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:
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).
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).