April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

Bottle Cap · Apr 30, 2011

If the computer was in the house, and the house was secured, isn't it reasonable to believe that the house's contents are secure too? Otherwise you could believe that CPD packed up the ducks, removed the sticks, put the necklace in a drawer, threw some shoes away, and ditched a router. Not that anyone believes that, but if the house can't be considered secure, then NO evidence is going to be worthy.

cityslick · Apr 30, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
It's not a matter of a "belief". I saw it with my own eyes. From the video, it looks like she doesn't have a chin either.

Everyone sees it differently. You can look at the picture and the video upside down and all around and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. You can't see the earrings either, so who knows if she's wearing those or not.

CrimeAddict · Apr 30, 2011

Danielle59 said:
Thank you, Otto, and I hope you don't mind if I make a couple of add ons and corrections in your post above, I will make mine red, so I don't have to do a bunch of retyping, yes, i am lazy this morning.

They also showed video of NC in HT on Friday July 11, spending money that she supposedly did not have that week, and also not wearing the necklace she NEVER took off.

One more thing, the Defense rested their case after a cumulative 4.5 days of testimony, now the Prosecution basiscally wants to go back to day one and start their case all over again pretending it is rebuttal testimony after having 8.2 weeks to present their original case. Boz has been manipulating the truth to sway the Judge. They also want their new witness to testify on things that they previously said an expert was needed to testify on, but because it is this mans job in part, Pros feels that is ok, but they didn't feel it was ok when it was JWs job to discuss the same thing.

Pros objected to delaying the trial in Feb because they were ready to present their case, but it seems now that they were not.

IMO that is speculation. We don't know if he gave her 20 bucks or so to tide her over and get ribs for the party. I did notice she did not buy much at the store.

Cheyenne130 · Apr 30, 2011

cityslick said:
I came up with that because I was thinking of the OJ case and how a big deal was made of the blood/dna sample kept in a jacket pocket for some time (meaning it wasn't properly handled).

In a computer sense, can you make the argument that the computer wasn't properly 'handled' after it was secured by LE?

If their expert could get on the stand and say that this file was dropped on the computer on X day at Y time, I would say there was tampering. What their expert talked about more than anything else was "spoilage" and that had to do with the fact that the computer was left on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served. He also critisized them putting the computer in a locked lab instead of an evidence storage room. I didn't hear him testify to any google map being added or times changed during his testimony (outside the presence of the jury) the other day.

cityslick · Apr 30, 2011

Bottle Cap said:
If the computer was in the house, and the house was secured, isn't it reasonable to believe that the house's contents are secure too? Otherwise you could believe that CPD packed up the ducks, removed the sticks, put the necklace in a drawer, threw some shoes away, and ditched a router. Not that anyone believes that, but if the house can't be considered secure, then NO evidence is going to be worthy.

Did we ever hear an explanation why it took CPD 27 hours to get Det. Ice there to get the computers after the house was secured?

Bottle Cap · Apr 30, 2011

cityslick said:
Did we ever hear an explanation why it took CPD 27 hours to get Det. Ice there to get the computers after the house was secured?

Not that I recall. I wasn't even sure the computer was there for 27 hours, or if part of that was in transit or what. My brain can't retain all these zillions of details.

Cheyenne130 · Apr 30, 2011

cityslick said:
Everyone sees it differently. You can look at the picture and the video upside down and all around and there is no conclusive proof one way or the other. You can't see the earrings either, so who knows if she's wearing those or not.

But you can most definitely see that necklace in the photo enhanced by otto. I agree you can't see it in that grainy video taken from a distance. Perhaps the pros. will clear this up in rebuttal.

momof7 · Apr 30, 2011

Bottle Cap, I agree with your issue re: the Defense and JW testimony. Especially if it is true JW asserted to the Defense he was not a forensic expert before he even came to testify. I am still dumbfounded that they did not look for a forensic expert to bolster their side of the testimony. The only logical thought I can process there is that there wasn't anyone willing to say the evidence was incorrect or altered. There was no one willing to go out on that limb. As with so much of the trail, everytime I think a point has been made by the attorneys, something more is brought out that just throws it back in the mixing pot. I am not a lawyer though, and with everything so far, it feels like we are seeing a chess game, one upmanship type thing. Something along the lines of 'Oh yeah, so ya found the ducks, well guess what WE found the router'. I just had a different idea of what I 'thought' would go on in court. And Boz, coming right out and saying the information makes them look like liars. My only thought there is we have had to infer so much why not let the jury decide that too IMHO.

There is a human side of this whole trail, the he-said/she-said that really bogs down what the heart of the matter is. I still hold firm to my conviction, without additional testimony/rebuttal/closing arguments being heard yet, that this jury decision will come down to the computer/spoof call testimony and what they believe is the correct answer. If FD and JF are correct, there is at least one juror who is possibly able to decode the information the others are unsure of. The only problem is, which way does that juror see it and what information will they need to decide if it was possibly tampering or BC was an expert in changing and clouding the waters to make it look like he didn't do it. I will be glad to hear the rest and see if either Def/Pros can turn that information into 'proof' of either.

I guess, IMHO and my feelings and thoughts only, I am still stuck on how things will play out. As Gritguy pointed out, who knows what the jury will decide in the end, the note though is telling of how they are feeling about the length of the trail. I hope they are still paying attention.

I also wanted to mention, I noticed on another thread (I believe thurs?) there was discussion on BC getting the children back if he is NG etc. IMHO, even if he is found NG, his life is ruined. Cisco won't take him back so that employment is out. His field deals with technology, I can't imagine that there isn't a 'taint' on his employment in any field. Similar to the OJ scenario, he pretty much will be forever the guy who probably murdered his wife and got away with it if there is a NG verdict. IIRC, Nicole's family retained custody of those children along with a verdict in the civil action along with RG's family. BC, IMHO, will never live with or have custody of his children ever again.

Kelly

Danielle59 · Apr 30, 2011

Bottle Cap said:
I don't so much fault BZ for what he's doing. He's playing the game. If his job is to win this case and evidence has come to light that will rebut JW's testimony and clear up speculation about routers, then IMO he'd be remiss not to try to get it in. He works for the DA's office - from a professional standpoint, he's not going to sit on knowledge that could potentially put a murderer behind bars because he wants to be nice. What sort of DA does that? Somebody else put it like this - it's a murder trial, not a tea party. I daresay that if the defense had something very suddenly that proved BC innocent from a source they'd been working with for a while, they'd be doing whatever it took in an effort to get it in. Whether they were successful or not, you'd have to give them credit for trying to expose the truth. If you have to be mad at someone, shouldn't you be mad at the Cisco folks for not getting on the ball a little faster with the Feb court order?

The other issue is that the defense had every opportunity to put someone besides JW on the stand, knowing his ability to testify was limited. They chose to do it anyway. If they'd put somebody up who could testify on forensic issues, possibly a lot of this would seem "fairer". I put fair in quotes, because nobody made the defense choose JW. For that matter, if BZ hadn't tried to discredit him, he wouldn't have been doing his job. The FB page was relevant with regard to conspiracy theories - I think the prosecution has addressed the existence of wacky conspiracy theories in an abstract way, instead of head on - the JW FB page and MH's squirmy testimony being a prime example.

I am not sure if you are a US citizen, or where you went to school, but in the civics classes I had when a person's life and livelihood are on the line it is not a game and it is not about the State winning as much as it is supposed to be about Justice. That means that the ADA should not be obfuscating the truth to the Judge when he wants to get something into evidence, and he should not be making unethical comments as he did yesterday in court. I really hope that he is brought before the bar for some of his actions and statements in this case.

I am all for justice, and putting a murderer in jail, if they have properly investigated, and it is the right person. What I am not for is manipulation of justice to "win the game," overtly biased Judges, and the treading on of people's rights, last I knew the government still worked for the people, not the other way around. Just like the National Security issues precluding examination of evidence that the State has brought forward in this trial, that, I bet, is really going to have some repercussions down the line. Basically, it is the State saying, we have evidence against you, we can't show it to you, just trust us that it is against you. That really feels like some Communist or Facist ruled country to me, and I don't believe that is what the USA is about.

The State had a chance to delay this trial until they had all the evidence in, they objected to that delay saying they had everything they needed. Cisco is not the problem here, the State is the one that seems to have rushed to judgement and then thought later that maybe they should do a bit of real investigating.

The Defense should have been allowed to bring in their expert this week. That is if you truly believe what you have said about justice and finding the truth. The conspiracy theories on JWs FB page was ridiculous, BZ did not discreit the relevant testimony at all, he attacked the person. MH was not squirmy. You are a BDI person, I am not a BDI person, or a a person that thinks BC is innocent, I am about justice and there has been none in this case. What did they really put him in jail for 2.5 years ago? Missing ducks that weren't missing, a necklace she never supposedly took off that we now found out she did, or was it one of the other totally broken theories of the State? We were told it was some FBI computer technology that was presented before the GJ, now we find out that the FBI did not even look critically at the computer evidence until after he was arrested. Maybe it is fine with you to be lied to by our government, maybe it makes some feel safer, it doesn't make me feel that way.

Danielle59 · Apr 30, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
Yes. When the police served the search warrant the computer was in the home office connected to the docking station. It was locked with a password but was still connected to the network and to the Cisco VPN. The agents charged with securing computer evidence did not arrive until the following evening, 27 hours later. They also did not follow proper protocol in aquiring the RAM before powering down but it was taken off the network at that time. That's my understanding of the timeline.

We don't know when the CPD secured the house if the laptop was PW protected, we only know that it is was later. We also know that the FBI agent didn't know that the laptop had not been properly secured as it was supposed to have been, that means powering it down as soon as the house was secured amongst other things. We do know that supposedly the CPD couldn't turn it off for 27 hours due to the possibility of corrupting data, which we now know that corruption happened after the CPD took possession. They won't tell us why the 27th hour was the magic hour. We also know the CPD totally corrupted other electonics, NC's blackberry.

momof7 · Apr 30, 2011

Danielle59 said:
I am all for justice, and putting a murderer in jail, if they have properly investigated, and it is the right person. What I am not for is manipulation of justice to "win the game," overtly biased Judges, and the treading on of people's rights, last I knew the government still worked for the people, not the other way around. Just like the National Security issues precluding examination of evidence that the State has brought forward in this trial, that, I bet, is really going to have some repercussions down the line. Basically, it is the State saying, we have evidence against you, we can't show it to you, just trust us that it is against you.

I agree with this, I can not, IMHO, believe that it is right/legal for evidence to be entered that can not be rebutted/refuted by the Defense. I also believe, as you do, down the line this is one that will have repercussions. If, IMHO, the only way to recreate the google testimony was by using tools/technology that couldn't be shown due to National Security Issues, they should not have been allowed until it shown to be unbiased or legal. That is a big sticking point for me. I am also of the mind, if we allow this type of thing to happen, where exactly is the justice? Where does it really end? Again, just my thoughts.

Kelly

Click to expand...

Danielle59 · Apr 30, 2011

CrimeAddict said:
IMO that is speculation. We don't know if he gave her 20 bucks or so to tide her over and get ribs for the party. I did notice she did not buy much at the store.

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?

momof7 · Apr 30, 2011

Danielle59 said:
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?

For some reason, I was thinking she had some money due to her family giving her money from the beach vacation. Regardless, it does refute some testimony she had NO money because BC wouldn't give her the allowance. Either way, its just more smoke and mirrors for me. Unless BC gets on the stand and says he did or didn't give her something, or she had some left over from the trip who is really to know?

Cheyenne130 · Apr 30, 2011

I'm not positive of the timeline but I believe in the deposition that Brad said Nancy had left money for him on the foyer table in order to pay him back for paint used at JA's house. I guess I just assumed that she was using the money she got from painting to pay for those items.

momof7 · Apr 30, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
I'm not positive of the timeline but I believe in the deposition that Brad said Nancy had left money for him on the foyer table in order to pay him back for paint used at JA's house. I guess I just assumed that she was using the money she got from painting to pay for those items.

And that is a very plausible explanation at this point, the painting money has been confusing to me as well. So, yes, that could be something to base an assumption on IMHO.

Kelly

momof7 · Apr 30, 2011

ncsu95 said:
She didn't find any of them. BC gave her the phone. The necklace was in a drawer in the house with jewelry. And the ducks were boxed up in the house and his custody attorney told Mrs. C. that she still had them.

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

Thanks!

sunshine05 · Apr 30, 2011

momof7 said:
Bottle Cap, I agree with your issue re: the Defense and JW testimony. Especially if it is true JW asserted to the Defense he was not a forensic expert before he even came to testify. I am still dumbfounded that they did not look for a forensic expert to bolster their side of the testimony. The only logical thought I can process there is that there wasn't anyone willing to say the evidence was incorrect or altered. There was no one willing to go out on that limb. As with so much of the trail, everytime I think a point has been made by the attorneys, something more is brought out that just throws it back in the mixing pot. I am not a lawyer though, and with everything so far, it feels like we are seeing a chess game, one upmanship type thing. Something along the lines of 'Oh yeah, so ya found the ducks, well guess what WE found the router'. I just had a different idea of what I 'thought' would go on in court. And Boz, coming right out and saying the information makes them look like liars. My only thought there is we have had to infer so much why not let the jury decide that too IMHO.

There is a human side of this whole trail, the he-said/she-said that really bogs down what the heart of the matter is. I still hold firm to my conviction, without additional testimony/rebuttal/closing arguments being heard yet, that this jury decision will come down to the computer/spoof call testimony and what they believe is the correct answer. If FD and JF are correct, there is at least one juror who is possibly able to decode the information the others are unsure of. The only problem is, which way does that juror see it and what information will they need to decide if it was possibly tampering or BC was an expert in changing and clouding the waters to make it look like he didn't do it. I will be glad to hear the rest and see if either Def/Pros can turn that information into 'proof' of either.

I guess, IMHO and my feelings and thoughts only, I am still stuck on how things will play out. As Gritguy pointed out, who knows what the jury will decide in the end, the note though is telling of how they are feeling about the length of the trail. I hope they are still paying attention.

I also wanted to mention, I noticed on another thread (I believe thurs?) there was discussion on BC getting the children back if he is NG etc. IMHO, even if he is found NG, his life is ruined. Cisco won't take him back so that employment is out. His field deals with technology, I can't imagine that there isn't a 'taint' on his employment in any field. Similar to the OJ scenario, he pretty much will be forever the guy who probably murdered his wife and got away with it if there is a NG verdict. IIRC, Nicole's family retained custody of those children along with a verdict in the civil action along with RG's family. BC, IMHO, will never live with or have custody of his children ever again.

Kelly

I think the reason they wanted JW to testify versus a "forensics" guy is because they needed the security expertise more than the forensic component in this situation - showing intrusions occurred on the computer. JW was the right choice because he did have at least *some* forensics knowledge and a great deal of expertise in network/computer security and analysis of data logs. Even GM confirmed his evaluations as accurate. ( GM is the forensic examiner who testified without the jury only as an offer of proof.) And he also said that typically the forensic examiner takes the reports generated BY the network security expert and examines them as part of the exam/investigation. So there are two components to this. BZ's protests about needing a forensics expert to examine logs was wrong from the start. JW was quite qualified to discuss ALL the computer logs. It is what he does. So now the rules have changed due to Boz once again tricking JG. (Bringing in CF to report on logs with NO expertise whatsoever in forensics.)

Another thing I found interesting is that defense asked for information on router logs and event logs in their February motion, recognizing the importance of having ALL pertinent information. Now they have to go over a great deal of new information in a very short amount of time because it JUST surfaced.

GhostCrab · Apr 30, 2011

momof7 said:
So, in other words, she was the link to all the missing items. Not necessarily found them but knew where they were?

Thanks!

No one even knew the ducks were "missing" until after the trial started and it became known that they were such an important part of the state's narrative. Keep in mind, Mrs. C didn't offer up anything in the house to the civil attorney until AFTER the police were done with it. They could have easily found the ducks themselves had they opened some boxes.

momof7 · Apr 30, 2011

sunshine05 said:
I think the reason they wanted JW to testify versus a "forensics" guy is because they needed the security expertise more than the forensic component in this situation - showing intrusions occurred on the computer. JW was the right choice because he did have at least *some* forensics knowledge and a great deal of expertise in network/computer security and analysis of data logs. Even GM confirmed his evaluations as accurate. ( GM is the forensic examiner who testified without the jury only as an offer of proof.) And he also said that typically the forensic examiner takes the reports generated BY the network security expert and examines them as part of the exam/investigation. So there are two components to this. BZ's protests about needing a forensics expert to examine logs was wrong from the start. JW was quite qualified to discuss ALL the computer logs. It is what he does. So now the rules have changed due to Boz once again tricking JG. (Bringing in CF to report on logs with NO expertise whatsoever in forensics.)

Another thing I found interesting is that defense asked for information on router logs and event logs in their February motion, recognizing the importance of having ALL pertinent information. Now they have to go over a great deal of new information in a very short amount of time because it JUST surfaced.

This makes absolute sense to me. You would think the 'how' the information could have gotten there would definitely preclude the 'what' that evidence is.

Thank you Sunshine05!

momof7 · Apr 30, 2011

GhostCrab said:
No one even knew the ducks were "missing" until after the trial started and it became known that they were such an important part of the state's narrative. Keep in mind, Mrs. C didn't offer up anything in the house to the civil attorney until AFTER the police were done with it. They could have easily found the ducks themselves had they opened some boxes.

Yes, I do believe that did see a news clip showing the moving truck and the items being taken out of the house. Knowing that CPD did not do as 'thorough' an investigation of that house as they could have. Just makes things a bit murkier. CPD says they did everything possible to follow every lead, searched and searched and the DA built their case around all of this.

I can only hope AL is in the process of rewriting her book. Doesn't seem like the ending she has planned, if the cover of that book remains the same, is likely to happen IMHO

April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics