Post verdict discussion of evidence

[jrb0124]

Sorry, but claiming they decided to make Brad the fall guy and thus erased any info that pointed to someone else is simply not believable.

It happens. LE becomes convinced of a suspect's guilt and will "go the extra mile" to assure he's convicted.

Don't take my word for it though, take (for example) the case of Richard Miles.

I could point you to many, many, many more if that would help point out to you that what you consider "simply not believeable" does happen.

 

[calgary123]

Does this mean that paul bernardo will be elegible for parole after 25 years? Just curious as to the canadian system.

I believe Paul Bernardo was declared a dangerous offender, a very rare designation which removes his eligibility for parole. You can expect Bernardo to spend his entire life in prison for multiple first degree murders. This kind of sentence is rare in Canada.

 

[calgary123]

Hi Calgary!

<snipped>

I think Cooper will serve his full 25 years. Do you ever see him confessing and having remorse? Of course he'll have his parole hearings but the Rentz family will be at every one of them to do their part so that he serves the full term.

Hello,

In my opinion he will never confess or show remorse for killing Nancy. Not a chance. Its not in him. The stakes are too high, if he confesses he will never get out. He will consider his own interests only. If he is transferred to Canada eventually where parole would apply, my opinion might change.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't see the state of NC transferring him back to Canada. He committed the crime here, he was prosecuted here, I think he'll be spending the rest of his life in prison here. He did not get the death penalty, so there's no extenuating circumstances.

 

[GhostCrab]

An interesting article from today's N & O...

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/11/1189444/officer-dna-results-often-inconclusive.html

 

[unc70]

An interesting article from today's N & O...

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05/11/1189444/officer-dna-results-often-inconclusive.html

"Inconclusive" is often translated as "not supporting LE's case". There is so much of this stuff turning up every day in NC that more and more are becoming alarmed.

Of course, the NC DA association wants to cripple the Innocence Commission by changing the law, among other things to preclude it investigating those who took a plea.

 

[cassius]

As best as I can work out, the thinking goes that NC wanted to frame BC for domestic violence. She enlisted the help of some friends or a friend to help her either be hurt or appear hurt. Somewhere in the staging of this fake DV, something went wrong and she was killed. Her accomplice then dumped her body.

This is a most convenient theory for the faction of folks out there who either don't believe that domestic violence exists, or if it does, women are most often the perpetrators of it. (A quick google search on men's rights or father's rights groups will point you in the direction of these people and you can get your fill of their skewed statistics, their downright denial of reality, and their poisonous disdain for women in general). In this scenario, not only is NC manipulative and dishonest, she has also managed to frame her own husband for her murder before she's even dead, and in the process has become responsible for her own death. In this scenario, conveniently, BC is absolved of every single responsibility, ever bit of accountability, and metamorphosizes in one day - July 12 - into a martyr, an every-man symbol of all those done wrong by the evil coven of ex-wives.

This is why there's such venom directed at JA. They obviously believe her to have been the accomplice, and point at her quick phoning of the police as a trick she used to set BC up and take the spotlight off of herself. This is also why such fault is found with the painting plans - it is alluded to that because no one else knew of them besides JA's husband, that they carry such dire and sinister undertones. That JA has gone on to help raise a lot of money for domestic abuse aid is one of those things that a woman of her immense manipulative abilities would do. To take the heat off herself.

See how handily that ties it all up? This is why the shoes don't matter to these people, the google search has to have been a set up, and the router was nowhere near BC or his house for weeks, if not months.

Cough.

Anyone who has spent even a half of a morning in DV court knows that she would not need to go to those lengths to get a protective order. A mere threat of bodily harm is enough to get the dvpo and there are more lying liars in dv court than anywhere. I'll give you an example. Was in DV court one morning waiting listening to the case before mine. The plaintiff Husband alleged that the Defendant wife, during a night of drinking 8 months prior, threatened to cut his jollies off. Two weeks later, he moved back to Europe and testified that he only returned to the US to file the dvpo and to get justice and was going to return to Europe after the trial and had no plans of returning. In the end, the Judge granted him a dvpo. I about fell over when I heard the ruling.

And this is a problem with the system because there are many abused men and women out there who desparately need the protection of the court, but may miss out on some resources because there are the others who either want to get a leg up on the other party or who don't want to deal with some issues in their relationships. I am not saying that NC was either of these.

 

[macd]

Cough.

Cough indeed. Staging an attack while she was out jogging to show abuse at home. Brilliant.

 

[unc70]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

Even the most benign explanation of the handling of NC's cell phone is still troubling. It would be hard to condone no matter what case it involved. Consider the major points and see if they pass the smell test:

While the CPD had her cell phone the day she went missing, no one made any serious effort to examine its contents while a missing persons case nor for many weeks after it became a murder investigation.

Finally, though still without a search warrant, following verbal instructions not written down that were obtained from an unidentified AT&T source the prior week over the telephone, a CPD "accidentally" erased the phone contents after ignoring 10+ warnings in the process.

Then, sometime later, something happened (maybe another "accident") which erased the SIM in much the same. The phone had not been protected in a Faraday Cage or otherwise and was still in contact with the cellular network as late as the end of Sept 2008.

A search warrant was requested after the phone had been erased and amazingly nothing was found on the phone.

While forensic quality records were requested from AT&T for BC's phone, only the inadequate billing level records were requested for NC's phone. CPD clearly understood the difference.

CPD used various excuses and ploys to avoid disclosing their handling of NC's phone until it was too late for anyone to obtain the detailed records from AT&T.

Sworn testimony, both in documents and on the stand, by CPD members are inconsistent and not supported by other evidence.

CPD story boils down to: No one saw any reason to examine her phone earlier. When we finally got around to looking at her phone the first time, Oops! You know accidents happen. Sorry we didn't think it important to mention it to anyone sooner. Nothing important in her cell phone records, anyway. What's the big deal.

That is the version most favorable to the CPD. Anyone have an acceptable explanation for the CPD handling of this evidence?

Doesn't take much imagination to discover less favorable versions.

Easy to imagine that CPD had a sneak peek at her phone without a search warrant, maybe using a Cellibrite. Easy to imagine something on her phone or its records that threatened someone; not necessary that it involved her murder directly.

 

[jilly]

Is that written into the law? Again, not being argumentative, just curious. If Paul Bernardo should somehow display that he'd been completely rehabilitied in prison, *could* he then be considered for parole after 25 years? The reason my curiosity is peaked is because we know some of those really devious, manipulative types of criminals. Ted Bundy-ish. I'm hoping, regardless of future behavior, the "danerous offender" status remains.

Technically, even as a dangerous offender he would still get parole hearings every 2 yrs but it's highly unlikely he'll ever be granted parole. I've never heard of a dangerous offender getting out. They usually give up on going to a hearing.

 

[jilly]

I don't see the state of NC transferring him back to Canada. He committed the crime here, he was prosecuted here, I think he'll be spending the rest of his life in prison here. He did not get the death penalty, so there's no extenuating circumstances.

bbm

Neither do I. Nothing stopping him from applying though!:crazy:

http://communities.canada.com/vanco...not-entitled-to-automatic-transfers-home.aspx

If you can't serve an 8 yr drug smuggling sentence in Canada - highly unlikely Canada will take you back for a 1st degree murder conviction. In fact, I can think of two Canadian men - Burns and Rafay both serving life terms in Washington state for 1st degree murder.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm sure he'll wear his new murdered woman (Nancy Cooper) Tshirt when he charges into the courtroom to confront the unfair and biased judge and mildly retarded jury.

They'll get a real kick out of him, especially his political correctness.

Wonder if mommy will have to drive him to court?

 

[macd]

Rebutting Computer Evidence

A common thread of complaint on this case is that BC was not able to put on expert witness testimony to call into question the authenticity of the google map files.

Some testimony we, but not the jury heard, turned out to be bunk.
- Files were .bmp instead of .cur. Turns out to be normal.
- Timestamps were 1/1/1970. Turns out to be common.
- Last Access Timestamp was exactly equal to Creation Timestamp. Turns about to be normal for Vista.

So, in general, for the US justice system, how do we offer the defense the ability to present last minute expert witness testimony, without tainting the trial with pure bunk?

In this trial, would the State have been prejudiced by having to deal with the task of de-bunking this pure bunk, with no prior notice?

I'd have rather seen JW or GM present their "evidence". I have confidence that they would have been discredited during cross-exam. But, if the State's experts were not available at a minute's notice, perhaps Kurtz would have missed the details he would have needed to shred this offered testimony.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Rebutting Computer Evidence

A common thread of complaint on this case is that BC was not able to put on expert witness testimony to call into question the authenticity of the google map files.

Some testimony we, but not the jury heard, turned out to be bunk.
- Files were .bmp instead of .cur. Turns out to be normal.
- Timestamps were 1/1/1970. Turns out to be common.
- Last Access Timestamp was exactly equal to Creation Timestamp. Turns about to be normal for Vista.

So, in general, for the US justice system, how do we offer the defense the ability to present last minute expert witness testimony, without tainting the trial with pure bunk?

In this trial, would the State have been prejudiced by having to deal with the task of de-bunking this pure bunk, with no prior notice?

I'd have rather seen JW or GM present their "evidence". I have confidence that they would have been discredited during cross-exam. But, if the State's experts were not available at a minute's notice, perhaps Kurtz would have missed the details he would have needed to shred this offered testimony.

My opinion based on what I witnessed: the defense tried to offer testimony from an "expert" to counter the computer evidence. I don't know that this witness was entirely ethical. (I base that on his statement that was in error about the .cur expected when it was .bmp that was found. We know from our own expert here as well as the other defense expert that the .bmp was to be expected, not unusual.) They had a witness on their list all along who was qualified but they brought him in at "the midnight hour", knowing that he would not be allowed. On the off chance that he would be allowed, they were focusing him on one, small area to get what they wanted him to say, not necessarily the truth of the matter. MOO

 

[jumpstreet]

Rebutting Computer Evidence

A common thread of complaint on this case is that BC was not able to put on expert witness testimony to call into question the authenticity of the google map files.

Some testimony we, but not the jury heard, turned out to be bunk.
- Files were .bmp instead of .cur. Turns out to be normal.
- Timestamps were 1/1/1970. Turns out to be common.
- Last Access Timestamp was exactly equal to Creation Timestamp. Turns about to be normal for Vista.

So, in general, for the US justice system, how do we offer the defense the ability to present last minute expert witness testimony, without tainting the trial with pure bunk?

In this trial, would the State have been prejudiced by having to deal with the task of de-bunking this pure bunk, with no prior notice?

I'd have rather seen JW or GM present their "evidence". I have confidence that they would have been discredited during cross-exam. But, if the State's experts were not available at a minute's notice, perhaps Kurtz would have missed the details he would have needed to shred this offered testimony.

It's a good question. Though, I wonder does the fact that it's 'computer evidence' make the handling (and/or burden) of it any different than other types of evidence requiring expert witnesses?

[ For example if State ME would have claimed TOD to definitively be 1am, then defense was able to call someone who would testify it to be possibly much later (even with (in the State's eyes) "bunk" or unique practices, how would the State deal with debunking this pure bunk... with no prior notice? ]

In other words, does the fact that it's 'computer evidence' change the equation/dilemma here at all? If not, then the general scenario must be fairly common in criminal trials I would think...

My understanding/impression is the 'system' is intended to let the jury decide as to the degree of expertise of the witnesses (once accepted as experts by counsel), and to the degree/weight to put on each's testimony, after hearing it, and the cross of same. Seems fair/reasonable enough.

[ Except of course in this case, the judge didn't give defense that chance... ]

 

[Madeleine74]

The defense gambled and even though JWard was not considered a forensic computer expert (he said he told the defense this), they went with him. And then they were outraged when he was not deemed a forensic expert, just like he said he wasn't. OUTRAGE!

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

It was a bluff by the defense and they lost on that one.

As far as how to deal with opposing expert testimony, whether it's scientific or computer/digital, experts have to battle it out like they do on DNA and bugs, etc. Of course the risk is the jury will zone out or dismiss all of it, just like might happen with any other highly specific technical areas where a battle of experts sometimes occurs.

 

[macd]

It's a good question. Though, I wonder does the fact that it's 'computer evidence' make the handling (and/or burden) of it any different than other types of evidence requiring expert witnesses?

That's a good point. Computer evidence is at least a little bit different, comparing it to DNA evidence.

For computers, there is no contamination and degradation angle that can be used by experts-for-hire. But, the bits don't align to a person, so we add the "someone else touched my computer angle".

Something in common with debunking DNA evidence is "violating procedure". That's a great way to introduce doubt. Without the contamination/degradation factor, it's tougher to show that a violated procedure invalidate evidence, though.

The procedure angle is tough for CPD in this case.
They followed CPD procedure: Patrolmen don't touch computers; they secure the area and wait for the computer trained officers.
They did not follow "forensic procedure": Immediately power off and remove batteries of computers.
Seems like CPD would be under fire either way, unless computer experts are available at every search warrant execution.

 

[ncsu95]

That's a good point. Computer evidence is at least a little bit different, comparing it to DNA evidence.

For computers, there is no contamination and degradation angle that can be used by experts-for-hire. But, the bits don't align to a person, so we add the "someone else touched my computer angle".

Something in common with debunking DNA evidence is "violating procedure". That's a great way to introduce doubt. Without the contamination/degradation factor, it's tougher to show that a violated procedure invalidate evidence, though.

The procedure angle is tough for CPD in this case.
They followed CPD procedure: Patrolmen don't touch computers; they secure the area and wait for the computer trained officers.
They did not follow "forensic procedure": Immediately power off and remove batteries of computers.
Seems like CPD would be under fire either way, unless computer experts are available at every search warrant execution.

How about option #3....unplug the router so that it isolates the network the PC is on until the computer people get there.

 

[jrb0124]

They followed CPD procedure: Patrolmen don't touch computers; they secure the area and wait for the computer trained officers.
They did not follow "forensic procedure": Immediately power off and remove batteries of computers.
Seems like CPD would be under fire either way, unless computer experts are available at every search warrant execution.

RAM extraction and throrough photography is also part of initial protocol.

Computers and laptops were specifically indicated on the SW. They knew they would be seizing computers. There is no excuse not to have someone there trained in the proper protocol to preserve the integrity of that evidence - especially for a homicide investigation.

If you want to make the argument that LE is not up to speed or lacking in enough personnel to handle and preserve evidence, from seizure to chain of custody (all violated big time in this case) to avoid spoilation, then throw out the evidence. You can't have it both ways.

 

[jrb0124]

Rebutting Computer Evidence

A common thread of complaint on this case is that BC was not able to put on expert witness testimony to call into question the authenticity of the google map files.

Some testimony we, but not the jury heard, turned out to be bunk.
- Files were .bmp instead of .cur. Turns out to be normal.
- Timestamps were 1/1/1970. Turns out to be common.
- Last Access Timestamp was exactly equal to Creation Timestamp. Turns about to be normal for Vista.

Did you watch Masucci's proffer? Aside from the acknowledgement that .bmp files are not uncommon, how do you arrive at the rest of your conclusion?

You left out much of his relevent testimony and seem to have conflated it with someone else's testimony? opinion?

I plan to post a transcript of his entire proffer when I'm done with it.

Most telling was his conclusion: "The IBM was tampered with".

pair this with Boz in closing arguments: "No witnesses have suggested the IBM was tampered with"

Wow, talk about bunk.