April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

Discussion in 'Nancy Cooper' started by otto, Apr 30, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    27,647
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.

    [​IMG]

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


  3. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    27,647
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Bringing this to the top of the list ...
     
  4. cassius

    cassius New Member

    Messages:
    170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  5. momof7

    momof7 New Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  6. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    27,647
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  7. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    27,647
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    38
    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.
     
  8. otto

    otto Verified Expert

    Messages:
    27,647
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Trying to keep all the comments in one place so Friday's trial discussion doesn't get mixed with the weekend speculations.


     
  9. momof7

    momof7 New Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  10. Cheyenne130

    Cheyenne130 New Member

    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Danielle59

    Danielle59 New Member

    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  12. cityslick

    cityslick New Member

    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Cheyenne130

    Cheyenne130 New Member

    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Since you brought it up, she WAS wearing the necklace. Otto showed it in her photo enhancement.
     
  14. Bottle Cap

    Bottle Cap New Member

    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. Cheyenne130

    Cheyenne130 New Member

    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. Bottle Cap

    Bottle Cap New Member

    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was the computer in the house for the whole 27 hours?
     
  17. Danielle59

    Danielle59 New Member

    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. Cheyenne130

    Cheyenne130 New Member

    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  19. Bottle Cap

    Bottle Cap New Member

    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    She also forgot to wear her chin and jawline that day.
     
  20. cityslick

    cityslick New Member

    Messages:
    7,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  21. Cheyenne130

    Cheyenne130 New Member

    Messages:
    1,823
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice