There was also clear evidence on his PC that he googled the exact area he dumped her body. I'll go with that factual evidence.
You'll ignore all the "factual" evidence that doesn't fit Brad Did It.
There was also clear evidence on his PC that he googled the exact area he dumped her body. I'll go with that factual evidence.
-He lied about his ex-gf's name because he knew that if authorities talked to her, they would find out things which would suggest he is capable of some very nasty things, and did commit some criminal offences in Canada for which he had not been caught. They did talk to her, and she was queued up as a prosecution witness but ultimately not called. He was under oath and had sworn to tell the truth, but chose to lie.
-he was under oath, but also lied about who his friends in Canada were. He specifically used names of two people who didn't have anything bad on him. One of those who was mentioned found it odd his name came up. Again, he could have told the truth but chose to lie, and was under oath.
-the person she kept in contact with and spoke with while he was in Toronto has become somewhat of a Canadian celebrity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Brett_Wilson. There was no romantic connection other than, they had a coffee date the day after Nancy and Brad's first "date" together.
-as for the evidence, that google search is hard to explain away, as is the missing router, not to mention he made up Nancy's plans for the day and made them up wrong. He is the only identified person who had the motive, the means, and to whom evidence points.
Hey otto. You have to admit the timestamp stuff and the missing router are very incriminating. Do you find it incriminating about his past demeanor/attitude/actions with girlfriends?
I find the no friends stuff troubling too... of course not meaning he is guilty because of that.
I am still trying to remember or find what I found suspicious about the shoes. Duh.
All the best to you!!!
You'll ignore all the "factual" evidence that doesn't fit Brad Did It.
Actually is a personal attack, and No I do
not work a case like that...ever.
Then how can your comment be at all justified? We've documented mounds of evidence that point to his innocence. Your statement that you'll "go with the factual evidence" suggests that all the other physical, circumstantial and digital evidence raised isn't factual, and it is a backhanded swipe at those who have shown clear reasoning behind their belief in his innocence.
Regarding the missing router, do you remember a witness at the very end of the trial ... an employee from Brad's company? I have a vague memory that he testified that they found the router, but I think his testimony was not allowed ... something like that. If that happened, then it raises two questions: how did the router get back into the storage room, and what is on the router that incriminates Brad?
They did not find the router itself.
They found a message in the Windows System Event Log. The message had a MAC address in it. The MAC address (burned in at manufacture time) matched the missing router. The timestamp of the message was around 10pm that night; a time that Brad testified he was sleeping.
I believe that an expert witness will be able to testify that the only way that message could have occurred is if Brad's computer was physically connected to the router and he was changing the configuration of either it or his laptop.
The implication is that he was getting the router ready to spoof phone calls.
They did not find the router itself.
They found a message in the Windows System Event Log. The message had a MAC address in it. The MAC address (burned in at manufacture time) matched the missing router. The timestamp of the message was around 10pm that night; a time that Brad testified he was sleeping.
I believe that an expert witness will be able to testify that the only way that message could have occurred is if Brad's computer was physically connected to the router and he was changing the configuration of either it or his laptop.
The implication is that he was getting the router ready to spoof phone calls.
The router was in the house when Nancy was alive. The router was not in the house after the house was sealed.
They did not find the router itself.
The router was in the house when Nancy was alive. The router was not in the house after the house was sealed.
This, to me, is highly suggestive of something shady going on...and associated with this router. Why would he get rid of it? I can't imagine anything that isn't nefarious, with regards to dumping the router.
May I ask why it wasn't submitted for the jury? Is it something that, given a retrial, will be introduced?
Sent from my KFTHWI
This, to me, is highly suggestive of something shady going on...and associated with this router. Why would he get rid of it? I can't imagine anything that isn't nefarious, with regards to dumping the router.
May I ask why it wasn't submitted for the jury? Is it something that, given a retrial, will be introduced?
Really oen? I do not see 'mounds' of evidence pointing to innocence... much less documented.
The Win sys event log, which shows a connection to that missing router, was found very late by one of the Cisco guys. And, because it was discovered late, the state had to make a decision if they were willing to enter that evidence and in exchange for entering that late evidence the judge probably would have allowed Masucci to testify since he too was a late entrant submitted by the defense.
They did present some of the missing router evidence.
They showed text messages that Brad planned to bring a 3825 home.
They showed pictures of dust marks on the desk where a 3825 shaped thing had been sitting.
They said that people looked for a specific 3825, but never found it.
To refresh everyone's memory, the router evidence that was not given to the jury is discussed here.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/n...2/#/vid9524242
At about the 4:30 mark, Boz gives an overview about log.
The witness takes the stand off camera, so there is not a recording of the details.