Now, I don't know or not if it COULD have included other things, or not. No idea.

7) Have there been additional search warrants? No clue.

But keep in mind, we do have information (Mr. A posted, I THINK) that the house was ultimately cleared as a crime scene by LE, and that some people from the church came and cleaned. IT would be useful to know WHEN that happened.

I say that, because if they cleaned, etc., shortly after the 28th or so, it would not have left LE too much time to come out with another warrant..as potentially , there might not be anything there!

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/2368828p-8746832c.html
 
I just see no evidence that a laptop was stolen. Then this would be a burglary gone bad and the public would be *at risk* and this would be considered a random crime. Ergo the statement by LE that this was not a random crime would make no sense.
:bang:
 
Again, I would have to assume if LE released the home, they must be confident they have collected any and all physical evidence from the home.

Is the assumption here law enforcement has dropped the ball on this case?
 
Timex said:
Again, I would have to assume if LE released the home, they must be confident they have collected any and all physical evidence from the home.

Is the assumption here law enforcement has dropped the ball on this case?
Or, perhaps the computers, PDA, etc., were NOT ON THE PREMISES???

Just a thought...
 
Timex said:
Is the assumption here law enforcement has dropped the ball on this case?

I can't speak for anyone else, :cool: but I haven't jumped to that conclusion as of yet. I'm waiting on the crime lab results, as per the newscast interview the family did.
 
SouthEastSleuth said:
Or, perhaps the computers, PDA, etc., were NOT ON THE PREMISES???

Just a thought...


Thats my question...why are we assuming law enforcement doesnt have them? Or never had them? Have they made a statement saying such items were missing?
 
SouthEastSleuth said:
Or, perhaps the computers, PDA, etc., were NOT ON THE PREMISES???

Just a thought...

LOL ... and I just caught my tail folks! If they weren't there, then where were they? and don't tell me they were stolen, because I don't believe that!
:croc:
 
Timex said:
Thats my question...why are we assuming law enforcement doesnt have them? Or never had them? Have they made a statement saying such items were missing?
I do see your point actually. I think we've based that assumption (gulp!) on the fact that there was no mention of those things on the RELEASED search warrant. And from what we know of the SECOND warrant, it was solely for the vehicle.

So, to think in your direction, yes, there would have to been an additional search warrant(s), at some point and time, that we don't know about!

BUT, if LE went back with a 2nd warrant that same week, one would hope they would have made it inclusive THEN for any additional items?? Again, I know, an assumption.

It just seems to me there becomes a timing issue... how long was the time from the 2nd warrant on April 28th, until the house was cleared by LE! THAT would be the timeframe for any potential additional warrants, for items at the house anyway.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
3,348
Total visitors
3,416

Forum statistics

Threads
592,621
Messages
17,972,049
Members
228,845
Latest member
butiwantedthatname
Back
Top