April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[SleuthinNC]

If it were as easily explained away as BC didn't delete something correctly why wasn't that the FBI testimony? Why is BOZ birthing cows in the court room? Why did object so loudly and strongly when the topic of the registry and timestamps came up? There is something there that needs to remain hidden. Remember there was no technical rebuttal to what JW said. Nothing to indicate impossibility, improbability, unprovability, nothing.

 

[FullDisclosure]

This whole AL thing is one of the reasons I believe virtually nothing printed in the newspapers. I find it horrible that her book is already taking orders when the trial isn't over. I find it extremely distastful that they do not have an unbiased person reporting for the paper, one who isn't interested in making big dollars and make sure her book matches exactly what the newspaper said happened.

I don't get it, either. I understand that AL likes to write true crime novels or whatever that genre is called. People enjoy reading them as well. But for WRAL to allow any employee who is heavily involved in reporting the news on that case (or involved at ALL, really) to already have her book up on Amazon, B&N, and other sites for pre-sale is tacky and a conflict of interest, IMO.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I said when it was revealed about the google search that I'm pretty sure he never thought that the zoom info would be able to be captured. That would be why he only zoomed for the zip code.

One thing we haven't heard was if Fielding was the only location that the map was moved to and zoomed, or was the map moved multiple times all over the place and just zoomed at specific places. What I mean is did he type the zip, that move the map straight to fielding and nowhere else (this would indicate he already was familiar with the location)? Or was he scanning different areas and noticed that area?

I thought somewhere that they said he looked at two locations but I never have heard what the second location was, or if maybe I misunderstood.

 

[cityslick]

If it were as easily explained away as BC didn't delete something correctly why wasn't that the FBI testimony? Why is BOZ birthing cows in the court room? Why did object so loudly and strongly when the topic of the registry and timestamps came up? There is something there that needs to remain hidden. Remember there was no technical rebuttal to what JW said. Nothing to indicate impossibility, improbability, unprovability, nothing.

I think he knows what I suspect. That he's walking on eggshells trying to get a guilty verdict, it's not a slam dunk. I bet he thinks that it may not take much to sway a jury to a not guilty verdict, especially if they are exposed to testimony that might seriously suggest that something improper happened with the computer data.

 

[NCEast]

I don't get it, either. I understand that AL likes to write true crime novels or whatever that genre is called. People enjoy reading them as well. But for WRAL to allow any employee who is heavily involved in reporting the news on that case (or involved at ALL, really) to already have her book up on Amazon, B&N, and other sites for pre-sale is tacky and a conflict of interest, IMO.

I imagine she has only met with the publisher, decided on a name for the book, and nothing has actually been written at this point. IIRC the release date is at the end of 2011? She has probably received a nice advance check already though. I think it's rather distasteful but her publisher probably thinks 'who else is better' to write a true crime book than a person who has covered the story totally since it broke.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Brad had a degree in computer science. He knew what he was doing with computers.

INDEED otto....and I guess he made a mistake by not nuking his work Cisco IBM laptop...Maybe he should have.or maybe it was on the list of things to do for him..He had to get rid of a whole lot of gear Router/FXO card, not to mention her two left shoes ( or was it right shoes), sticks, ducks..and wash that pesky floor in the foyer?? and a whole lotta laundry!!..

Im sorry I have a vision from Macbeth.."Out Damn Spot" going thru my head!!

I do think Nancy's friend really got to Brad, and too much attention to Nancy and her missing status came into play long before be had everything buttoned up..Course that my viewpoint

 

[momof7]

If it were as easily explained away as BC didn't delete something correctly why wasn't that the FBI testimony? Why is BOZ birthing cows in the court room? Why did object so loudly and strongly when the topic of the registry and timestamps came up? There is something there that needs to remain hidden. Remember there was no technical rebuttal to what JW said. Nothing to indicate impossibility, improbability, unprovability, nothing.

And there is the rub. The no rebuttal to any of his testimony. A whole bunch of objections, slamming of his FB page, etc.

I saw some posts discussing that BOZ wasn't crossing because he did not want any information entered in the record that def attorneys could later have testimony/witness to. My only guess is that they are correct in that thinking. Being careful what was brought forth so there is no more information brought out for examination.

Kelly

 

[cody100]

MOO, BC did the search after the body was found. Somebody attempted to change the date to reflect the search being done on July 11 and screwed that process up causing the invalid timestamps.

I thought I remembered in the depo that he said he did look at that area after they told him where she was found. Correct me if I am wrong. I think that he might have done it afterwards, and the timestamps got changed somehow. MOO too.

 

[Danielle59]

I imagine she has only met with the publisher, decided on a name for the book, and nothing has actually been written at this point. IIRC the release date is at the end of 2011? She has probably received a nice advance check already though. I think it's rather distasteful but her publisher probably thinks 'who else is better' to write a true crime book than a person who has covered the story totally since it broke.

She already has a cover for the book that implies the husband did it.

 

[otto]

BC's college degree is in Computer Science. (Kurtz made it a point to work that little factoid into Det. Chappell's cross.)

BSc in Comp Sc

 

[SleuthinNC]

I thought I remembered in the depo that he said he did look at that area after they told him where she was found. Correct me if I am wrong. I think that he might have done it afterwards, and the timestamps got changed somehow. MOO too.

Correct, you and I share the same opinion on this.

 

[otto]

So if we take that off the table then we are left with he botched it or just decided not to do it?

Kelly

I don't think that's something he would botch. I'd rather not believe that police tampered with the computer. Don't know what to think. Maybe we need more information to figure it out.

 

[momof7]

I don't think that's something he would botch. I'd rather not believe that police tampered with the computer. Don't know what to think. Maybe we need more information to figure it out.

Agreed, I am hesitant to believe tampering yet..I don't know what to make of what information I can understand so far.

Please please please Google guy be up sooon..

Kelly

 

[FullDisclosure]

I said when it was revealed about the google search that I'm pretty sure he never thought that the zoom info would be able to be captured. That would be why he only zoomed for the zip code.

One thing we haven't heard was if Fielding was the only location that the map was moved to and zoomed, or was the map moved multiple times all over the place and just zoomed at specific places. What I mean is did he type the zip, that move the map straight to fielding and nowhere else (this would indicate he already was familiar with the location)? Or was he scanning different areas and noticed that area?

IIRC, it was the only location. Not 100% sure as I was in and out that day since it was a black out day.

Kelly

Right after the CSA log testimony that I posted earlier, K asked Chappell, What is the significance of 158 Greenstone Ln. to your forensic examination? Chappell answered that he wasn't familiar with that address.
(For the record, I am not 100% sure of the address--I was scribbling as fast as I could and suffering from severe writer's cramp. I think it's right, but not sure. It hasn't come up again in testimony unless it was in the blacked out testimony for the defense, in which case all I can say is, "AAAARGH!")

I do wonder what the significance is, if any? Is it a red herring?

 

[sunshine05]

If it were as easily explained away as BC didn't delete something correctly why wasn't that the FBI testimony? Why is BOZ birthing cows in the court room? Why did object so loudly and strongly when the topic of the registry and timestamps came up? There is something there that needs to remain hidden. Remember there was no technical rebuttal to what JW said. Nothing to indicate impossibility, improbability, unprovability, nothing.

I agree and to answer Bottle Cap, the reason they chose the FBI in the first place is because they knew defense would not be able to cross examine accurately since they would not even provide them with the extraction methods. This gave them a way to hide this data. They sure don't seem very confident about it or they would have questioned JW on cross about all the things he pointed out that looked fishy.

 

[Cheyenne130]

If it were as easily explained away as BC didn't delete something correctly why wasn't that the FBI testimony? Why is BOZ birthing cows in the court room? Why did object so loudly and strongly when the topic of the registry and timestamps came up? There is something there that needs to remain hidden. Remember there was no technical rebuttal to what JW said. Nothing to indicate impossibility, improbability, unprovability, nothing.

I wouldn't have questioned him about it either. The state gets to put up rebuttal witnesses. My best guess is that they wanted to rebut the defense witnesses testimony with someone accepted by the court as an expert.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I simply must take a breaky poo...I hope each and everyone of you get visited by the "Easter Bunny" as you all have been super duper!!

Catch ya all later..have a great evening :seeya:

 

[SleuthinNC]

Right after the CSA log testimony that I posted earlier, K asked Chappell, What is the significance of 158 Greenstone Ln. to your forensic examination? Chappell answered that he wasn't familiar with that address.
(For the record, I am not 100% sure of the address--I was scribbling as fast as I could and suffering from severe writer's cramp. I think it's right, but not sure. It hasn't come up again in testimony unless it was in the blacked out testimony for the defense, in which case all I can say is, "AAAARGH!")

I do wonder what the significance is, if any? Is it a red herring?

Greenstone Ln was also mentioned in the motion to compel document. I wonder if it is the address of the person JP said NC knew that lived near Kildaire Farm Rd.

 

[Cheyenne130]

INDEED otto....and I guess he made a mistake by not nuking his work Cisco IBM laptop...Maybe he should have.or maybe it was on the list of things to do for him..He had to get rid of a whole lot of gear Router/FXO card, not to mention her two left shoes ( or was it right shoes), sticks, ducks..and wash that pesky floor in the foyer?? and a whole lotta laundry!!..

Im sorry I have a vision from Macbeth.."Out Damn Spot" going thru my head!!

I do think Nancy's friend really got to Brad, and too much attention to Nancy and her missing status came into play long before be had everything buttoned up..Course that my viewpoint

Did he have full administrative access to his computer?

 

[unc70]

Your thoughts about the computer testimony and the jurors have been my own for several weeks. Since it may be over their heads, they may go with their gut feelings and base their thoughts on the behavior and circumstantial evidence that has been testified to....which is probably what I would do. I don't know if that would be exactly fair if *somebody* can't explain the tech testimony to the jurors so that it is accurate and they understand it all.

I expect K to distill this down for them before and during the closing.

IMO and from reports from those at court, the jurors have see repeatedly that Pros. is trying to prevent testimony by the computer expert. Some here have expressed that the jurors would perceive this as "protecting the jury" from bad evidence from someone lacking proper credentials. Most jurors, I think, would see that as keeping them from learning something important and would resent being "protected"/kept in the dark.