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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or maybe somebody tried to delete that and it left behind files with invalid timestamps as a result of the incomplete deletion?
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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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.
I believe there has been testimony by a few witnesses that BC had administrator privileges on his machine, but was not THE administrator account.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
GSW '1994
ECU 1998