April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[SleuthinNC]

This is the sequence as I see it:
The prosecution puts on a witness to tell the court how small an FXO card is.
(Implication: easily hidden)
The defense puts on a witness to show how large the router is that is needed to house that FXO card.
(Implication: not easily hidden, would have been found)
The prosecution wants to rebut that with he did have a router that size and records show that it was in his house as late as 10:21 on 7/11.

Your 3rd point is not a rebuttal it is a new assertion

 

[justthinking2008]

Ducks, sticks, earrings and necklaces prove nothing. We now know the ducks were not destroyed in a fight, JA was wrong about seeing them the day before. As far as the necklace goes, who wears an expensive diamond necklace to a pool with kids hanging all over them, I have seen pictures of the necklace it was not on a strong chain, could have easily broken in the pool and would have been gone forever, NC had enough smarts to know this, it is not on the HT picture, but the bathing suit appears on under the cover up; therefore, it is logical to conclude that she had been at the pool without the necklace, so HP is mistaken. Now, let's talk about the earrings she never took off. Have any of you ever tried to sleep in post earrings? I have and I can tell you that you will take them off at night as the posts will stick in the back of your neck if you roll onto your side. My friends will also tell you I always wear my diamond earrings and they would be correct, but they are not with me at night when I take them off so I can sleep, I imagine NC did the same thing, also showering with them in is a dangerous bet as your hair can tangle in them and they can come off. So it makes sense that she always wore them and may even have jogged in them or the necklace, but no doubt she took them off from time to time. So the earrings, the necklace or lack thereof, does not indicate anything to anyone. No one can know what anyone else does when they are alone. As far as the faint line around her neck, it is most likely there from the necklace when she wore it in the sun and the area it covered could not tan, IMO that is what you are seeing in the HT video, not the necklace. We do not have one piece of forensic evidence that ties BC to the crime. There are several others with motive, means and opportunity, BC is not alone in this. The google search means nothing as the time stamps may or may not be invalid. Don't get me wrong I want NC's killer caught and brought to justice, I am just not sure we have the right person. If the CPD made mistakes in the investigation and they did admittedly so, no one is perfect, how then is it that BC can commit this crime and not leave a trace, he would have made a mistake as well. People keep bringing up the running shoes, if you go back and read the statements the running shoes even though they were two left shoes were not NC's size, her other pair of running shoes have never been recovered, so the Det. thinks she returned them, well there is nothing to indicate she did so. Lots of things are in boxes, maybe if we look, we will find the two right shoes, who knows. Absolutely no proof of spoofed calls, again having the ability does not mean it happened and it would leave a trace somewhere on something, so far nothing has proven this did happen only that it did not. I am prefectly ready to eat crow if Cisco produces a router showing he made this spoof call and if they do I will gladly and readily admit he is guilty. At this point with nothing to go on, I am going to change my opinion get off of the fence and say, I believe Brad Cooper is not guilty.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Your 3rd point is not a rebuttal it is a new assertion

I believe that the judge agrees with you since he is treating it as new evidence meaning that he is allowing the defense a chance to rebut that new evidence. I was just giving my personal opinion.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I didn't think it was from the time the search warrant was served, I thought it was from the time the house was sealed, awaiting a search warrant to be obtained and served???

That makes more sense.

 

[ncsu95]

Now that's something entirely different. I wouldn't recognize an MFT if it was sitting in front of my face. I have no idea how to analyze all those files. I do know how to look at event logs because that was part of my job.

And looking at those logs are part of JWs job as well. So why wasn't he allowed to discuss them? See, you don't have to be a forensic expert to intelligently, and with accuracy, discuss event logs found on the PC. So why wasn't JW allowed to talk about the same logs that he looks at every single day as part of his job? I agree that he wasn't qualified to generate an MFT for forensic analysis. But he wasn't even allowed to discuss the file generated by the prosecution.

 

[Danielle59]

If the necklace was found on the front hall table, why isn't it in any of the photos taken the day nancy 'went missing'?

I am pretty sure Mrs. C said it was in a box on the foyer table.

 

[RaleighNative]

Colon Willoughby has been the DA of Wake County since I was a child, and without hesitation I have voted for him for reelection every time.

Of course, given this trial, I will likely be changing my vote. The only way I can see supporting him in his next reelection bid (2012 I believe?) is based on how he addresses the outcome of this case.

Thought I'd add this since we KNOW the Wake County DA's office reads W/S religiously.

Any thoughts on what he may say???

 

[ncsu95]

This is the sequence as I see it:
The prosecution puts on a witness to tell the court how small an FXO card is.
(Implication: easily hidden)
The defense puts on a witness to show how large the router is that is needed to house that FXO card.
(Implication: not easily hidden, would have been found)
The prosecution wants to rebut that with he did have a router that size and records show that it was in his house as late as 10:21 on 7/11.

No, that's not accurate. The prosecution put on a witness that said both an FXO card and a router were required. They also said that a router wasn't found. So the prosecution established that a router had not been found. Actually, several prosecution witnesses specified that. Then the prosecution tried to mislead the jury by pointing out the size of the fxo card (neglecting the size of the router) saying it could be easily disposed of.

This rebuttal testimony is rebuttal against their own testimony that a router wasn't found. The defense didn't make that claim...the prosecution did.

 

[gracielee]

You think she bought ribs, wine, and what seemed to be a bunch of other things for $20? The testimony of friends was that she had no money that day because BC didn't give her any, now you want us to believe he gave her some to tide her over?

IIRC, she had the remainder of the money she earned painting, after the paint and supplies were paid for. That was the money she used to purchase their part of the dinner that night.

 

[momof7]

If the necklace was found on the front hall table, why isn't it in any of the photos taken the day nancy 'went missing'?

Hmmm...good question. I do believe a previous poster said something about being in a trinket box, not sure if that was in the bedroom or hall table.

 

[Cheyenne130]

And looking at those logs are part of JWs job as well. So why wasn't he allowed to discuss them? See, you don't have to be a forensic expert to intelligently, and with accuracy, discuss event logs found on the PC. So why wasn't JW allowed to talk about the same logs that he looks at every single day as part of his job? I agree that he wasn't qualified to generate an MFT for forensic analysis. But he wasn't even allowed to discuss the file generated by the prosecution.

CF was talking about his own network that he is hired to monitor and control. He was not called as an expert, given the task of pulling and then analyzing data. He was charged with pulling information from his own network. I haven't heard from him so I'm only going by the little snippet but it is my understanding that his primary role in this portion was taking the MAC address and matching it up with a particular router that had been in their inventory and is now unaccounted for. That doesn't require any level of expertise to match up a number.

 

[ncsu95]

It doesn't matter now.

Chris Fry info on the internet is going :woosh: even as I type.

Hi Boz!

:seeya: Hi Boz....I hope you can live the rest of your career with the unethical choices you've made in this trial. I hope we aren't paying your salary any more and you can go be a defense lawyer. Your antics fit in very well with the perception of defense lawyers.

 

[Danielle59]

I believe it was me who brought that up, lack of chin and lack of jaw and lack of cheek bones. And the fact that we'd previously seen a photo of nancy supposedly without the necklace. But that was a real photo, good quality, that could be enlarged and enhanced to make it's definition clearer rather than more distorted. On that prior photo the necklace could quite clearly be seen on the enlargement. The very FINE gold chain is almost the color of nancy coopers skintone, and blends right in unless it is seen from very close up and either with the naked eye, or with a good camera, not a store video there for the purpose of catching shoplifters and not to catch good quality photos of individuals. IMO If anyone is trying to 'pull a fast one', it's the defense, trying to pass of JW as an expert in forensics, trying to pass off yet a second image of nancy 'with a necklace' as being nancy without a necklace, and coming up with the *ducks* at the last moment, much like Michael Petersons 'sudden discovery of the infamous blow-poke'. If you guys want to fault someone for nefarious courtroom antics, how about placing the blame in the proper corner then? MOO

1. Regarding the first photo, that was the picture her friends had put on the missing flyer, the Defense did not edit that from what was on the missing flyer.

2. I don't see the necklace in the HT video, many others don't see it, and the State did not argue the point in cross. It was a pretty clear video, clearer than when Det Y supposedly was able to discern sweat on the brow of BC under the bill of his cap while BE was in still in the vestible of HT meaninf that the video was taking his picture behind a wall of glass, did you believe that? But that Det Y could not see that there were no big muddy footprints once BC was in the store past the vestible on a clearly clean white floor?

3. No one knew the ducks were going to be discussed in the trial until they were and then Mrs. C mentioned it to her host while she is here in NC who happens to be the custody attorney who is not in the court at this time, and the custody attorney said she had the ducks, handed them over and Mrs. C told the Defense and gave them to them. Defense then in turn told the State about them on April 4. All that showed was that the State built their case on sand instead of a solid foundation.

 

[gracielee]

So, in other words, she was the link to all the missing items. Not necessarily found them but knew where they were?

Thanks!

Yes, Brad's mother was the 'missing link' to all the questionable items. Strange, isn't it? The ducks, the necklace, and the phone. It was Brad the liars mom who handled or had possession of all of them.

 

[RaleighNative]

Hmmm...good question. I do believe a previous poster said something about being in a trinket box, not sure if that was in the bedroom or hall table.

I thought it was in a drawer in the table or in a box...not laying in plain sight on top of the table. So that would explain it not being the original police photos. Of course, one of the missing ducks WAS in the original police photos.

 

[johnfear]

:seeya: Hi Boz....I hope you can live the rest of your career with the unethical choices you've made in this trial. I hope we aren't paying your salary any more and you can go be a defense lawyer. Your antics fit in very well with the perception of defense lawyers.

K and B and Z has a ring to it, no?

 

[Danielle59]

Back when the O.J. trial took place, the *system* the advent of DNA was just at it's beginnings. I feel today, is the birth of digital technology being used in legal cases. I've seen great things happening using digital technology in the investigation of kiddie *advertiser censored* online, trafficking of humans, online rape shows, and pedophiles using the internet to get young kids, boys and girls. Local LE is beginning to attempt to find the money, in this ravaged economy, to train members of their own units to deal with these issues. But IIRC, is it Chappel who is so widely scorned here because he's not 'really FBI'. You can't have it both ways. Yes, FBI is by far the best we have in the U.S. for dealing with digital crime, but they are attempting to train individuals within local LE's across the country, to understand and grasp the new digital crimes they are facing. I think to call Boz a liar is petty and childish and amatuer. Watch 20 years of trials, opening statments to closing arguments. You will see this trial doesn't differ any from the norm. If anything, this trial was exceedingly *polite* if you will. Far less theatrics than normally go on in the courtroom, from both sides. If you want to *fear* for anyone, 'fear for the victims', because they criminals 'out-gun' the good guys.' Fear for yourself or one of your family members being a victim of crime. It's far more likely for that to happen, than for you to be mistaken as a 'bad guy.' MOO MOO MOO Any maybe go back and familiarize yourself with some 'other' trials, to see how things work besides this trial and O.J. Familiarize yourself with the kinds of horrific crimes are being committed against our children, women, and the weakest members of our society. JMO

Not against Gracielee, but does anyone else see the irony in the parts I bolded and made red in the above comments as a whole?

Regarding the comment as a whole, we can't protect ourselves to a degree against ourselves that we cannot also enjoy freedom. Bad things happen, I wish they didn't, they do, and it has and will happen throughout the existence of humanity, unless we want to give up freedoms as a whole.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, February 1775

 

[gracielee]

Did you not see court video yesterday? They didn't have the money to pay experts. Additional funds were denied. There is your logical explanation for not using the other 2 experts that were on their list. Again JW and GM were both pro bono.

What I saw was the judge telling him 'this isn't the place nor time to discuss this issue.' Do you have a specific site to post where proper paperwork was presented to the court prior to trial to obtain funds for experts and that motion was denied???

 

[Danielle59]

I didn't think it was from the time the search warrant was served, I thought it was from the time the house was sealed, awaiting a search warrant to be obtained and served???

It was from the time the house was secured, at which time everything was in CPDs custody until the search warrant was served and then for an additional 12 or so hours after the search warrant was served the computer remained on. The total time it was in the custody of the CPD until it was turned off was 27 hours and the FBI was not even aware that the evidence had not been properly handled. The point being the CPD had custody of all the items from the time that they secured the house, anything disturbed or changed after that is on their hands.

 

[cityslick]

That makes more sense.

They didn't seal the house until after the body was found and identified, correct? July 15th late day?

The search warrant was issued July 16th, 2am. So I don't think there was a ton of time between sealing the house and getting a search warrant.