2011.05.03 - Day Seven of the Trial - Handwriting expert

[who knew?]

So... We all know that the defense has "so far" looked like they have nothing. This isn't typical. Typically they sling some fairly clever/oddball (and devious and BS) stuff in the ring to make people's heads spin. Well, this defense has not done that so far. Everything put forth has sounded like tripe, easily blown out of the water, like a dodo thought it up.

I think what Nick might be saying is that O'Gara has meant to look like he had nothing for the defense up to this point, but that he will soon blow us all out of the water with some Columbo stuff, i.e. really reasonable finds to create really reasonable doubt and entice some jurors.

Okay...so they are going to match that partial print (which could be a toy mark) to Keith Coleman's shoe maybe? They are going to have Keith say that he actually did break into the house through the back window one day and that it could be done? They are going to produce text from Keith's computer from before the murders that show that he too started his sentences with a "U" and ended it with all caps "AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE?" They are going to show that he too misspelled the word "oppurtunity?" Maybe they have actually thought of some real good chess moves (not like the latter)?

I have little respect for anyone that would defend a person they KNOW did the murders, but defense attorneys generally have higher IQs than their clients and can generally come up with something to throw into the ring. We have seen nothing yet. My guess is that we are going to see O'Gara earn his money sometime soon.

Be ready gang, we're going to want to diffuse the stuff. You never know when a prosecutor could be reading and could use a few other good brains to call a red herring when they see one and blow it up with fact.

O'Gara didn't get to where he was without having something going for him. We certainly haven't seen anything yet, but maybe we are about to see something.

This is why I'm so nervous. And also, they have the linguist doing a stand-up comic routine. I wish he would have chosen a different place to have his nervous breakdown.

I always think back to the OJ trial - his attorneys knew he was guilty but they got him off with a bunch of trash. Some attorneys can be as evil as their clients.

If Chris gets off, his attorney is as evil as he is. I just hope the jurors have the "umph" to stand up for what they believe and don't allow someone to lead them off the path.

 

[Knox]

I can't imagine the jury having difficulty determining Chris's guilt, seems very clear cut to me.

Did we ever hear details about the jury composition?

 

[Knox]

So...what were the unrecognizable symbols found spray painted on the sheets of the one child's bed? Did someone figure that out yet, or was Chris running out of paint at the time?

Good question Wrinkles!

 

[Brian5671]

I can't imagine the jury having difficulty determining Chris's guilt, seems very clear cut to me.

Did we ever hear details about the jury composition?

10 women and 2 men...4 alternates, all men....even if the linguist is a bust, there's still too much for CC to overcome in my opinion...

 

[Wrinkles]

I would be very interested to hear the linguists testimony. I felt sure that the defense would try to make him some type of laughing stock bringing up his performances years ago. The man "is" an expert, he knows what he is talking about, all he has to do is to put the important points in an understandable way before a jury which may or may not be prepared to hear a "professor" speak. Common language sir.

I don't know what this comment in twitter means:

>>Prosecutor: "we need linguistic talk, not psycho talk"<<

My 11 year old grandson is here... I feel sure that if I produced 5 documents written by one person, and 5 documents written by another, then finally a 6th document and asked, "Which of these 2 people wrote this 6th document" he would be able to call it out immediately.

U know what I MEAN? U know who had the OPPURTUNITY.

 

[Wrinkles]

I think that giving the jury a chance to look at the facts and let them come to their own conclusion could be helpful too.

Here are writings by Chris, here are writings by Wrinkles. Who wrote this threat email?

 

[who knew?]

I don't know what this comment in twitter means:

>>Prosecutor: "we need linguistic talk, not psycho talk"<<

I think it has to do with the Woodstock/acid conversation he felt inclined to talk about. But who knows?

You think they are not bringing up the evidence they found along the road, etc, because of overkill? Or is their a reason they can't. Do they think it would be turned against them on cross exam?

 

[Brian5671]

I think it has to do with the Woodstock/acid conversation he felt inclined to talk about. But who knows?

You think they are not bringing up the evidence they found along the road, etc, because of overkill? Or is their a reason they can't. Do they think it would be turned against them on cross exam?

-
must not have amounted to anything-otherwise I'm sure they would have presented it....

 

[laniefi]

Oh I get it...a phantom really did log in to Chris' computer and Chris knew it, and he was trying to trace them so that he could find out where they were located and catch them. He found a keystroke recorder on his laptop at one time, just prior to the gmail account being created -- that keystroke recorder proves that the Phantom knew just how to mimic Chris' writing because all of it had been cobbled from past emails that Chris wrote in the past.

The contortions are about to hit. If they are going to try to use techy stuff to blow this up, then the prosecution needs to have their techy think tank on hand to prove that the herrings are easily blown up.

They must blow up that which the prosecution has set up... They must try to prove that someone could get into the house through that window or otherwise (maybe through the chimney?), they must try to prove that Keith or Tara could have been there that day (they have to match the herrings don't they?), they have to match the possible shoe print with someone's shoe (maybe they found one that would match?), they have to prove that someone could easily have mimicked all of Chris' linquistic things, what else?

They have to prove that Chris lied, that he wasn't at the house that night? That wasn't him driving the car out of the driveway that morning to go to the gym or him using that phone? That Keith was actually at the house, or Brad?

Don't worry wrinkles - a key stroke logger program requires installation and will show what account it was installed under - if this idiot setup the gmail account on his own dam laptop - knocking this out should be a breeze for the techies....

 

[ynotdivein]

I thought the DVR face they found along the bridge was the same brand as what CC apparently had, and that the glove reportedly had red paint on it. But maybe the prosecution didn't get fingerprints off the DVR? Maybe the glove didn't have red paint?

Maybe the prosecution decided that the computer forensics were compelling enough on their own and decided not to introduce "iffy" stuff? I just dunno. :waitasec:

 

[who knew?]

I thought the DVR face they found along the bridge was the same brand as what CC apparently had, and that the glove reportedly had red paint on it. But maybe the prosecution didn't get fingerprints off the DVR? Maybe the glove didn't have red paint?

Maybe the prosecution decided that the computer forensics were compelling enough on their own and decided not to introduce "iffy" stuff? I just dunno. :waitasec:

Didn't they say there was dna inside the glove they found? (Skin cells would have been in the glove.) I guess Chris would have cleaned the faceplate of fingerprints before tossing it. I can't remember everything they found - but seems there were several things. I've been surprised about some of the things they haven't mentioned: mortgage, credit card, red paint receipt... I guess those are all things that could have other explanations so they won't use them and "mud" up the case. Or maybe they don't want to give the defense anything they could argue against. What they have presented so far is black and white - a picture/video is irrefutable for the most part. The defense may not actually have a lot to use and were depending on all the prosecution "extras" which they could use on cross to dispute. It's gonna be interesting - but I'm anxious for the verdict.

News is sure coming out slow. Wonder if the pros has rested and the def begun - or if the def will wait til tomorrow.......... wish someone would tweet, tweet, tweet.....

 

[Wrinkles]

Oh I get it...

The linguist has such powerful information that O'Gara has to try to make him look like a freak.

So he picks his brain about acid, yeah...the guy became a professor and knows Swahili because he took acid and it torched his brain...

So then the linguist mentions the doom and gloom in the threats, but that hurts the defense's case so the defense throws out, "That sounds like psycho talk" as if the professor is the one that is the psycho.

Hello, the psycho is sitting at your table MR OGARA (sorry about the all caps and underuse of the apostrophe)

 

[who knew?]

Wow - ask and you shall receive. The tweets are coming in. Pros has one more witness and he's taking the stand!

 

[Wrinkles]

Let's look at some of the linguistic issues again:

"U" in place of "You"

All caps at the end of a SENTENCE

Apostrophe reversal...
instead of: don't won't doesn't
Chris writes: dont' wont' doesnt'

Fused spelling:
Instead of: set up or some time or good time
Chris writes: setup or sometime or goodtime

Ah... and "Leonard said in order to determine how rare these notions are, he compared them to databases such as Google."

WOAH! He used the Google database to see how rare such errors are... The apostrophe issue, I don't know that I have EVER seen such reversal.

 

[who knew?]

ChrisHayesTV Chris Hayes
#colemantrial police say Coleman bought Rustoleum Apple Red spray paint Feb 9, '09 @ Handyman True Value for $3.70-same brand used @ murders

ChrisHayesTV Chris Hayes
#colemantrial police say they ruled out Coleman's bro as suspect after seeing him on surveil. @ Arkansas Wal-Mart the night before @fox2now

 

[Wrinkles]

I like this from the linguistics Prof:

>>Linguistic professor said of finding fused spellings and apostrophe reversals: "for us it's the same as finding a fiber or drop oif blood"<<

The above is written on Pistor's twitter.

 

[Brian5671]

wonder what motive Keith Coleman would have to wipe out his brother's family--seems like a ludicrous idea, but perhaps all the defense has and of course they need family DNA so gotta go with the brother.

 

[ynotdivein]

Keith has a firm alibi. Tara has a firm alibi.

Only CC, who texted Tara not to worry, that he had an alibi.... does NOT have an alibi.

(OT but "alibi" is one of those words that if you write/say it too much, it just starts to sound wrong. Like George Carlin said about "yogurt.")

 

[Brian5671]

CC is toast. I can see why they saved the linguist to the end...

 

[ynotdivein]

So... defense should be able to start this afternoon, and if they need only a half-day, that leaves tomorrow for closing arguments and start of jury deliberation. Sha-Na-Na aside, I do think the 5th looks good for a verdict.