April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[ncsu95]

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

I don't know. If that would cause it, I would hope the prosecution elicit testimony saying that.

 

[Cheyenne130]

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.

And that's why I honestly believe that Brad attempted to delete that search but he didn't get everything that the FBI was able to retreive, but in his attempts it moved those files and made the invalid timestamps. That makes the most sense. MOO

 

[unc70]

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

I would expect that JW has examined all the hidden timestamps associated with the files with invalid timestamps on BC's computer. Those other times would have given him a really good idea about when and with which method the files were munged.

Not much need for these other computers and servers.

Elementary.
IMNSHO

 

[ncsu95]

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

I don't know what to believe. I want a valid explanation for those files having an invalid timestamp (and all the files during that 41 seconds having an invalid timestamp).

 

[Danielle59]

I asked this question awhile back but I'm not sure anybody has the answer: did Brad have complete administrative access to his computer?

I really really doubt he did.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I really really doubt he did.

Thank you. If he didn't have access to edit/delete registry files that would seriously curtail his ability to delete evidence from his computer.

 

[SleuthinNC]

And that's why I honestly believe that Brad attempted to delete that search but he didn't get everything that the FBI was able to retreive, but in his attempts it moved those files and made the invalid timestamps. That makes the most sense. MOO

I have to think that if BC tried to delete files and that explains the invalid timestamps that the prosecution side of this would have went differently. It doesn't make sense for them not to have said "Look BC did a Google search and not only that, he tried to cover it up by deleting the files, it didn't work as you can see because it left invalid timestamps". That would have been both preemptive and a much stronger argument.

 

[Danielle59]

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?

I heard that too, and when questioned about it he said that it was no longer true because the center of 27518 was no longer Fielding Dr because the zip code for 27518 expanded its boundaries. But, Fielding Drive was never in 27518 to be the center of it. It was all very confusing to me. I only read what he was quoted as saying in the news.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I have to think that if BC tried to delete files and that explains the invalid timestamps that the prosecution side of this would have went differently. It doesn't make sense for them not to have said "Look BC did a Google search and not only that, he tried to cover it up by deleting the files, it didn't work as you can see because it left invalid timestamps". That would have been both preemptive and a much stronger argument.

Would that be honest? I don't know that you can definitively say what caused invalid timestamps without having access to all the switches, routers, servers and computer involved with the questionable files. The best you can do is give an educated guess.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I believe there has been testimony by a few witnesses that BC had administrator privileges on his machine, but was not THE administrator account.

 

[unc70]

Earlier tonight I rewatched the Cisco coworker about going to lunch that Friday when the Google lunch happened. He started out testifying about leaving Cisco for lunch a little after 1:00. By the time his testimony was over, Boz had carefully shifted the time of the hour and a half lunch closer to 1:30 to 3:00. If he had held fast to that earlier time window, it would have called into question the Google maps search.

Wonder when they first got his statement, what it originally said about the time, what the purpose of his testimony. Curious.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I believe there has been testimony by a few witnesses that BC had administrator privileges on his machine, but was not THE administrator account.

That tells me that he was able to install software when he found it necessary but did not have the ability to edit registry. MOO

 

[SleuthinNC]

Would that be honest? I don't know that you can definitively say what caused invalid timestamps without having access to all the switches, routers, servers and computer involved with the questionable files. The best you can do is give an educated guess.

I'm not sure what information you would be getting from the network that would tell you about timestamps on files on the computer that would not already be present in the log files on the computer itself.

 

[cassius]

Would that be honest? I don't know that you can definitively say what caused invalid timestamps without having access to all the switches, routers, servers and computer involved with the questionable files. The best you can do is give an educated guess.

This judge is letting lay witnesses give opinions of guilt for crying out loud! The prosecution could have easily elicited testimony, if it has some basis, that in the expert's opinion the invalid timestamps are consistent with the user attempting to delete x, y or z. That would have been a whole heck of a lot stronger and would have dampened the defense's attempt to plant the seed of tampering.

I don't know how or why those files are the way they are, but I think it is clear that either the prosecution knows that they can't explain it as being anything other than tampering or their "expert" isn't as expert as they would like him to be. There is a huge reason that they fought so hard to keep the MFT out as well as fighting so hard to keep jw from testifying and then assaulting his character with that facebook crap. That's a whole other issue that the judge in this case has screwed up.

 

[borndem]

Someone held a gun on her before they overpowered her. There is no way to know whether she would have frozen in fear if someone had done that -- and maybe even threatened to kill her kids if she did not cooperate.

Seems to me, in that scenario, they (he) would have taken the earrings without a doubt. JMO

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I would be one of those who would not only suggest it, but know it to be so. Who else to try out their theories on, then people who are interested in the case? It happens all the time. It has nothing to do with their credibility or lack thereof. It has to do with floating their theories and gleaning new ones from the naysayers.

It does and will continue to happen, not as far fetched as you seem to think.

Would you, then, say the same about the prosecution?

 

[unc70]

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.

Sometimes, but that seems more the CPD and FBI purview. The problem with doing that hand waving and fast talking is that, when you get called on it, you suddenly get memory loss and lose your credibility.

The technical stuff doesn't pass muster with those of us who understand the technology including JW. A week ago, I and nearly everyone on this board who now suspects tampering were highly skeptical about their claims of tampering. Not just the possibility of it, but proof that it happened and was intentional. That serious a claim must meet a very high standard of proof.

Many of us who are the most computer literate have slowly been moving towards a position that tampering likely occurred, though not clear when, how, or by whom. Most of us are still looking up articles, testing things on our systems, trying to convince ourselves of what we are seeing.

The defense has shown how there could have been tampering (through wireless) without the jurors also being forced to accept that the tampering had to have been done by CPD.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- S. H.

 

[jmflu]

Happy Easter, everybody! I hope the Easter Bunny is good to you... That would be a chocolate and peanut butter egg to me!

 

[johnfear]

There do seem to be a bunch of us posting here. We are such a smart and talented group. Cute and fun to be with, too.

GC'64
UNC'70

Yuppers

NCGSW '94
ECU 1998

 

[unc70]

Yuppers

GSW '1994
ECU 1998

But one of us had a typo he missed.

GS'64 or is it NCGS'64
UNC'70