April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[ncsu95]

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.

If they had that witness, they would already be on the witness list. And if they did, why not be proactive and bring it up during the prosecutions case to minimize the impact of it. Ie, here is what the files show and here is exactly what it means despite what the defense will claim. I doubt they have a rebuttal witness for this.

 

[Cheyenne130]

If they had that witness, they would already be on the witness list. And if they did, why not be proactive and bring it up during the prosecutions case to minimize the impact of it. Ie, here is what the files show and here is exactly what it means despite what the defense will claim. I doubt they have a rebuttal witness for this.

They will recall one or both of the witnesses who already testified to rebut what was put on by the defense. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

Ok, say CPD didn't do it. Whoever did, we agree that they're smart enough to get in there without detection. They're smart enough to plant the stuff so that it requires sophisticated extraction techniques to access.

And this person committing such a crime, with all this tech savvy, isn't smart enough to make sure the timestamps add up? Wouldn't that be the FIRST thing you'd be concerned about, in order to make him look guilty and in order to cover your own tracks?

Then how do you explain it? How do you explain those files having invalid timestamps? Even the "FBI" (Durham PD) witness couldn't explain it. But I'm hoping you can.

 

[Tink56]

You keep calling this guy an FBI agent. He's a Durham police detective.

Doesn't he wear "two hats"--Durham Police and FBI?

 

[ncsu95]

What files were modified?

The timestamps for the google search files were ALL invalid. What is the explanation for that happening without them being modified (and modified in my words means moved, manipulated, copied, or having the properties changed).

 

[Cheyenne130]

Then how do you explain it? How do you explain those files having invalid timestamps? Even the "FBI" (Durham PD) witness couldn't explain it. But I'm hoping you can.

My interpretation is that could most likely explain it but there is not one explanation. There are a number or reasons that could create invalid timestamps. Without having access to the servers accessed, they can't definitively say what caused those invalid timestamps. On the other hand, the defense witness wanted to give one reason for those invalid timestamps and that's just not reasonable. Without accessing all the equipment on the entire www, he has no idea what caused the invalid timestamps. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

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

Then it is the prosecutions job to explain why those invalid timestamps don't indicate tampering. This is the most important evidence of their case.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The timestamps for the google search files were ALL invalid. What is the explanation for that happening without them being modified (and modified in my words means moved, manipulated, copied, or having the properties changed).

Or maybe somebody tried to delete that and it left behind files with invalid timestamps as a result of the incomplete deletion?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Then it is the prosecutions job to explain why those invalid timestamps don't indicate tampering. This is the most important evidence of their case.

Because the state has the burden of proof, they have the advantage of rebuttal.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

They didn't hand it over to the FBI. They handed it to a detective 1 county over. And let's argue that they did tamper with it....of course they would hand it over so that information would be found. Why else would they do it? You don't tamper or plant evidence so that it isn't found. You do it so that it is found and bolsters your case.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

You missed my point. He left home....drove to crossroads to Lowes...then back towards his house to Fielding...then back past crossroads to 40 to go to work? That doesn't make sense.

 

[unc70]

They will recall one or both of the witnesses who already testified to rebut what was put on by the defense. MOO

As I said a day or two back, if they bring their forensic expert in to dispute the defense's network security expert, if they are not very careful and very lucky, they may suddenly nullify that "forensic" exclusion by introducing that data into the network security side of things. Any slip-up might suddenly remove the "forensic" restrictions from JW.

BTW In some ways I see JW and CC as being a bit like Holmes and Lastrade and the other plods. This case reminds me a bit of the curious incident of the dog who didn't bark. Several other Holmes quotes are probably in order. We still have a few things to eliminate...

 

[Cheyenne130]

They didn't hand it over to the FBI. They handed it to a detective 1 county over. And let's argue that they did tamper with it....of course they would hand it over so that information would be found. Why else would they do it? You don't tamper or plant evidence so that it isn't found. You do it so that it is found and bolsters your case.

I honestly don't believe that you honestly believe that LE tampered with that computer. Based on the statements of JW, you have to realize that he was part of the defense "team". He was not interested in the truth of the matter but presenting information to exhonerate "their" client. He was working for the defense and his testimony represented what they wanted to say. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

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

They knew the defense would bring this up. It was in opening statements as well as motions (I believe). I still don't understand why they wouldn't be proactive and bring it up first if you believe that is what they intend to do. They sure did have a whole lot of witnesses that said they found nothing. The theory here has been that they were being proactive in showing they searched everything. I would find it a lot more believable if the prosecution brought it up first. Instead, we get all the Boz cows (as opposed to Kurtz kittens) over the defense witness testimony. So I'm not sure they are going to refute anything. I hope they do and have a legitimate explanation for it.

 

[Cheyenne130]

As I said a day or two back, if they bring their forensic expert in to dispute the defense's network security expert, if they are not very careful and very lucky, they may suddenly nullify that "forensic" exclusion by introducing that data into the network security side of things. Any slip-up might suddenly remove the "forensic" restrictions from JW.

BTW In some ways I see JW and CC as being a bit like Holmes and Lastrade and the other plods. This case reminds me a bit of the curious incident of the dog who didn't bark. Several other Holmes quotes are probably in order. We still have a few things to eliminate...

Does the defense get to bring back rebuttal witnesses?

 

[ncsu95]

Doesn't he wear "two hats"--Durham Police and FBI?

People on here say he is part of a task force and was also sworn in as a "Deputy Marshall".

 

[Danielle59]

Did he have full administrative access to his computer?

I pretty much doubt that he did.

 

[Danielle59]

I can see the cover on the paperback swap page but on the Amazon page there isn't any book shown at all. Just the pre-order info. I looked at the Amazon site yesterday and didn't see the book but saw it on the swap page a moment ago.

I posted a link in this thread earlier from B&N, go to B&N or even google, and do a search on "Love Lies." It will come up.

 

[ncsu95]

My interpretation is that could most likely explain it but there is not one explanation. There are a number or reasons that could create invalid timestamps. Without having access to the servers accessed, they can't definitively say what caused those invalid timestamps. On the other hand, the defense witness wanted to give one reason for those invalid timestamps and that's just not reasonable. Without accessing all the equipment on the entire www, he has no idea what caused the invalid timestamps. MOO

But only 2% of all the files on the PC had it, yet 100% of the files associated with that 41 second period. Something just isn't right. That's way too random and way too convenient.

 

[Cheyenne130]

They knew the defense would bring this up. It was in opening statements as well as motions (I believe). I still don't understand why they wouldn't be proactive and bring it up first if you believe that is what they intend to do. They sure did have a whole lot of witnesses that said they found nothing. The theory here has been that they were being proactive in showing they searched everything. I would find it a lot more believable if the prosecution brought it up first. Instead, we get all the Boz cows (as opposed to Kurtz kittens) over the defense witness testimony. So I'm not sure they are going to refute anything. I hope they do and have a legitimate explanation for it.

Come on! You know computers. You know technology. You know how you can BS about anything and make it seem believable when you are talking to those who don't understand the language. If the prosecution crosses, he only answers with more foreign language to confuse the jury. That is not helpful. I think the state is 100% on target to use their own experts and keep out all the extraneous nonsense that the jury won't understand anyway.