2011.05.05 Verdict Watch (day 2)

[unc70]

Those considering similarities with other trials, consider one locally a few years back where a computer guy, Robert Petrick, was convicted in part because there was evidence he searched for the location where the body was found. Trial 2005 in Durham, appealed in 2007.

 

[cityslick]

This is my guess as well. I can see 1 or 2 jurors saying,

"but why was he up that early buying laundry detergent"
"it wasn't even the brand they used" (JA testimony sticking in someone's head)

The DEF exhibits requested would answer those. I can't think of another reason for the jury requesting those 2 records specifically and none of the State's records re: HT purchases.

What's really interesting is that they have not requested anything (at least yet) related to computer forensics. If they were all sold on the google map, there is no need for these BJ and HT records is there?

I think asking for the deposition leads me to believe a few of them are questioning what were the reasons for the discrepancies to what he told LE.

 

[iucpa]

This is my guess as well. I can see 1 or 2 jurors saying,

"but why was he up that early buying laundry detergent"
"it wasn't even the brand they used" (JA testimony sticking in someone's head)

The DEF exhibits requested would answer those. I can't think of another reason for the jury requesting those 2 records specifically and none of the State's records re: HT purchases.

What's really interesting is that they have not requested anything (at least yet) related to computer forensics. If they were all sold on the google map, there is no need for these BJ and HT records is there?

VERY good point, jrb. VERY good indeed. If they really bought into the weight and gravity of that google map search, you'd think they'd want to zero in on that right away.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think the deposition is a double edged sword. Some say they will see all of BC lies. I would challenge that most of those "lies" would only be considered lies if you find the state's witnesses to be credible.

 

[gbay]

Its a customer loyalty record, a summary of specific purchases over a period of time - not a receipt from one trip.

I got the feeling that it wasn't just "specific" purchases but rather "all" purchases as JA had to highlight the tide purchases from quite a few pages of information. I imagine they can see other things that were purchased as well.

 

[yeknomaras]

geez, I had to close twitter. I have never, in all my life, seen so many people making fun of a dead woman before. I mean REALLY being nasty. no matter whether you think BC is guilty or not guilty, I don't see how or why that gives you any right to say that kind of stuff about the victim. because no matter what happens, she stays dead. WOW.


*by "you" I mean, the folks on twitter. not you guys.

 

[iucpa]

I'm very interested to hear what they say here in a few minutes - I may very well head down there at 1:30 to be there in case the verdict is announced shortly thereafter.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I got the feeling that it wasn't just "specific" purchases but rather "all" purchases as JA had to highlight the tide purchases from quite a few pages of information. I imagine they can see other things that were purchased as well.

You are correct. It was 5 years worth of BJ's records. JA circled every instance of detergent (Tide in one color, All in another) and noted the time in between each (5-8 week average).

 

[iucpa]

some of us overheard someone in the court talking about a special occasion luncheon today...I am not going to divulge who said it ...because it was eavesdropping and they left the mikes on by mistake...some on the board heard it

Plus they bring their lunches from what I overheard also

Can you expand on that at all without divulging who said it? I ask because I may go down there at 1:30 unless you have good reason otherwise.

TYIA!

 

[jrb0124]

VERY good point, jrb. VERY good indeed. If they really bought into the weight and gravity of that google map search, you'd think they'd want to zero in on that right away.

If everyone agreed on the implication of the Google Map/comp forensics as BC=guilty there is no need for DE#4 and DE#170.

If there was a split on the implication of the Google Map/comp forensics as BC=guilty, that would be among the items requested - as well as the the charts and supporting/surrounding exhibits.

If everyone agreed on the implication of the Google Map/comp forensics as unreliable/unconsiderable/tampered evidence, no need to convince anyone - its time to move on to other evidence.

 

[gbay]

geez, I had to close twitter. I have never, in all my life, seen so many people making fun of a dead woman before. I mean REALLY being nasty. no matter whether you think BC is guilty or not guilty, I don't see how or why that gives you any right to say that kind of stuff about the victim. because no matter what happens, she stays dead. WOW.


*by "you" I mean, the folks on twitter. not you guys.

I looked at it the other night and they were destroying DD. I am sure everyone of Nancy's friends are hoping that he he found guilty!!

 

[octobermoon]

they are back live

 

[iucpa]

I think the deposition is a double edged sword. Some say they will see all of BC lies. I would challenge that most of those "lies" would only be considered lies if you find the state's witnesses to be credible.

I agree - the depo could be used to argue either point. You'll see in the depo what you want to see. I don't think it, in and of itself, will swing anyone either way or bear a lot of weight.

It really boils down to whether you believe the Google map search. And to me, even IF it really was him, I just have a very hard time saying that googling one's on zip code equates to murder.

All that said, I do still have a feeling they'll find him G and many will be scratching their heads asking how that could be done with such little evidence and so many questions leading to doubt...

 

[huck22]

That makes complete sense but I would imagine that someone would find more than 2 occassions when you shopped at those hours.

Valid point, although I've hit up a variety of stores -- Lowe's Foods, Kroger, Wal-mart -- during late-night runs, in addition to our "home" store HT.

ETA: I'm also a person that heads to the ATM when my check is direct deposited and pulls several hundred dollars of cash. I use the cash until it dries up, then go back to the credit card. And I'm also notorious for forgetting my rewards card at various stores. My point is that I think it would be ill-advised to put too much weight on this type of evidence.

 

[sunshine05]

I know people here often like to bring up other cases to point out similarities to this one (young, abaroa, the various petersons) so along that same line of thinking I think the trial of the Edenton Seven deserves a look as well. You may find some very disturbing similarities.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson168.html

Very interesting article, especially this part:

In other words, in a case where how the "evidence" was gathered was as important as the "evidence" itself, the State of North Carolina made sure that deception would be the rule.

Do you know what ever happened to them? Were they ever exonerated?

 

[yeknomaras]

k so the jury is off to lunch. I hope they enjoy every bite while we sit here and munch on our fingernails. LOL

 

[momto3kids]

NBC 17 has stated the verdict will go live on TV when it is reached.

 

[cityslick]

geez, I had to close twitter. I have never, in all my life, seen so many people making fun of a dead woman before. I mean REALLY being nasty. no matter whether you think BC is guilty or not guilty, I don't see how or why that gives you any right to say that kind of stuff about the victim. because no matter what happens, she stays dead. WOW.


*by "you" I mean, the folks on twitter. not you guys.

The internet brings out the worst in people.

 

[Skittles]

geez, I had to close twitter. I have never, in all my life, seen so many people making fun of a dead woman before. I mean REALLY being nasty. no matter whether you think BC is guilty or not guilty, I don't see how or why that gives you any right to say that kind of stuff about the victim. because no matter what happens, she stays dead. WOW.


*by "you" I mean, the folks on twitter. not you guys.

I agree. I switched to the #coopertrialverdict hashtag which is solely for tweets announcing the verdict is ready (no discussion).

 

[iucpa]

If everyone agreed on the implication of the Google Map/comp forensics as BC=guilty there is no need for DE#4 and DE#170.

If there was a split on the implication of the Google Map/comp forensics as BC=guilty, that would be among the items requested - as well as the the charts and supporting/surrounding exhibits.

If everyone agreed on the implication of the Google Map/comp forensics as unreliable/unconsiderable/tampered evidence, no need to convince anyone - its time to move on to other evidence.

Only thing I'd say is that if your third point was true, they would have come back with a NG verdict by now. That's the only potentially incriminating evidence in the entire trial.