2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

[cityslick]

Oh? I didn't get to see all of it, or actually I just didn't have the interest. I did see the part about WS he was talking about theories though. What was his reason on the stand that they didn't go?

He testified that they registered for it (because you got to register for these things early) but they cancelled because they couldn't find lodging that was close to the race site. The nearest hotel was 20-30 miles away and they didn't want to be that far.

 

[lib's mom]

As long as we're talking about the painting, here's something that maybe somebody could help me with:

JA testified that after Nancy finished the painting on Wednesday, she suggested to J. that they go ahead and paint the dining room. JA agreed and they were gonna swap painting for organizing. The painting in the DR wasn't originally planned.

Here's where I have trouble: They didn't buy any more paint. They just used what was leftover. Wouldn't that have been *alot* of leftover paint? I mean, that's a whole other room. And when BA testified about what they moved that morning, it didn't sound like a tiny room or just one wall.

 

[jrb0124]

Or perhaps Chris Fry did enough looking into that computer and found the tampering. That would be a huge liability to put him on the stand at that point. Or maybe he was mistaken about the mac address. Or maybe there's another reason. It's all speculative at this point.

reasons:

1) opens the door to GM (expert, not the inventory webpage custodian) rebuttal.
2) CF testimony would provide mixed results (mentioned above)
3) embarassing personal things discovered about CF (I think johnfear alluded to this)..what's good for the goose

Having said that, IMO...there could have been such a router in the house on 7/11 and I would still not be convinced BC is guilty. The router/modem SW was issued in Oct 08, well after the idea that BC spoofed calls was planted with the CPD by the 'neighbors'. Aware of this, BC (even if innocent, no calls spoofed) would be an idiot to cooperate in helping the CPD find that item.

If there was an actual record of a spoofed call at 6:40 on 7/12, I would be firmly in the BDI camp.

 

[RaleighNative]

"Do it" as in committing the crime?

LOL, yes! Do it as in committing the crime.

I have to sign off soon and get some sleep. But I know now I'll be laying in bed for hours trying to &%!@* psychoanalyze that neighbor-I-shall-not-name. Trying to figure out her actions is driving me crazy! :banghead:

 

[CrimeAddict]

As long as we're talking about the painting, here's something that maybe somebody could help me with:

JA testified that after Nancy finished the painting on Wednesday, she suggested to J. that they go ahead and paint the dining room. JA agreed and they were gonna swap painting for organizing. The painting in the DR wasn't originally planned.

Here's where I have trouble: They didn't buy any more paint. They just used what was leftover. Wouldn't that have been *alot* of leftover paint? I mean, that's a whole other room. And when BA testified about what they moved that morning, it didn't sound like a tiny room or just one wall.

That's a hard one.. we could argue a lot of different points. Maybe she bought the 5 gallon of it to save money, we usually buy our paint that way. If she really liked the color maybe she bought that much and thought she would just use it later on.

 

[jrb0124]

You stated in an earlier post that GM took one home and Brad took the other...this just wasn't what he stated.

BC referenced the fact in the chat that GM had already taken one home "you already got one" or something to that extent.

GM was really squirrely about this in testimony only saying "I do not have one of those at my home, I have model x and model y".

Remember, this was on the heels of him explaining the "thief" comment and I'm sure with half of Cisco RTP watching he was sweating bullets about this testimony.

 

[macd]

The Windows System log thing about a duplicate IP on the LAN was nothing more than a ruse by the prosecution. There was some mention of it on Friday but when it came time to put the cards on the table the prosecution folded. It was never presented as evidence. There was no such log entry or they would have shown it. Also it wouldn't have taken them 2 1/2 years to find the alleged log entry. It did NOT exist.

Ah yes, an elaborate ruse to get a Cisco employee to lie under oath about an arcane detail, that went unmentioned in the media, when only a handful of IT engineers following the case understood the significance of it.

It it didn't exist, then it wouldn't be on the copy of the hard drive that the defense has. The defense would have welcomed the evidence. It could have gone in on Friday and then: smoking gun proof of the alleged frame-up.

I'm sure it was a hard decision to make. I can't say that I agree with it. The prosecution had the weigh the time it would take to present and deal with the rebuttal, consider whether the jury would understand the significance, and factor in how strong the point had already been made by the chat logs and GM's testimony.

 

[jrb0124]

LOL, yes! Do it as in committing the crime.

I have to sign off soon and get some sleep. But I know now I'll be laying in bed for hours trying to &%!@* psychoanalyze that neighbor-I-shall-not-name. Trying to figure out her actions is driving me crazy! :banghead:

Go have a look at the alt theory thread.

 

[SleuthinNC]

As long as we're talking about the painting, here's something that maybe somebody could help me with:

JA testified that after Nancy finished the painting on Wednesday, she suggested to J. that they go ahead and paint the dining room. JA agreed and they were gonna swap painting for organizing. The painting in the DR wasn't originally planned.

Here's where I have trouble: They didn't buy any more paint. They just used what was leftover. Wouldn't that have been *alot* of leftover paint? I mean, that's a whole other room. And when BA testified about what they moved that morning, it didn't sound like a tiny room or just one wall.

And JA said the paint was a dark color and required 2 coats.

 

[lib's mom]

That's a hard one.. we could argue a lot of different points. Maybe she bought the 5 gallon of it to save money, we usually buy our paint that way. If she really liked the color maybe she bought that much and thought she would just use it later on.

Maybe you're right. It just stuck out to me, you know?

 

[Cheyenne130]

As long as we're talking about the painting, here's something that maybe somebody could help me with:

JA testified that after Nancy finished the painting on Wednesday, she suggested to J. that they go ahead and paint the dining room. JA agreed and they were gonna swap painting for organizing. The painting in the DR wasn't originally planned.

Here's where I have trouble: They didn't buy any more paint. They just used what was leftover. Wouldn't that have been *alot* of leftover paint? I mean, that's a whole other room. And when BA testified about what they moved that morning, it didn't sound like a tiny room or just one wall.

I can't speak to their painting project and can only relate it to my experience. If I have paint left over, I may decide to start the next room and see how far I get with the paint I've already paid for. Once I have used that up, I can buy paint and match it based on the code used by Lowe's or whoever and finish the job. Maybe I will only need a quart instead of a gallon. It makes sense that she might plan to paint for a short time and use up what was left over from the other room.

 

[jrb0124]

You are mistaken. GM had taken a server from the inventory in Brad's group. It was brought up because GM joked with Brad about being a "thief" because he had taken the 3825 home already. Brad pointed out that GM had taken this server home. It was sort of in "retaliation" to GM joking about Brad being a thief. There is nothing in there that says that GM took home a 3825 router.

I may be mistaken, if so my apology. I will go and listen again.

I am fairly certain BC and GM were talking about the two 3825s not one 3825 and a different piece of equipment.

 

[less0305]

Kinda funny - in reading another ongoing trial updates the accused (another husband) was noted by police as having "patches" of red marks on his arms. When asked how he got them, he told three different stories. Patches of red marks. I have acrylic nails and that got me to thinking - if I were being attacked and I had to scratch or used my hands in a defensive manner, I would not leave scratches - my nails aren't sharp enough for that. They're too thick. They would definitely leave red marks or patches, but not scratches. Did NC have acrylic nails? Did she go for manicures and pedicures and get acrylic or gel nails? Where was the pink nail found again?

 

[SleuthSayer]

I am not a Cisco expert nor do I have I enough of the details of the event log entry, but from what I can see it seems likely that that router was on his VLAN to Cisco, not his home LAN. Duplicate or Mismatched IP errors while reconnecting to Virtual LANs is a common problem with many possible causes. If have asked if our Cisco gurus could help confirm this possibility.

No, it's not a possibility.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Kinda funny - in reading another ongoing trial updates the accused (another husband) was noted by police as having "patches" of red marks on his arms. When asked how he got them, he told three different stories. Patches of red marks. I have acrylic nails and that got me to thinking - if I were being attacked and I had to scratch or used my hands in a defensive manner, I would not leave scratches - my nails aren't sharp enough for that. They're too thick. They would definitely leave red marks or patches, but not scratches. Did NC have acrylic nails? Did she go for manicures and pedicures and get acrylic or gel nails? Where was the pink nail found again?

Not a pink nail, a pink chip of paint from what looked like a barbie car. Found in the garage, next to the barbie car. Completely ruled out as a nail.

And I don't believe she had press-on nails, because that was discussed.

 

[less0305]

I may be mistaken, if so my apology. I will go and listen again.

I am fairly certain BC and GM were talking about the two 3825s not one 3825 and a different piece of equipment.

Cheyenne is correct - GM had a server, BC had a 3825 router. I think if you go back and listen to the testimony you will find that to be the case. Not trying to be argumentative, but I'm about 99.999999% sure that was the testimony.

 

[jrb0124]

are there threads for the individual issues like the router, the computer info, the dress, the affairs etc? or just discussion threads? Does anyone know offhand?

Just the discussion threads - and those topics are interspersed throughout due to the significance. You'll have to weed through the 1,000+ posts/day

 

[bloghooligan]

It's in the court records but the jury did not hear Fry connect the mac address on BC's laptop to the router. However there were only (2) 3285 routers and one is still at Cisco. GM testified that it has never been used, is still in the box on the shelf. These are $11,000.00 routers. The serial # of the router still at Cisco is the serial# on the Chicago printout. GM did not know what that printout was and it was never verified. The router (ending in H) was not on the printout yet people continue to say it is. If there were only (2) 3285 routers at Cisco and one is still in the box and on the shelf, that verifies (along with the laptop) that the router (ending in H) is the one Brad used.

I'll concede one thing, Kurtz did a good job confusing people which is his job.

I'll concede that it was me that believed the document that Kurtz presented to GM that GM didn't recognized did not address the "H" (missing) router. I was mistaken.

However, the fact remains that GM says he ordered two routers and received them both on 1/8/2008. One of those two routers now mysteriously shows up on a report as belonging to a completely different CISCO group, UCBU Development Test and it has a "Received from Manufacturer Date" of 9/11/08.

This supports was was testified to earlier... CISCO doesn't keep good records of equipment coming and going. GM has a chat where Brad tells him he took a 3825 home and will return it when his 28xx comes in. GM's inventory DOES NOT REFECT THAT BRAD TOOK THE ROUTER HOME so why, when/if Brad brought it back would GM make any note of it? GM didn't look for the router after 1/8/08 UNTIL last Monday. He has absolutely no idea whether it came back or not.

I didn't see the testimony of CF where he discusses a log that proves this router was attached to BC's home network. Any idea why the prosecution would have chosen not to present such damning evidence to the jury??

 

[less0305]

Not a pink nail, a pink chip of paint from what looked like a barbie car. Found in the garage, next to the barbie car. Completely ruled out as a nail.

And I don't believe she had press-on nails, because that was discussed.

But it's possible she had acrylic or gel nails from a salon, no? Which would leave nice red patches or marks on his neck, but maybe not a definitive scratch. My sweet hubby is all disappointed now because he likes to have his back scratched and now it's not the same, the nails are just too thick and dull and don't give that good scratchy feeling.

 

[SleuthSayer]

The Windows System log thing about a duplicate IP on the LAN was nothing more than a ruse by the prosecution. There was some mention of it on Friday but when it came time to put the cards on the table the prosecution folded. It was never presented as evidence. There was no such log entry or they would have shown it. Also it wouldn't have taken them 2 1/2 years to find the alleged log entry. It did NOT exist.

I'm not following the logic here. What would be the point in presenting it without the jury in the room? What is the value of the ruse if the jury doesn't hear it? Maybe Zell didn't notice that they weren't there?