April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ncsu95 said:
But he is an expert at identifying tampering on a computer. He's not an expert at doing a forensic analysis...but that doesn't mean he knows nothing about computers or files. He knows what files should look like and what it looks like when things aren't right. That is the crazy part of Gessner's ruling. I agree that his MFT version shouldn't have been introduced. But he was simply using what was introduced by the prosecution and saying what was wrong. That wasn't the forensic analysis part...the report that was introduced was the forensic analysis part. And that "expert" said he didn't know why or how the files were modified.
Click to expand...

And because that is his focus I have no doubt that he could find tampering on the computer. He said as much. I'm sure he could find questionable invalid timestamps on my computer but I don't believe anyone has planted any files in order to implicate me or anyone else in a crime. He is not experienced in the area of forensic analysis so any results he could present may not be entirely unbiased. I hope the next expert they have is truly an expert. MOO
 
momof7 said:
I agree, I have always been convinced he went to at least Fielding Drive during the time between Lowe's and work. Since it was so close to his home, I was not sure if 'maybe' he went there before Lowe's, then after Lowe's was flirting with other areas. I really find it odd, the Fielding Drive location is the only one on the computer, honestly. I have the belief that he was checking the ariel look to make sure there was no other way in or out, closest house etc as it is wooded in the back (appears so in the pictures posted). If the Pros can get someone, anyone to confirm that that it could have been there BEFORE 7/11 and he only ACCESSED it again, causing a different timestamp I think I could say premed all the way, guilty as charged.

Kelly
Click to expand...

It's the opposite direction though. If he was going to do that, why not do it before going to Lowes. That doesn't make any sense.
 
ncsu95 said:
Because it is "the smoking gun". They had to have that PC searched (even if they didn't tamper with it).
Click to expand...

That goes against all common sense. CPD tampers with Brad's computer, then hands it over to the FBI.......NO WAY a jury will buy this reasoning.
 
Bottle Cap said:
Why didn't they seem fishy to the FBI? If it's so easy to figure out that they were planted, why didn't the FBI figure it out? And if the FBI figured it out, why did they proceed to testify for the prosecution?

What has to be alleged, in order for this scenario to carry any weight, is that CPD and FBI are corrupt and colluding, to frame an innocent man for ??? reason. (IS there a good reason? LE seems okay with the paper delivery person murder being unsolved...they haven't framed HER boyfriend.) Why go to such convoluted lengths...to plant the files, risk calling in the FBI, when they could have put a teaspoon of soil from the site in the soles of Brad's shoes.

What's more likely, to me, is that Brad Cooper is good with computers. He can manipulate files, phones, access computers remotely, cover his tracks at will, and had motive means and opportunity to do all these things.
Click to expand...

You keep calling this guy an FBI agent. He's a Durham police detective.
 
ncsu95 said:
It's the opposite direction though. If he was going to do that, why not do it before going to Lowes. That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Whether he went to the dump spot before or after....he would still make the drive. I don't think his gas mileage was his biggest concern at this point.
 
ncsu95 said:
It's the opposite direction though. If he was going to do that, why not do it before going to Lowes. That doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Since I am not sure what time he actually left home, that could always be a possibility.

Kelly
 
I asked this a couple of times before but never got an answer. Can anyone who was at the court for the FBI Guy / Durham Police Guy / whatever testimony clarify what was said about the Google maps and latitude/longitude? It was reported in the paper and on WRAL as him having said that the lat/long of Fielding Dr was at the center of 27518. Does anyone know what was actually said?
 
SleuthSayer said:
I asked this a couple of times before but never got an answer. Can anyone who was at the court for the FBI Guy / Durham Police Guy / whatever testimony clarify what was said about the Google maps and latitude/longitude? It was reported in the paper and on WRAL as him having said that the lat/long of Fielding Dr was at the center of 27518. Does anyone know what was actually said?
Click to expand...

I wish I could tell you, but I didn't get it written down in time. :(
 
Cheyenne130 said:
Absolutely not! And I'm doubling the salary that we're currently paying you. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
She's going to be rolling in the dough from the royalties when WRAL goes pay-per-view the day that she finally does that sports bra experiment in court.
 
SleuthSayer said:
She's going to be rolling in the dough from the royalties when WRAL goes pay-per-view the day that she finally does that sports bra experiment in court.
Click to expand...

:floorlaugh:
Y'all are killin' me here! On that note, I better turn in as I have an early morning tomorrow! G'night all!
 
gracielee said:
That's what I think too. And put me in the Brad is guilty group. :maddening: I have absolutely no reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...


I'm right there with you, GLee -- I, too, have absolutely no reasonable doubt. I started lurking here on this back in '08, and I finally came out of the shadows and got "legal." I followed this case and then just realized that there was not an alternative to BC's guilt. Whatever other friends, acquaintances/locals the LEO's followed (still making this a non-random crime), none of them panned out, and they just couldn't eliminate BC as hard as they tried.

He is the only one who profits by the loss of NC in this case -- and not so much from $75K in insurance, but in not having to pay alimony or child support -- a free man, possibly "a free man in Paris, ... unfettered and alive," (if anyone recalls that ditty), unmarried as he should have been all along. He should not have married NC, or anyone -- he is not whole enough to offer himself as a husband or father -- there is not enough insight, empathy, love for others, etc., etc., to give himself or anyone close to him a good life. And I think that this lack, is not really his fault -- I think a propensity for weakness such as this is inborn, and nurture and events can exacerbate it or mitigate it.

Anyway, put me in the BC-is-guilty-beyond-any-doubt bunch.
 
LyndyLoo said:
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
Click to expand...

I've never understood what him doing a whole lot of laundry was supposed to mean (other than people say he never did it).
 
momof7 said:
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
Click to expand...

But why is the prosecution afraid for it to come out? If it is legitimate, it's seems like they should be pursuing the truth, not just a conviction. If it isn't legitimate, and they are sure of it, then bring a witness on to explains why it isn't legitimate.
 
ncsu95 said:
I've never understood what him doing a whole lot of laundry was supposed to mean (other than people say he never did it).
Click to expand...

He made note of washing lots of towels. Apparently there were 3 or 4 loads of just towels. Him washing her clothes was also an "eyebrow raiser". It's not impossible but it sure seems out of the realm of normal.
 
ncsu95 said:
But why is the prosecution afraid for it to come out? If it is legitimate, it's seems like they should be pursuing the truth, not just a conviction. If it isn't legitimate, and they are sure of it, then bring a witness on to explains why it isn't legitimate.
Click to expand...

I agree with your last part. That is exactly what they intend to do. But I don't think they want misinformation being presented to the jury as if it is legitmate. MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 3,913 (members: 156, guests: 3,757)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
3,757
Total visitors
3,913
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,507
Messages
17,970,096
Members
228,789
Latest member
redhairdontcare
Back
Top