April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[otto]

I suppose we should have a weekend thread before the comments get lost in two threads.

Bringing over a couple of comments from the last thread ... thanks to Johnfear who attended the trial on Friday:

Yes, I can go over what was said today (and previously) and compare and contrast.

(Pardon my BOZ commentary)

Basically, Cisco has discovered that they can indeed relate the machine codes back to individual components (conveniently) by date.

Problems (IMO): This is a "new" follow up (primarily to CYA on things come to light per this case, but, honestly, coupled with previous misconceptions within the company). They are putting CFry into an impossible position and a "hero" role. Unfair? Yes. They are going to lump (onto three people's backs) a very heavy burden in relying on some "scrabbled together" information.

Why is this a problem: 1) The spoilage/unknown issue is the biggest. Some of this evidence is invalid because it's invalid. It CAN NOT be used in the search for the truth. 2) It's new data and if the trial were in six months would be perfectly valid and tested, but is not currently because it has not withstood any level of errors. 3) It feels contrived because of the timing/wave it is riding and it comes on the heels of Boz being a self-righteous d__k about a lot of the other evidence and showing it in his cross. 4) It contradicts DD and CF in previous testimony to what means? Rebuttal means or new evidence means? We are saying what here? 5) This information is suspect by timing, spoilage AND inventory controls. Now we also have to deal with a new expert witness who can convolute this further OR we can accept it in light of numerous other missteps in the prosecution's case that have literally been "sponged" or had numerous holes poked in it.

The BIGGEST problem is this: We are going to rely on information from a potentially "spoiled" piece of evidence (the IBM Thinkpad's hard drive) to bolster a VERY weak CE case and say: Here's one more piece of the poison fruit from a (now) poison tree to sink your teeth into. Why is this a problem? Because you want me to see a router in a forest of routers that is "missing" and unaccounted for. (But, Johnfear, this could be the "truth" and that would show _________________ and that BC did ____________.) Unless this router is shown to be in existence until the moment the call is spoofed and then never heard from again, it is completely irrelevant. It is a tree in a forest where we've decided to count trees recently and it is lost on the case-in-chief and irregardless of the outcome, we do NOT preserve the tree, we preserve the underlying FOREST legally and move on.)

Why is all of this suspect? Because Boz and BC have one thing in common. They lie to preserve their lies. I liked Boz for about ten minutes early on. Then I saw him cross ineffectively. Then I saw him intentionally confuse Gessner. At that moment (and today) I decided I don't trust him on this case. Had it been Cummings. Even with Cummings saying exactly what I said above, it would be 10000 times the evidence that I needed. Boz saying it = last ditch effort and we know we are losing. Cummings saying it (after the ducks) = "Your Honor, this is the truth, and I understand it LESS than you, but, it's the truth".

The Cfry timing is not only suspect based on timing, it is also very scheme/map oriented. He's a witness who JUST HAPPENS to go digging and find the information on the eve of deliberations (calculate this odds and stop at a GOOGLE) it is suspect based on the source of the information and the heels of the "we don't have time to prepare for cross" complaints. Again, BOZ.

Boz needs to be ejected from the courtroom at this point. (Look at some of his weaker crosses and the behavior I consider to be OVER-THE-LINE lying and obfuscating.)

Cummings and Fitzhugh can carry this out in a fair manner. Boz just lies to Gessner thinking: (I'ma be a twitter-loving, myspace condemning judge some day soon)

CFRY basically is saying (This information ain't gone be ready, so I be coming back when it be ready. Cause then it's ready. This is not rebuttal. It's buying the Pros five days or six days to finish "exams' and cobble together a rebuttal around it when they should have gone along with the stay in Feb., presented the case to Cisco and CTF and THEN presented a case-in-chief.)

You ain't gonna hide behind national security on this one. And GM, witness or not, will have the cross prepped to tear it apart as "spoiled" evidence (via Trenkle, I'd wager) and you lose the case on the merits you introduced.

There may be something for the re-trial on these logs. Save it for the retrial. Cut your loses and move on.

By the way, my rankle on this has NOTHING to do with guilt or innocence as this point.

It's about two things. 1) Fair trials and 2) due process versus "crap a waffle house platter of spaghetti on the wall post-case-in-chief" and see if noodles fall down. I actually liked Boz until the first time he lied to Gessner and exploited the judge trying to see things simply.

ETA: For the BDI side of the fence, you should be angry at this. Why? Because a win has been contaminated by "spoliage" and leaving reasonable doubt on the table by saying: Oh, we got a grand jury indictment on a "gut feeling" and we crammed as much in to confuse the jury to secure a win because "that is justice" and we don't care if it ruins future cases by locking this case into 10 years of appeals.

And prepare yourself for the lamest excuse ever by a prosecution: Oh, your honor, the defense had this for like 2.5 years now. We just didn't know the "right questions" to ask to illicit the answers we wanted to hear. And we know you would totally disallow that if a defense attorney asked it, but come on, ummm, we're the prosecution. The law doesn't apply to us, or the Cary PD. This is an instance of national security and ummmm, new technology. You knowhatImsayin?

So even if the prosecution can connect the router with Brad on the evening of July 11, we still have problems like the following. Even though this particular expert was not allowed to testify, maybe someone else will present the same evidence.

Ref: WRAL video feed Thursday (might have been Wed).

 

[otto]

Bringing this to the top of the list ...

 

[cassius]

perhaps boz is opening the door for JG to allow GM to now testify as a rebuttal witness. JG is in a precarious position. He's allowing in new evidence through an expert witness and would seemingly need to all rebuttal by way of an expert witness. It seems if this information was found on the Thinkpad, Boz is opening up that whole can of worms again. The only problem, however, is that JG is deathly afraid of worms.

 

[momof7]

Wow..so much has gone on this week, I may never catch up. The new router/spoofing call information looks interesting, though I find it odd that it is delivered so late in the game. You would think this little piece of information would have been one of the important things you investigate BEFORE the trail starts.

And before I get back to sorting out this whole week, am I correct that BC's mom found the cell phone, the necklace AND THE DUCKS???? Very strange.

Kelly

 

[otto]

perhaps boz is opening the door for JG to allow GM to now testify as a rebuttal witness. JG is in a precarious position. He's allowing in new evidence through an expert witness and would seemingly need to all rebuttal by way of an expert witness. It seems if this information was found on the Thinkpad, Boz is opening up that whole can of worms again. The only problem, however, is that JG is deathly afraid of worms.

The expert that was heard on Thursday for appelate purposes had only examined a small portion of the evidence. Perhaps he should be allowed to testify for both parties. That can of worms could go either way.

 

[otto]

Wow..so much has gone on this week, I may never catch up. The new router/spoofing call information looks interesting, though I find it odd that it is delivered so late in the game. You would think this little piece of information would have been one of the important things you investigate BEFORE the trail starts.

And before I get back to sorting out this whole week, am I correct that BC's mom found the cell phone, the necklace AND THE DUCKS???? Very strange.

Kelly

According to testimony, she found the necklace in the front foyer and thought it might get lost so near to the front door, so she moved it to a drawer in the room where she was staying. I heard earlier that the neckace was found in Brad's desk. Was Brad's mother keeping her sweaters in his desk? Where was it found? I thought she stated that it was found under her sweater.

The ducks were in a box and his mother saw them in the box. In November, when Brad was arrested, half the house was packed up (in part from the time when Nancy was alive) and Brad's mom had continued packing up the house. When Brad was arrested, she simlply handed everything over to the attorneys, including vehicles. Police had control to search the house and contents of the boxes in the house before it was released to attorneys. After the trial started, Brad's mom was having dinner with a woman that hosted her at some time. She mentioned all the Court Duck Talk. It turned out one of the attorneys at dinner had the ducks in her office. They were then entered into evidence. She took a couple of momentos before leaving, but she basically walked away from responsibility for packing up the house and all contents. She had no idea that the ducks were important until days into the trial, at which time she notified her son's lawyer. Through disclosure, the prosecution knew about the ducks from April 6 on.

Router spoofing comes down timeline problems, to a corrupt computer with backdoor malware and a wiped cell phone, the latter of which inadvertently occured while the electronics were in police custody. Is Brad that good? Did he leave a map of the drainage ditch on his computer before he went there, but he's so good he can remotely delete and mess with files? Probably.

Interesting week with another suppressed witness. He was qualified, but it was debated whether his testimony was necessary in the trial. The prosecution had not yet introduced evidence that this expert would address. He was put into the appelate record, and then the prosecution introduced new evidence that the appelate expert was qualified to address. The judge is allowing the witness, and the defense can rebut even though both sides have rested. I suppose it's like a mini Series 2 of the trial electronics.

The expert proposed by defense had only reviewed a fraction of the computer records, but if he's an expert, he could go either way. The judge should suggest that this expertise be accepted by both parties. It could go either way.

 

[otto]

Trying to keep all the comments in one place so Friday's trial discussion doesn't get mixed with the weekend speculations.

I think you underestimate Joe Public...most are very savvy to what is going on..JMO

Thank you for your posts, and I think four of us on these boards saw that and said basically the same thing, you were in the court and came back with the same. Thank you!

 

[momof7]

Thank you Otto for that synopsis! Helps a great deal. It has been an interesting week it appears. From the surface it appears that nothing has been confirmed that BC DID or DID NOT spoof the calls? The rebuttal phase and closing arguments will be very interesting in this trial. I hope that I have the opportunity to listen live.

With what little I have been able to actually get into it still sounds like it could go just about any which way, G, NG or hung jury. I would imagine, at this point, a lot depends on those closing arguments, tying things together, and of course, what can of worms the new expert brings to the mix.

Thanks again for keeping me in the loop!

Kelly

 

[Cheyenne130]

If I'm understanding this correctly, what some are saying here is that because the police left the computer on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served any evidence found on the computer should be thrown out because of "spoilage"? I can't say that I would be able to accept that if I was on the jury.

 

[Danielle59]

According to testimony, she found the necklace in the front foyer (I seem to have heard in a box on the foyer table - may be one of those decorative ones, I have one of those where I put my keys on my foyer table) and thought it might get lost so near to the front door (with so many people in and out and driving by in curiosity but with the front door open so often), so she moved it to a drawer in the room where she was staying. I heard earlier that the neckace was found in Brad's desk (I never heard this, just that it was ultimately found in the guest room bedroom drawer where his mother was staying). Was Brad's mother keeping her sweaters in his desk (She was staying in the guest room)? Where was it found? I thought she stated that it was found under her sweater.

The ducks were in a box and his mother saw them in the box. In November, (after BC was arrested in October) when Brad was arrested, half the house was packed up (in part from the time when Nancy was alive) and Brad's mom had continued packing up the house. When Brad was arrested, she simlply handed everything over to the attorneys, including vehicles. Police had control to search the house and contents of the boxes in the house before it was released to attorneys. After the trial started, Brad's mom was having dinner with a woman (the Custody Attorney) that hosted her at some time. She mentioned all the Court Duck Talk. It turned out one of the attorneys (the Custody Attorney) at dinner had the ducks in her office. They were then entered into evidence. She took a couple of momentos before leaving, but she basically walked away from responsibility for packing up the house and all contents. She had no idea that the ducks were important until days into the trial, at which time she notified her son's lawyer. Through disclosure, the prosecution knew about the ducks from April 6 on. (Cummings was mad and grilled Mrs. C about why she did not tell the prosecution about the ducks in 2008, Mrs. C said she didn't know they were important until trial, Cummings said, in open court, that Mrs. C made all his witnesses look like liars - WRAL has been kind enough to put just that part on a video excerpt for us http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9510364/#/vid9510364 - I can see that on TruTV in the future as the most inane thing a prosecutor can do, call his own witnesses liars in open court)

Router spoofing comes down timeline problems, to a corrupt computer with backdoor malware and a wiped cell phone, the latter of which inadvertently occured while the electronics were in police custody. Is Brad that good? Did he leave a map of the drainage ditch on his computer before he went there, but he's so good he can remotely delete and mess with files? Probably. (unlikely imo)

Interesting week with another suppressed witness. He was qualified, but it was debated whether his testimony was necessary in the trial. The prosecution had not yet introduced evidence that this expert would address. He was put into the appelate record, and then the prosecution introduced new evidence that the appelate expert was qualified to address. The judge is allowing the witness, and the defense can rebut even though both sides have rested. I suppose it's like a mini Series 2 of the trial electronics.

The expert proposed by defense had only reviewed a fraction of the computer records, but if he's an expert, he could go either way. The judge should suggest that this expertise be accepted by both parties. It could go either way.

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.

 

[cityslick]

If I'm understanding this correctly, what some are saying here is that because the police left the computer on for 27 hours after the search warrant was served any evidence found on the computer should be thrown out because of "spoilage"? I can't say that I would be able to accept that if I was on the jury.

Not that's it's really similar, but what if an analogy can be made, like what if a DNA sample was left in an unsecured/unsterile lab for 27 hours. Would you consider that sample to have 'spoilage'?

I'm not arguing that it's spoiled either, just throwing the thought out there.

 

[Cheyenne130]

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.

Since you brought it up, she WAS wearing the necklace. Otto showed it in her photo enhancement.

 

[Bottle Cap]

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.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Not that's it's really similar, but what if an analogy can be made, like what if a DNA sample was left in an unsecured/unsterile lab for 27 hours. Would you consider that sample to have 'spoilage'?

I'm not arguing that it's spoiled either, just throwing the thought out there.

I do not consider that to be a good analogy. The owner of the DNA would have needed to have access to that DNA that no one else had in order for the analogy to be equivalent. I really do not believe that anyone tampered with Brad's computer. I do not believe anyone dropped that google map search onto his computer. I do not believe that anyone went in there and changed the times on his computer. That makes zero sense to me.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Was the computer in the house for the whole 27 hours?

 

[Danielle59]

Since you brought it up, she WAS wearing the necklace. Otto showed it in her photo enhancement.

No, she wasn't, but that is fine if you believe that and believe that even though you think she had it on that the Prosecution didn't think it worthy of crossing on that issue. It was obvious in the video she had on no necklace.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Was the computer in the house for the whole 27 hours?

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.

 

[Bottle Cap]

No, she wasn't, but that is fine if you believe that and believe that even though you think she had it on that the Prosecution didn't think it worthy of crossing on that issue. It was obvious in the video she had on no necklace.

She also forgot to wear her chin and jawline that day.

 

[cityslick]

I do not consider that to be a good analogy. The owner of the DNA would have needed to have access to that DNA that no one else had in order for the analogy to be equivalent. I really do not believe that anyone tampered with Brad's computer. I do not believe anyone dropped that google map search onto his computer. I do not believe that anyone went in there and changed the times on his computer. That makes zero sense to me.

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?

 

[Cheyenne130]

No, she wasn't, but that is fine if you believe that and believe that even though you think she had it on that the Prosecution didn't think it worthy of crossing on that issue. It was obvious in the video she had on no necklace.

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.