April 15th wknd of Sleuthing

[Cheyenne130]

They should have been working from the same report or had access to the same report to compare notes.

Zellinger got lucky here in the fact that the judge had no clue what the hell he was talking about and Kurtz used a TERRIBLE analogy of what it was.

This really was a mis-step on everybody's part. Give me ten other pieces of evidence and some real time-line and place him at the scene. I wouldn't need it.

But, give me one detective who says he was angry and he snapped, one prosecutor who says he planned this for months and I will give you a guy who is potentially going to get away with murder over an inexperienced prosecutor (at least in this type of homicide) who has potentially given leigh way for either a defense witness to torpedo his smoking gun or to make his life hell in appeals. Either way, it doesn't play well for future rulings.

Bottom line: either the evidence is on the computer or it's not. Does Kurtz really need the report or is he just trying to find a way to muddy the waters with questions (usually statements) that make it seem like the information is incorrect? Obviously he can't do that (make it seem like the information is incorrect) with his own witness. MOO

 

[johnfear]

Bottom line: either the evidence is on the computer or it's not. Does Kurtz really need the report or is he just trying to find a way to muddy the waters with questions (usually statements) that make it seem like the information is incorrect? Obviously he can't do that (make it seem like the information is incorrect) with his own witness. MOO

I think he feels correctly that the state is hiding behind some ancient (1978) case law on technology that is "law enforcement sensitive" and therefore shielded. I think he also has been so loud and squeaky that he got ignored on an important issue. (Maybe on purpose)

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think he feels correctly that the state is hiding behind some ancient (1978) case law on technology that is "law enforcement sensitive" and therefore shielded. I think he also has been so loud and squeaky that he got ignored on an important issue. (Maybe on purpose)

I disagree. I think this was dealt with a long time ago in greater detail and he was denied. He brought it up again in front of the cameras but he had already been told no a long time ago. So what does he need to get from this report that his own expert can't get? Is the search for that area done on 7/11/08 on his computer (or now the copy of the drive) or not?

 

[sunshine05]

I think (despite the other opinions I have seen) that the only mistake Gessner has made with regards to most of this is with Kurtz. He started in on him day 3 and has made it pretty clear that he is biased against him. (Hence Trenkle's involvement)

The first time he was attempting to illicit information re: Pearson from Dismukes I thought Gessner was going to punch him. It was inappropriate by both parties and has set the tone for some odd calls later on.

Can we discuss that? I never understood why Kurtz wasn't allowed to question Dismukes about a witness's contradictions to their story.

 

[johnfear]

I disagree. I think this was dealt with a long time ago in greater detail and he was denied. He brought it up again in front of the cameras but he had already been told no a long time ago. So what does he need to get from this report that his own expert can't get? Is the search for that area done on 7/11/08 on his computer (or now the copy of the drive) or not?

According to the massive NC appeals ruling, it was NOT dealt with. It was "waiting for the state to obtain the report". Zellinger actually (for once) muddied the waters here. He implied that it all fell under the same Number and article indicator on that motion. It did not, but Kurtz was not fast enough on his feet and made a mess of it.

I don't know what they have on their side. The defense expert could be presenting a different view for all I know. What I do know is this either caught Kurtz wholly off-guard that day OR he was purposefully leading Boz up "a garden path". Which is also entirely possible. But, the fruits of the product were not included in the earlier denial. (Boz ended up HANDING Kurtz the report, which proved this, but again, it was awkward and obvious. Similar to Zellinger handing over other evidence throughout this trial. It's one of the strangest things that it has not been dealt with earlier. One would think the Pros would want to minimize the appellant dealings, not increase them.)

 

[Cheyenne130]

Can we discuss that? I never understood why Kurtz wasn't allowed to question Dismukes about a witness's contradictions to their story.

JP would be the witness and he wasn't the one on the stand. If the defense wants to call him, I would guess that they can question him about any inconsistencies. MOO

 

[Danielle59]

Detectives know very little about many things they request SW's on.
I agree, I am still perplexed as to the timing of the 10/2010 SW on the Samsung phone.

Det. Young wrote this about his training and experience, are you saying he was lying in this request for a search warrant?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...4205150825.pdf

Pg. 3
"My training and experience has shown that people use personal electronic devices, to include cellular telephones, for many aspects of their daily lives. This practice is even more common among people who work in the technology sector, such as Brad Cooper was, a VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) engineeer for Cisco Systems, Inc. Numerous past investigations have revealed evidence of crimes on electronic devices to include evidence of motive, method and intent to commit specific crimes via photographs, text messages, email messages, websites and other digital files stored on these devices."

 

[gritguy]

I think he feels correctly that the state is hiding behind some ancient (1978) case law on technology that is "law enforcement sensitive" and therefore shielded. I think he also has been so loud and squeaky that he got ignored on an important issue. (Maybe on purpose)

It seems to me Kurtz was ill prepared to make the argument over the MFT if it were truly critical. I didn't see him offer a written brief of any type or visual examples of reports to show a judge who he certainly knows by now is not going to retire to the Geek Squad after this trial.

OTOH, the state rebuttal was lame as well.

Seriously, it seems simple that what they wanted was the report. If that report would divulge protected methods - a subject of a prior ruling - then it wasn't coming in but the defense is protected for appeal. If it didn't divulge that, it should have been provided to the defense.

If I were Kurtz I would have said judge when he says I have it on the hard drive that's like saying if I have a bucket of paint I have the Mona Lisa. And saying if I get to look at the Mona Lisa then I know how to paint it is equally crazy. But if we're going to talk about what the picture looks like, we should both be able to see the painting, not just one side. So how can it be fair they see a report and I don't, when I agree I won't see how they made the report?

Anyway, if it matters and the verdict is guilty the defense has the issue preserved for appeal. Having said that, if the defense has the hard drive image, and I think they do, shouldn't they have experts who can dispute whatever about the search, which is I think what they are so afraid of?

 

[johnfear]

Can we discuss that? I never understood why Kurtz wasn't allowed to question Dismukes about a witness's contradictions to their story.

I am not sure, but the defense was also denied all access to a third interview with Pearson and there were some "side bars sans jury" about this in court.

The judge went off the chain at Kurtz saying he'd left the jury with the impression that someone had lied to "this witness" when clearly someone had and Dismukes didn't seem quite as hellbent on covering it up, but the Pros did.

 

[Danielle59]

Perhaps an element of the State's strategy is to hand the jury over to the defense after they are fairly mentally and emotionally fatigued...
Their tolerance and receptiveness to anything that doesn't seem to have a punch/point will likely be much more limited than in the earlier days/weeks of the trial...

So it is not really about Justice, but wearing people down. I don't agree with that approach. We already know this is going to go to appeal if he is convicted with how horribly the Judge has handled it.

 

[johnfear]

Snipped respectfully.
Anyway, if it matters and the verdict is guilty the defense has the issue preserved for appeal. Having said that, if the defense has the hard drive image, and I think they do, shouldn't they have experts who can dispute whatever about the search, which is I think what they are so afraid of?[/QUOTE]

Thanks for reminding me. I am pretty sure that Zellinger admitted that all the forensics had been done on the original hard drive and they did not image it. I was floored by that and thought I had heard it wrong. But, Cummings brought it up later. I don't think this was on camera, but I was shocked that those procedures had only been recently implemented. I found that in itself to have been wholly inept as far as preservation goes.

 

[johnfear]

Det. Young wrote this about his training and experience, are you saying he was lying in this request for a search warrant?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...4205150825.pdf

Pg. 3
"My training and experience has shown that people use personal electronic devices, to include cellular telephones, for many aspects of their daily lives. This practice is even more common among people who work in the technology sector, such as Brad Cooper was, a VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) engineeer for Cisco Systems, Inc. Numerous past investigations have revealed evidence of crimes on electronic devices to include evidence of motive, method and intent to commit specific crimes via photographs, text messages, email messages, websites and other digital files stored on these devices."

Man, I was over here trying to screen print that EXACT paragraph. Daniels has one somewhere too that is even more specific. Thanks!!!

 

[sunshine05]

I am not sure, but the defense was also denied all access to a third interview with Pearson and there were some "side bars sans jury" about this in court.

The judge went off the chain at Kurtz saying he'd left the jury with the impression that someone had lied to "this witness" when clearly someone had and Dismukes didn't seem quite as hellbent on covering it up, but the Pros did.

Interesting. I didn't know about a 3rd interview. Thanks.

 

[Danielle59]

Originally Posted by LyndyLoo
I guess you are fogetting about his NEED to clean the Hardwood Flooring then in the foyer??..

And we choose to believe that this is the one thing that he is being honest about because....?

They could have pulled up the floor, no way he could have cleaned between those boards of the hardwood.

 

[Just the Fax]

Det. Young wrote this about his training and experience, are you saying he was lying in this request for a search warrant?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local...4205150825.pdf

Pg. 3
"My training and experience has shown that people use personal electronic devices, to include cellular telephones, for many aspects of their daily lives. This practice is even more common among people who work in the technology sector, such as Brad Cooper was, a VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) engineeer for Cisco Systems, Inc. Numerous past investigations have revealed evidence of crimes on electronic devices to include evidence of motive, method and intent to commit specific crimes via photographs, text messages, email messages, websites and other digital files stored on these devices."

Thanks for all that, but I was referring to the Detective Daniels.

 

[Danielle59]

Man, I was over here trying to screen print that EXACT paragraph. Daniels has one somewhere too that is even more specific. Thanks!!!

I had to type it out

 

[Just the Fax]

They could have pulled up the floor, no way he could have cleaned between those boards of the hardwood.

Yes, we know because you posted this before.
Again, Nancy lived for years in that home.
What possible evidence could they get from her possible DNA within the very tight crevices of the hardwood floors:waitasec:

 

[johnfear]

Interesting. I didn't know about a 3rd interview. Thanks.

I believe the big old 160 page "Coopermotion.pdf" may have a mention in it. You have to read it twice and the second time you have to make notes on where you are so you can see the defense request, the response, then the ruling.

It gets convoluted, which is what made me blow it off in the first place thinking there was going to be something HUGE in here beyond the google search.

By the way, earlier, someone said in front of the cameras, but what I was saying was IN CAMERA, (in chambers away from everything. Just the judge, the counsel of each side and the specific experts for each side, so that NOTHING goes on public record about the technique, but that enough of an explanation can go back and forth so that it can be understood.)

Also, does the closed hand file actually "keep an image" on it? Or did they use it to then re-create the search string and keystrokes and make their own image. I think that was the key to the whole MFT argument that Kurtz did not understand. I also think he was trying to keep some other stuff out re: emails, etc.

 

[macd]

Here's a zip code map of 27518.
We don't know the boundaries that existed in 2008 and we don't know the algorithm that Google used in 2008 to find the center, but we can see that Fielding Drive is somewhat close to the center.
Find the horizontal line half way between the northern most and southern most points, and the vertical line half way between the eastern most and western most points. These line intersect not too far off from Fielding Drive using the current map.

 

[jumpstreet]

So it is not really about Justice, but wearing people down. I don't agree with that approach. We already know this is going to go to appeal if he is convicted with how horribly the Judge has handled it.

Right. I was just thinking there may be an element of this in their strategy.
I'm sure both sides view 'jury management' as at least a piece of their pursuit of (what they consider) justice..