Elisaa444
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 499
- Reaction score
- 1,333
Got it. But is it off putting to the jury?
They are the only ones that count.
JMO.
dbm
Moo;More Moo; and only Moo.
Last edited:
Got it. But is it off putting to the jury?
They are the only ones that count.
JMO.
Super helpful! thank youThe arrest warrant says Jennifer's iPhone "disconnected from the Verizon network" at 11:09am and never reconnected. If it was put in airplane mode then the bluetooth could still be active even when off the network (if she had previously ever used BT while in airplane mode, like when you are flying.) It is possible that FD put the phone in airplane mode rather than turning it off, and tossed it into the woods (or put it somewhere he could come back to if needed, even). Sometimes if it's too far from the BT it will come in sporadically.
They did bring in electronic sniffing dogs to search for her phone at Waveny and along the Merritt Parkway, but that wasn't until the following week.
Got it. But is it off putting to the jury?
They are the only ones that count.
JMO.
They didn't bring up that FD's phone alarm went off at 4:20 AM on the 24th. I wonder why.
If the jury are supposed to believe that dozens of messages, calls, “deleted themselves” from FD phoneS.Don’t let JS b#%%s#*+ lure you in!!
“From Jennifer’s suburban, Newth testified an iPhone connected to Bluetooth at 2:56 p.m., but he couldn't say who it belonged to. The defense brought up the call history of that iPhone, implying it indicates it was Jennifer’s phone.”
Note: the was JS “testimony” on the courthouse steps, not the trial itself. If there was enough evidence to prove that, it would have been admitted. MOO.
Digital forensic evidence dominate testimony for Troconis trial day 20
It was back to forensics in Michelle Troconis’ trial for day 20. This time, digital forensics, data pulled from Fotis Dulos’ phone and vehicles related to the case. Some of the details the data went over had already been revealed in prior testimony, but the GPS data and other data helped verify...www.nbcconnecticut.com
Although, if it was obvious to the judge (and defense would bring it to attention) that the information was obtained because of the cell phone that was searched without a warrant, that evidence would be disallowed, too. it would have to be evidence LE could explain was obtained without that inappropriately gained information.I was just thinking about MT’s phone- I think it was only disallowed recently so at least wouldn’t LE have access to all the Cellebrite data to help in their investigation, even if they can’t bring it in? Hopefully location or text messages could have helped them narrow down where she was and when, and then they’d have to look for other data like cameras or cell towers to corroborate.
maybe that connection was the reason they brought in the electronic sniffers.The arrest warrant says Jennifer's iPhone "disconnected from the Verizon network" at 11:09am and never reconnected. If it was put in airplane mode then the bluetooth could still be active even when off the network (if she had previously ever used BT while in airplane mode, like when you are flying.) It is possible that FD put the phone in airplane mode rather than turning it off, and tossed it into the woods (or put it somewhere he could come back to if needed, even). Sometimes if it's too far from the BT it will come in sporadically.
They did bring in electronic sniffing dogs to search for her phone at Waveny and along the Merritt Parkway, but that wasn't until the following week.
I wonder if the 5 kids saw it when they visited. And that had been their mother’s room!Yes, I agree. She fought hard to have it returned to her and that is why I think it should be shown on the thread as I think its a good image of what MT believes herself to be....and it was important enough to the couple to place it over their bed too.
AMEN!And, at least she wasn't married.
Fotis was the one who broke marriage vows, disobeyed parenting agreements, and pressured the children to join an alliance against their own mother.
Also, it's pretty clear that English would be stressful for the defendant in a stressful situation. Her English is excellent and fluent, but not native. She talks around unknown vocabulary to make her point. Yet she lied like crazy about (IMO) not only failing to prevent a murder but participating in committing one (allegedly). Her language deficits don't explain away her lies or actions. She lied about so much. Why waste our time arguing she is lying about English? Her deficits are real, but irrelevant to the crime.
NGL, I avoided this thread for years because those two issues -language and home wreaking- over shadowed what matters: it appears she conspired with Fotis to murder. I don't come to websleuths to assign blame to a marriage going bad (and here the blame is 100% Fotis). I come to discuss crimes. The crime is murder. I think she is a co-conspirator.
MOO
@Ruminations, absolutely always love your clarity and focus!And, at least she wasn't married.
Fotis was the one who broke marriage vows, disobeyed parenting agreements, and pressured the children to join an alliance against their own mother.
Also, it's pretty clear that English would be stressful for the defendant in a stressful situation. Her English is excellent and fluent, but not native. She talks around unknown vocabulary to make her point. Yet she lied like crazy about (IMO) not only failing to prevent a murder but participating in committing one (allegedly). Her language deficits don't explain away her lies or actions. She lied about so much. Why waste our time arguing she is lying about English? Her deficits are real, but irrelevant to the crime.
NGL, I avoided this thread for years because those two issues -language and home wreaking- over shadowed what matters: it appears she conspired with Fotis to murder. I don't come to websleuths to assign blame to a marriage going bad (and here the blame is 100% Fotis). I come to discuss crimes. The crime is murder. I think she is a co-conspirator.
MOO
I think the State breezed through the location and call date quickly for two reasons: 1. It is dry, they needed the reports admitted. and they didn't want to bore the jury any longer than necessary. And 2. it's the next witness who will synthesize it.@Ruminations, absolutely always love your clarity and focus!
Yes, the crime is murder and I think once ME presentation is done that this issue will be done and dusted.
Co-Conspirator as beyond a reasonable doubt is building and I hope its a 'bridge to somewhere' by the State.
I need it all of your clarity and focus now as I have to say I was profoundly disappointed in the States presentation of PG and the electronic data. Rewatching the electronic data presentation again so maybe I will change my mind so we shall see.
PG probably isn't worth talking about given the immunity deal but the electronic data is a big deal and imo the witnesses did a great job being clear but the States presentation left me flat because it didn't do anything to provide narrative and simply was dropping data points into the record to perhaps be clarified later. What did you think? Did you see the timeline being filled in more after the electronic data experts and Atty Mannings presentation?
It could be that the State is doing things this way due to the obvious nightmare that is Defence Counsel and his penchant for screaming "mistrial" at the drop of a hat, but seriously the electronic data shouldn't be difficult to track or understand even for my simple mind as we knew what we were looking for going into the expert testimony but then to see none of that simply leaves me cold. Perhaps the disjointed presentation by Atty Manning was due to the inability to include MT cell phone? I'm still scratching my head as to why I felt this presentation left alot to be desired and was oddly opaque. Perhaps by design? IDK.
IDK if Atty Manning didn't understand the tech well enough to explain it and put some narrative around the expert testimony to make it an understandable story to the jury as it seemed she was just dropping in electronic data points for future use, but I hope she has more coming and certainly more narrative as what has been seen thus far is imo insufficient on many fronts to understand who was where and when. I've appreciated Atty Manning and her unflappable presentation so far along with her periodic panther like strikes against the overreaching Defence Counsel, but this electronic data presentation so far was quite sub par imo. Perhaps we will learn more later on these issues and from different witnesses? IDK. Graphics imo are needed and the maps used were way too small to have any impact. I hope the jury wasn't lost on this presentation as its critical data imo. Overall quite disappointed as I'd hoped this data would resolve so many issues on the timeline/s.
I'm listening again and maybe a second watch will help. IDK. But the first listen was disappointing as I was hoping for so much more.
MOO
I don't think we have ever seen the full interrogation #3. That may reveal a lot. I could never find the entire interview, only a short clip.I think the State breezed through the location and call date quickly for two reasons: 1. It is dry, they needed the reports admitted. and they didn't want to bore the jury any longer than necessary. And 2. it's the next witness who will synthesize it.
Without the defendant's phone, it's absolutely critical to exhaust FD's. And then place her with him at as many points as they can. So the jury gets it -- where he is, she is, certainly from afternoon onward.
I think we'll hear from Kimball or Reilly again
I wonder too if we'll hear more about KM including any DNA evidence. Perhaps he wasn't ctossmatched until later in the chronology and by other analysts than those from whom we've anyway heard. The Prosecution seems to be presenting events in the order they occurred.
The ME is the one who is going to drive this home.
The hooded poncho drives the defendant to prison.
JMO
@Ruminations, absolutely always love your clarity and focus!
Yes, the crime is murder and I think once ME presentation is done that this issue will be done and dusted.
Co-Conspirator as beyond a reasonable doubt is building and I hope its a 'bridge to somewhere' by the State.
I need it all of your clarity and focus now as I have to say I was profoundly disappointed in the States presentation of PG and the electronic data. Rewatching the electronic data presentation again so maybe I will change my mind so we shall see.
PG probably isn't worth talking about given the immunity deal but the electronic data is a big deal and imo the witnesses did a great job being clear but the States presentation left me flat because it didn't do anything to provide narrative and simply was dropping data points into the record to perhaps be clarified later. What did you think? Did you see the timeline being filled in more after the electronic data experts and Atty Mannings presentation?
It could be that the State is doing things this way due to the obvious nightmare that is Defence Counsel and his penchant for screaming "mistrial" at the drop of a hat, but seriously the electronic data shouldn't be difficult to track or understand even for my simple mind as we knew what we were looking for going into the expert testimony but then to see none of that simply leaves me cold. Perhaps the disjointed presentation by Atty Manning was due to the inability to include MT cell phone? I'm still scratching my head as to why I felt this presentation left alot to be desired and was oddly opaque. Perhaps by design? IDK.
IDK if Atty Manning didn't understand the tech well enough to explain it and put some narrative around the expert testimony to make it an understandable story to the jury as it seemed she was just dropping in electronic data points for future use, but I hope she has more coming and certainly more narrative as what has been seen thus far is imo insufficient on many fronts to understand who was where and when. I've appreciated Atty Manning and her unflappable presentation so far along with her periodic panther like strikes against the overreaching Defence Counsel, but this electronic data presentation so far was quite sub par imo. Perhaps we will learn more later on these issues and from different witnesses? IDK. Graphics imo are needed and the maps used were way too small to have any impact. I hope the jury wasn't lost on this presentation as its critical data imo. Overall quite disappointed as I'd hoped this data would resolve so many issues on the timeline/s.
I'm listening again and maybe a second watch will help. IDK. But the first listen was disappointing as I was hoping for so much more.
MOO
I’m unable to watch due to work so doubly appreciate Megnut’s (& everyone’s) play by play. Regarding the electronic data (without the necessary context to illustrate its importance?) …. Unfortunately the jury doesn’t have the luxury or ability to re-watch. . I hope they get it.@Ruminations, absolutely always love your clarity and focus!
Yes, the crime is murder and I think once ME presentation is done that this issue will be done and dusted.
Co-Conspirator as beyond a reasonable doubt is building and I hope its a 'bridge to somewhere' by the State.
I need it all of your clarity and focus now as I have to say I was profoundly disappointed in the States presentation of PG and the electronic data. Rewatching the electronic data presentation again so maybe I will change my mind so we shall see.
PG probably isn't worth talking about given the immunity deal but the electronic data is a big deal and imo the witnesses did a great job being clear but the States presentation left me flat because it didn't do anything to provide narrative and simply was dropping data points into the record to perhaps be clarified later. What did you think? Did you see the timeline being filled in more after the electronic data experts and Atty Mannings presentation?
It could be that the State is doing things this way due to the obvious nightmare that is Defence Counsel and his penchant for screaming "mistrial" at the drop of a hat, but seriously the electronic data shouldn't be difficult to track or understand even for my simple mind as we knew what we were looking for going into the expert testimony but then to see none of that simply leaves me cold. Perhaps the disjointed presentation by Atty Manning was due to the inability to include MT cell phone? I'm still scratching my head as to why I felt this presentation left alot to be desired and was oddly opaque. Perhaps by design? IDK.
IDK if Atty Manning didn't understand the tech well enough to explain it and put some narrative around the expert testimony to make it an understandable story to the jury as it seemed she was just dropping in electronic data points for future use, but I hope she has more coming and certainly more narrative as what has been seen thus far is imo insufficient on many fronts to understand who was where and when. I've appreciated Atty Manning and her unflappable presentation so far along with her periodic panther like strikes against the overreaching Defence Counsel, but this electronic data presentation so far was quite sub par imo. Perhaps we will learn more later on these issues and from different witnesses? IDK. Graphics imo are needed and the maps used were way too small to have any impact. I hope the jury wasn't lost on this presentation as its critical data imo. Overall quite disappointed as I'd hoped this data would resolve so many issues on the timeline/s.
I'm listening again and maybe a second watch will help. IDK. But the first listen was disappointing as I was hoping for so much more.
MOO
They will have the exhibits. Much easier to understand. Thursday's testimony was IMO the hardest to relate because context was lacking, the screen was blocked and the testimony was rapid fire.I’m unable to watch due to work so doubly appreciate Megnut’s (& everyone’s) play by play. Regarding the electronic data (without the necessary context to illustrate its importance?) …. Unfortunately the jury doesn’t have the luxury or ability to re-watch. . I hope they get it.
Unfortunately we haven't heard about the OnStar data available on the JF Suburban. We just know that JF had an active OnStar subscription. Hopefully we will hear from GM rep on this aspect of available info as I don't believe CSP had capacity to access this data but I don't know this for fact and am just going from other cases where OnStar data came directly from GM.What about if Jennifer had the Onstar Mobile Vehicle App on her phone. Someone (Fotis) had her phone and remotely accessed her Onstar via that App and the Bluetooth in her car recognised her phone. Is that even possible? Just thinking outside the box.
I agree with you about the 3rd MT interview.They will have the exhibits. Much easier to understand. Thursday's testimony was IMO the hardest to relate because context was lacking, the screen was blocked and the testimony was rapid fire.
I hope it's pulled together this week. So it'll show where FD's phone was when certain calls and memes come in. Incoming, outgoing. And where the vehicles are. And which pieces of evidence have whose DNA on them.
I know LE can't use a download of the defendant's phone because of the warrant issue but I wonder if they can use subpoenaed carrier records to fill in some blanks.
Regardless, her third interview will do her in.
JMO
I agree with you about the 3rd MT interview.
We see roughly a 1 hr 48 min period I believe from when the Ford Raptor arrives back at 4Jx (6PM) and when it leaves for Albany Avenue (7:48pm) where there was no info available in the Raptor data extraction. Its possible that perhaps the vehicle was just sitting at 4JX? IDK. So, perhaps the FD phone/s will tell the story of what was happening. We know MT was in vehicle with FD on Albany and perhaps LE was able to obtain call data via subpoena of call records of people she spoke with (ie Petu etc.). Not sure how this issue will play out given the MT cell phone being unavailable due to warrant issue as ruled on by Judge R. Does anyone know if State could have appealed this ruling prior to trial