April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[ncsu95]

Later everyone. Last one out tonight, please turn out the lights and make sure the doors are locked. Have a great weekend.

 

[unc70]

I get what you're saying, I just trust my intuition, and I'm not really the gullible type. And you notice he left and isn't here to continue baiting? Like he knew he went a little too far with what he said.

If you are referring to me, I have not gone anywhere. I have been posting regularly tonight since I made that post about next week. I made a followup post when I first noticed "concerns" about me.

 

[otto]

What I meant is are you speculating or do you actually know something?

Speculating or not, it sounds plausible.

I recall Kurtz saying after the testimony of one of the witnesses that he reserved the right to recall that witness. It was one of the early witnesses. My guess is that it was either the woman across the street who had the party, or the one that Nancy met at the school (the painting woman).

Have we heard testimony yet about what is required to wipe out that particular cell phone? If not, that should be interesting. It seems like there is no way to get around the fact that there are a lot of tries before it's wiped. I had an old blackberry I used a few months ago. I kept forgetting the password, messed up a few times, put it away, thought about it, and tried again. I had warnings about how many tries I had left, and I never accidentally wiped it.

If the prosecution witness said anything about the files being bmp files, then a google expert stating that they don't use those files would make a big difference. Also, I suppose the question will be whether an operating system glitch could cause the time stamp of google map files to malfunction, or whether the files themselves have a fixed time stamp that would appear altered when accessed.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Yet she didn't fight Brad?

I keep asking who no defensive wounds points to anyone in particular. I don't get that line of thinking, either.

 

[gracielee]

Our neighbor has one and he loves to ride the golf cart with me, hubby, and our two boxers. He's a pistol!! So personable. He stands out by the road - we live out in the REAL country, way out - very very little traffic - anyway, he stands out by the road and whenever we ride by on the 4 wheelers or golf cart, you have to stop and "visit" with him. He acts just like an old country gentleman sitting in the yard, spitting tobacco, and just waiting for someone to come by and chat. But he's big!!! I didn't realize basset hounds get that big.

Oh, put up some doggie pictures too! I love pictures. I can just picture the country gentleman too. Two boxers, cool. I added a couple more pictures tonight, one of the circle at the dead end of our road. Reminds me so much of the site where Nancy Cooper was found. Even before I read and saw the photos, I'm always scanning the woods when I take my dogs walking. And looking more closely at people sheds and out-buildings since that little girl, what was her name again? The one that was left living in the shed with mom's boyfriend while mom went off to military training. She was in our county, not near to us, but in the same county anyway.

< back to happier thoughts, dogs >

 

[otto]

Yes, him offering that was very strange. But again, there are lots of cases where a woman was found in a bra and nothing else (including shoes/socks). One case had a woman with a bra and ankle bracelet (jewelry) left on her.

She always wore that bra, but didn't always wear the same shorts and shirt, so that was one thing he could say for sure.

 

[otto]

Exactly. What do you BDI people think?

They will think that it is normal for an operating system to alter the timestamps of googe image files, and that everything that is relevant to the investigation is included in prosecution's expert witness's notes.

 

[gracielee]

Again, I did a google search for women murdered and found only in a bra (not jogging bra, just bra) and there were tons of hits. So it's not that "unusual" to find a murder victim with nothing but a bra on

Wait till that little tidbit shows up on the forensic search of *your* computer! :floorlaugh:

 

[gracielee]

I'm doing it more because of you (hopefully in an appropriate and non-snarky way towards other posters).


Now it is fftobed:

Me too, it's now past 'the shank of the evening' and my pain pill is kicking in. :crazy:

 

[Madeleine74]

It was testified in this trial though that she went back and modified it, right (or am I remembering it wrong because of all the discussion)?

Testimony was that an assumption had been made as to the type of earring backs.

The affidavit addition was a lie made up by someone here.

 

[otto]

Sleuthsayer, in response to the post that you linked earlier:

Not that anyone asked for it, but I will give give my overall opinion on this since it doesn't fit nicely in either "camp".

First of all, I save copies of all e-mails that I send from my work account forever. You never know when you are going to need an e-mail you sent years ago. So, I went back and looked and on 7/12/08, I forwarded the link for this article to a friend who lives in Lochmere. Actually, it wasn't exactly that article. You'll see at the top it says that it was originally posted on 7/12/08 and updated on 7/13/08. When it was originally posted, there was much less info in it. No quotes from friends, etc.

In the e-mail that I sent to the friend, other than the link to the article, all I said was "Do you know this lady from Lochmere? Husband/boyfriend did it." The reason that I said husband or boyfriend at the time was because I didn't even know if she was married. Anyway, point is, even when it was just a missing person case, I assumed that she was killed and that it was a domestic situation.

Subsequently, I learned that I knew people involved in the case. I'll leave it at that.

Now, where I am today is:

• I still think that Brad probably did it
• I hope that the prosecution has some actual evidence to prove that he did because, if he did it, I don't want him to walk
• I am very skeptical that they have such evidence
• I predict that he's going to be convicted anyway
• I think that's a bad thing from the standpoint of the legitimacy of our criminal justice system

Point is, if I zero in on this one case and think about nothing else, it wouldn't break my heart if he's found guilty with no actual evidence. But, if I step back and look at the big picture, it's scary that someone could be found guilty of murder based on a bunch of "might haves", "could haves", "can't prove he didn'ts", suspicious/unusual behavior, and the mostly hearsay testimony of a lot of the vicitim's friends who clearly hate him. It should not be the case that the accused has to prove that he didn't do something that you have only proved that he could have done.

I just think that the standard for convicting someone for murder should be very high. So far, I am not seeing anything to make me believe that they are going to get to a high standard in this case.

From your link in the article, this jumps out as a little odd: "She has two beautiful little girls who I love so much," Duncan said. "We love her so much; we all do. We just have to keep looking on."

That aside, it seems like you are also curious how the jury will interpret the information. I think that there is sometimes a misconception that people watching the trial have made up their minds, black and white. I think it's common that some people are curious and their opinions waiver a little while the information is made available, and common for others to be firmly convinced of guilt prior to a trial. I don't think it's all that common for someone (unrelated to the family) to be firmly convinced of innocence as there is always some doubt until the information is available.

 

[unc70]

If you watch JW's testimony (I think Wed morning), he is showing examples of network intrusion that just happen to be some of the of these files. If you look closely, stop the video you can see the exact time stamps in the report. The entire reports have been entered into evidence.

 

[gracielee]

Some old church friends did a murder/mystery dinner back in February. My wife and I were going to play characters. The week of the dinner, my grandmother passed away, so we had to back out because her burial was the same day. My character turned out to be the murderer. I would have loved that.

Sorry you had to miss it. It was fun, ours was the whole week-end. And when we went to visit the Biltmore House and grounds, we were to keep our eyes open for the actors/actresses and clues. then we'd all meet in the evening for dinner and the next installment. We were all staying at the Biltmore Inn on the grounds. I had a great time.

fftobed:

 

[gracielee]

Yet she didn't fight Brad?

He surprised her, caught her off guard, much bigger and stronger than her. Much like OJ, she was trapped in a small area, probably the front hall way. Taken by surprise and trapped in a small space, unable to flee. Much like Nicole's friend Ron Goldman. He was in good shape, worked out, but OJ had him trapped in that small, fenced in area. I think Brad laid in wait for her to return home.

 

[otto]

If you watch JW's testimony (I think Wed morning), he is showing examples of network intrusion that just happen to be some of the of these files. If you look closely, stop the video you can see the exact time stamps in the report. The entire reports have been entered into evidence.

Good. I'll have a look at the testimony again.

I finally found the correct phrase for what the prosecutor was doing with the child psychologist. Mind games. He was playing mind games with her to try to trip her up, including the implication that she was confused about her testimony and possibly lying. That was nasty.

There was an equally low blow to JW. Question: perhaps you know the answer. Did JW bring his laptop in as "notes" for testimony, and did that leave the contents of his computer and facebook page wide open and available to the prosecution? Or, did the prosecution sleuth out that information prior to the testimony for the purpose of discrediting him?

 

[otto]

Pg 99/141 states that the "failure to preserve and retain the electronic data outlined herein this notice constitutes a spoilation of evidence."

Dated July 30, 2008


From a quick glance, it seems "spoilation of evidence" is something that is usually connected with a defendant attempting to destroy evidence, not police accidentally destroying evidence (cell phone). When it is connected with law enforcement, it's usually because they lost someone's motorcycle.

June 5, 2009, Kurtz was notified that police accidentally wiped the phone.

 

[unc70]

Speculating or not, it sounds plausible.

I recall Kurtz saying after the testimony of one of the witnesses that he reserved the right to recall that witness. It was one of the early witnesses. My guess is that it was either the woman across the street who had the party, or the one that Nancy met at the school (the painting woman).

Have we heard testimony yet about what is required to wipe out that particular cell phone? If not, that should be interesting. It seems like there is no way to get around the fact that there are a lot of tries before it's wiped. I had an old blackberry I used a few months ago. I kept forgetting the password, messed up a few times, put it away, thought about it, and tried again. I had warnings about how many tries I had left, and I never accidentally wiped it.

If the prosecution witness said anything about the files being bmp files, then a google expert stating that they don't use those files would make a big difference. Also, I suppose the question will be whether an operating system glitch could cause the time stamp of google map files to malfunction, or whether the files themselves have a fixed time stamp that would appear altered when accessed.

Good. I'll have a look at the testimony again.

I finally found the correct phrase for what the prosecutor was doing with the child psychologist. Mind games. He was playing mind games with her to try to trip her up, including the implication that she was confused about her testimony and possibly lying. That was nasty.

There was an equally low blow to JW. Question: perhaps you know the answer. Did JW bring his laptop in as "notes" for testimony, and did that leave the contents of his computer and facebook page wide open and available to the prosecution? Or, did the prosecution sleuth out that information prior to the testimony for the purpose of discrediting him?

I think they sleuthed out the info earlier. I think JW said something about it being from Feb 2011. He did have his notebook with him and open after a break and BZ drew attention to it before starting.

You can see what is on BZ's computer somtimes when they come back from break. One time it looked like he was on wtvd.

Agree about trying to trip up witnesses. I have tried to keep an open mind until all the evidence is in, but I really resent the manipulation of evidence, disclosure, the forensic BS, and the judicial bias so much that I find hard to remain objective.

 

[unc70]

Pg 99/141 states that the "failure to preserve and retain the electronic data outlined herein this notice constitutes a spoilation of evidence."

Dated July 30, 2008


From a quick glance, it seems "spoilation of evidence" is something that is usually connected with a defendant attempting to destroy evidence, not police accidentally destroying evidence (cell phone). When it is connected with law enforcement, it's usually because they lost someone's motorcycle.

And if it is police intentionally destroying evidence, ...?

 

[otto]

I'm a bit stunned looking at the 141 page affidavit and supporting documents. The delay in providing the defense with images of the computers is astounding. The forensic work was done by Dec 19, but the prosecution delayed and then asked for 90 days, so it was put over to March. In a conference call, the request for the images was again made, and then FBI said they needed until late May to make a couple of computer images? Granted this was not the only case they were working, but Dec - May and several requests later? That's a lot of not doing a simple task effectively.

Unbelievable! Two hours after Kurtz was told he could have the images on May 22, Cummings interfered.

 

[otto]

And if it is police intentionally destroying evidence, ...?

It has to be a not guilty verdict.