April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[macd]

It's not just negating a case in chief point.

It's on the heels of the defense negating in pattern form the foundation of a large deal of the pros case in chief in an untimely manner that may take more time than allowed to in this case. The cross and rebuttal of the evidence may be pointlessly prejudicial and not as probative as it seems from first glance.

That was part of the appellate ruling I quoted. It does not matter if the new evidence does not directly negate a case-in-chief point or does more than just negate a point.

The defense witness said "that router is big".
That was not said just to entertain the jury.
That was part of a new theory offered by the defense.
Something like: "no one found an fxo capable router in the house, and they are big. Someone would have seen one if there was one there."

The prosecution is allowed to enter new evidence that rebuts the new theory offered by defense, even if the theory was offered only by inference.

 

[GhostCrab]

I think I am going to try and shuffle some things around and go to court Monday morning...anyone else?

 

[macd]

Again as I have said many times, data leaves trails. If the prosecution brings this evidence in they need to show that he actually made the calls. If the address of 3825 shows up in the arp table on the pc then the 3825 was connected to the LAN and not just via console cable. If it was on the LAN have they looked at the other router to see what was going on there? have they located a different switch? What other data connections were made to the 3825?

None of that is information that would come off the PC so not really understanding the extent of the investigation that is being done.

Before windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is no direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment to make a spoofed call on or around 7/12.

After windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment on or around 7/12.

So, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence to add to the pile.
I think a pretty big piece.

 

[SleuthinNC]

If all they have to show is a single ip mismatch entry their idea of "proof" is very thin.

 

[jrb0124]

Before windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is no direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment to make a spoofed call on or around 7/12.

After windows system event log info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment on or around 7/12.

So, this is another piece of circumstantial evidence to add to the pile.
I think a pretty big piece.

1) If he had a fax machine or modem he and anyone else in the state of NC with either or had the necessary equipment the morning of 7/12.

2) If you meant to imply equipment to spoof the call using an FXO + router, where would the driect evidence be that he had the FXO?

 

[jrb0124]

If all they have to show is a single ip mismatch entry their idea of "proof" is very thin.

I assume CF is certain that the equipment he believes maps is for sure the Integrated 3825, and not a residential Gateway 3825.

This may be a moot point, but there are other 3825 named router models that have nothing to do with VOIP. I doubt CF would make a mistake like that (even in haste)...but ya never know.

 

[macd]

If all they have to show is a single ip mismatch entry their idea of "proof" is very thin.

Kind of like a fingerprint.

A single fingerprint is direct evidence that a person was in contact with a specific surface.

A single event log with a hardware mac address on one device is direct evidence that one device was directly connected to another device at a specific time.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Kind of like a fingerprint.

A single fingerprint is direct evidence that a person was in contact with a specific surface.

A single event log with a hardware mac address on one device is direct evidence that one device was directly connected to another device at a specific time.

Really not a direct analogy at all.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I assume CF is certain that the equipment he believes maps is for sure the Integrated 3825, and not a residential Gateway 3825.

This may be a moot point, but there are other 3825 named router models that have nothing to do with VOIP. I doubt CF would make a mistake like that (even in haste)...but ya never know.

He did say it was a 3825 Integrated Services Router but even then that doesn't tell us a whole lot. A 3825 is essentially a shell that you can mix and match whatever interfaces you want. It supports nearly every network module and interface card that Cisco makes.

 

[SleuthinNC]

My point is this. They have the network devices that were found in the home, they are implying the 3825 was connected to the LAN, they have the right people to look at all of this information, they should be able to put this issue to rest so let's see if they actually do it.

 

[RaleighNative]

Hi Gracielee! Even though we're on opposite sides of the fence, I've loved interacting with you on this forum.

I know you have very closely watched this entire case, and I know you are firmly BDI.

Could you please give explain to us why you firmly believe BDI at this point in the trial?

I'm NOT being snarky, and I won't rip apart any reply. I'm genuinely curious to get both sides, and perhaps that could give us some perspective on what jurors on each side of the fence may believe.

Thanks in advance!

Don't forget me Gracielee! I think you're initial reply may have been deleted, but I'm sure you will give us your case when you have some time this weekend.

All - I believe Gracielee is being extremely gracious in offering to give us her thoughts. Please be respectul. There are obviously two sides of opinion, and her rational can give us all, on both sides of the fence, a lot of insight. :great:

 

[Danielle59]

That was part of the appellate ruling I quoted. It does not matter if the new evidence does not directly negate a case-in-chief point or does more than just negate a point.

The defense witness said "that router is big".
That was not said just to entertain the jury.
That was part of a new theory offered by the defense.
Something like: "no one found an fxo capable router in the house, and they are big. Someone would have seen one if there was one there."

The prosecution is allowed to enter new evidence that rebuts the new theory offered by defense, even if the theory was offered only by inference.

1. Prosecution said during their case they had Procurement email showing BC ordered 3200 in February along with FXO port. They continued that FXO port, obfuscating the information for both Jury and Judge, fit in a pocket, was the size of a credit card (even more obfuscation), could easily be disposed of.
2. JW showed 3200 on stand to give idea of size, Boz asked if it had an FXO port, JW said no.
3. Prosecution now wants to bring in evidence of 3825 which was not brought up at all by Defense, nor JW, or even the State in their case.

This is new evidence and not rebuting any theory that the Defense brought up no matter how it is twisted and turned.

 

[Just the Fax]

If any new evidence is introduced, Kurtz has the right to call his own witness to counter.
What's the big deal?
Personally, I want to see all the evidence so we know the truth.

 

[SleuthSayer]

On the other hand, even if its is testified/evidenced simply that he had the 3825 in his house the night before, I still think he is NG. Why? The router/modem/phone SW was executed in Oct, well after JA&co had suggested to CPD that BC could have spoofed the call. This was not top secret info at the time, BC knew it. Any innocent person in their right mind would be less than cooperative with helping LE locate a piece of evidence that could implicate them in the State's theory.

I may be mistaken here, but weren't there photos and/or testimony that indicate that the router was not there on or about 7/16? So, in your hypothetical here, if it is shown that he had it on 7/11 and it wasn't there on 7/16, this would suggest that sometime either while his wife was missing or after she was found dead, he took the time to do something with a router. While of course that doesn't prove that he spoofed a call, it seems like an odd thing to invest your time in during that period.

 

[NCEast]

Don't forget me Gracielee! I think you're initial reply may have been deleted, but I'm sure you will give us your case when you have some time this weekend.

All - I believe Gracielee is being extremely gracious in offering to give us her thoughts. Please be respectul. There are obviously two sides of opinion, and her rational can give us all, on both sides of the fence, a lot of insight. :great:

I am backing out of the technical talk, letting the pros do it. I am reading the posts, still confused, but find it interesting that there are many thoughts on the technology that may or may not have been used, the equipment that may or may not have been used and the methods that may or may not have been used.
Gracielee may be doing much of the same.

 

[sunshine05]

I may be mistaken here, but weren't there photos and/or testimony that indicate that the router was not there on or about 7/16? So, in your hypothetical here, if it is shown that he had it on 7/11 and it wasn't there on 7/16, this would suggest that sometime either while his wife was missing or after she was found dead, he took the time to do something with a router. While of course that doesn't prove that he spoofed a call, it seems like an odd thing to invest your time in during that period.

Or maybe it was sitting in the house somewhere, just like the ducks and the necklace.

 

[johnfear]

Macd, Sorry for posting from the iphone earlier. I was out playing and basically screwed up my commas.

What I was saying to you and SleuthinNC was this:

It doesn't matter what the rules say.

You are asking a JURY to look at a new piece of evidence in a case where the defense offered NO theory at all. They simply set about disproving the pros theory.

Bad, bad timing all around. Here's why:

Opening statement:

Ducks, money,necklace,wrong color dress,domestic violence, spoofed phone call, he dunnit.

Closing Statement:

Oops on the ducks, oops on the necklace, oops on the wrong color dress, oops on the spoofed phone call, BUT, he did Google Maps the body dumpsite for 41 seconds. He had a router in his house. She might have been in a black dress with no necklace buying stuff on that HT video you saw, but domestic violence. Here's a router log. He dunnit.

Do you see how this is kind of a mess? If not, I'll just wait to see the rest and we can fight it out in the replays. I wasn't disagreeing that the evidence could be allowed or not. I was saying/typing that the problem is not with it's introduction, it's with it being contradicted in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to date, being asked questions by the prosecution, who are now gonna recall the same witnesses and ask NEW questions about the same things with different answers and risk this:

GIVING THE IMPRESSION TO THE JURY THAT EVEN THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT...they are just gonna keep shaking the evidence tree seeing what fruit may fall.

And this is a jury who is saying: Can we go home now?

 

[SleuthSayer]

Or maybe it was sitting in the house somewhere, just like the ducks and the necklace.

Yes, which falls under the umbrella of having done something with it. To have gotten duplicate IP address errors on the laptop, it had to be on the same LAN as the laptop. So that still seems to suggest that at a minimum he decided to move it somewhere within the house during all of the stress of 7/11 to 7/16.

 

[johnfear]

Yes, which falls under the umbrella of having done something with it. To have gotten duplicate IP address errors on the laptop, it had to be on the same LAN as the laptop. So that still seems to suggest that at a minimum he decided to move it somewhere within the house during all of the stress of 7/11 to 7/16.

Maybe they used it to pay the attorneys.

 

[gracielee]

Colon Willoughby has been the DA of Wake County since I was a child, and without hesitation I have voted for him for reelection every time.

Of course, given this trial, I will likely be changing my vote. The only way I can see supporting him in his next reelection bid (2012 I believe?) is based on how he addresses the outcome of this case.

Thought I'd add this since we KNOW the Wake County DA's office reads W/S religiously.

Any thoughts on what he may say???

I don't know that I"d base my vote on this one case. How many times do we have a super-duper computer whiz murder his wife and use computers/routers/VOIP, etc., as part of his MO. All of this new technology takes time and money to train and purchase equipment, etc. for their employees. Much like the attorney's of today have learned DNA technology, upcoming lawyers and members of LE will become better in the technology of the digital world IMO. The economy of these last eight years left little room for the money it takes to hire more people and educate them. Even with DNA, we don't have the money to keep up with the many samples needing to be tested still.