***Day 2 -Committal Hearing*** 11th,12,13th March 2013

[breno84]

One other thing I forgot to mention re phones;
Peter Davis, in addressing the forensic examiner, was referring to the 'find my friends' app. In his own words 'If I was stupid enough to have an app on my phone that people could track me with' (Or very similair words, feel free to correct anyone else who heard that)
It was confirmed that GBC did have that app on his phone soo.. Your client is, in fact, stupid? I like it.

 

[ozazure]

Well I am still disappointed in the phone forensics that the error should have been caught given the phone was a 3gs. I know that as a consumer. Sloppy.

I wonder what people were expecting from the defence? They mount a defence and if the best they have is suicide then be happy about it, not offended for Allison and all depressed and medication takers everywhere.

With regards to the officer relying on memory after 3 weeks I think there is a good chance he discussed his conversations with GBC in the interim, improving his recall.

I hope the forensics on the house and car will be quite compelling. GBC puts Allison outside of the home when she met her demise. If there is evidence in or on BC property, his goose is cooked regardless of what time neighbors heard screams and the phone was interacted with.

 

[brizzymum]

Peter Davis, in addressing the forensic examiner, was referring to the 'find my friends' app. In his own words 'If I was stupid enough to have an app on my phone that people could track me with' (Or very similair words, feel free to correct anyone else who heard that)
It was confirmed that GBC did have that app on his phone soo.. Your client is, in fact, stupid? I like it.

funny!

 

[Makara]

Apologies in advance as this question most probably isnt in the correct place. If there is something reported in the newspaper are we allowed to scan or photograph the article and post that here ?
Thank you to whoever said that the disproven FaceTime call was in the print Courier Mail. I knew I had seen it in media somewhere and it was driving me crazy trying to find it.

For those who have been to the courtroom is it easy to find the public seating area ?

Yes, we do it all the time. WS rules are that you only post a proportion of the text from an MSM article (10% from memory). This is due to copyright laws. You also must include a link to the article or photo.

 

[alicat]

Even if no records can be shown that GBC called his family that night, we have to remember that he could have just driven there to ask for assistance.

Or used a payphone?

 

[Ippygal]

Wow it's taken me hours to catch up on today's events! Even missed the news tonight. Thanks heaps to everyone for keeping us in the loop! xx

 

[Snails]

Yes, we do it all the time. WS rules are that you only post a proportion of the text from an MSM article (10% from memory). This is due to copyright laws. You also must include a link to the article of photo.

Thanks Makara. I didn't know about only copying a "proportion of the text from an MSM article (10% from memory)." I will keep that in mind in future. I had also better study up on the WS rules!

 

[they'll get you]

Apologies in advance as this question most probably isnt in the correct place. If there is something reported in the newspaper are we allowed to scan or photograph the article and post that here ?
Thank you to whoever said that the disproven FaceTime call was in the print Courier Mail. I knew I had seen it in media somewhere and it was driving me crazy trying to find it.

For those who have been to the courtroom is it easy to find the public seating area ?

Hey! we could be twins! :floorlaugh:

illowfight2:

 

[alicat]

I have tried to put my comments in bold, italic and underline. Hope that it worked!

I doubt GBC would know when Allison last saw her best friend. I somehow get this feeling they didn't have the best relationship.

Just curious, how are you unaware of the visible scratches but you are so certain he is an innocent man?

IMOO.

 

[linette]

I doubt GBC would know when Allison last saw her best friend. I somehow get this feeling they didn't have the best relationship.

Just curious, how are you unaware of the visible scratches but you are so certain he is an innocent man?

IMOO.

I was wondering the same. How could any of us not know about the scratches? Even if you're not on WS it was all in the papers.

 

[marlywings]

Adding in the link to WS rules...it seems a few of you may need to re-read them.

Please cut out the personal attacks.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65798"]Rules Etiquette & Information - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[alicat]

Did we ever come up with a reason why none of his loans were from major lending facilities?

I believe it was because he was up ***** creek without a paddle.

IMOO.

 

[Obsessor]

Marly, I just want to commend you for keeping this forum so above board, well regulated, and pleasant for all users. The traffic flow has been huge for the last two days, and we're in for a lot more of that over the next few weeks.
A big thankyou for all your time and hard work and a thankyou in advance for the hours you will be putting in over the next few weeks. :clap:

 

[Ferris]

Just quietly, has there been any further mention of this witness ? http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...alarms-residents/story-e6frep2f-1226341666902

 

[DrWatson]

From my reading of today's evidence, there was no call, face-time or otherwise. The technician explained that a malfunction of the software he was using gave the face-time result. This has now been corrected and debunked. BBM

For the technically inclined, the problem was a logfile that had been partially overwritten, and which the analysis software interpreted as the traces of the Facetime call, linked to one of the contacts in the Contact List - i.e. NBC. This was recognised as an error by the tech, which I consider to be impressively thorough of him, and in fact the software company were notified, and they confirmed it as a false positive as reported on the witness stand today. They fixed the "bug" and released an updated version of the software immediately based on our police tech's report - very smart of him.

So contrary to the opinion of one or two, it was NOT "hushed up" - it was recognised as a false positive and corrected, just as Neil Robertson described today. This was what all the talk was about today between Peter Davis and Neil Robertson about logfiles, and how reliable they were. But what Davis didn't do (deliberately, I'm sure) is to highlight the fact that Robertson was smart enough to pick up the error and get it fixed. One of the tricks of the barrister, right Ali? Leave it hanging where you want it...

This was the gist of all the tech talk on the witness stand today, which may or may not be reported in the MSM, as it was very technical. Kate Kyriacou tweeted a comment about being bamboozled by a load of tech talk - this is what it was all about..

Just out of interest, in case you may be considering doing something sneaky, if you think your iPhone (or most others) are private, think again:

http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-solutions/ios-forensics.html

And a review:

https://viaforensics.com/resources/white-papers/iphone-forensics/cellebrite-ufed/

EDIT: The above is my attempt to put into reasonably straightforward terms the gist of what was talked about in court today, as reported to me by someone who was there and who is a fellow tech-head.

 

[J-Diggety]

Similarities to the Chamberlain case I have noticed

1. Very heightened media interest in the story

2. Certain themes/characteristics made the accused "suspicious" - Chamberlains - members of a "cult" (Seventh Day Adventists)- Baden-Clays - Scouting, Christian pastoral connection, hyphenated surname, African history etc

3. The public made very quick & damning assessments about the accused and his relatives based on words uttered under enormous pressure, questionable body language and the "correct" emotions being expressed (or not). Exactly the same thing happened to Lindy Chamberlain who was seen as distant and cold. And who incidentally was "crucified" because of her initial openness to the media. I will never forget the initial interview she did with Today Tonight (or was it 60 Minutes).

4. Police jumped to a very strong and quick conclusion and don't seem to be all that open to any other possibilities.


5. Evidence was largely circumstantial and was very strongly influenced by forensic testing which was later shown to be false!

6. Because of the huge publicity attached to the case it seems that many police and judicial careers depended on the success or otherwise of the case and this seemed to influence their objectivity in the case.

Worth thinking about IMO

Certainly worth thinking about, you'll see quite a few threads (40+) that have thrashed a few opinions around.

You've made some strong points as noted above, but I ask you to address the evidence that has been presented, the technical aspects, the scratches, the internet searching ( to come), the insurance claims, the behaviour of the accused. Capture that and address the reality of it.


Its a shame that it took you to February before you could join in the lengthy discussion that has taken place.

Devils advocate can be useful, often when things have stalled, but not in the finality of the moment.

 

[Makara]

Certainly worth thinking about, you'll see quite a few threads (40+) that have thrashed a few opinions around.

You've made some strong points as noted above, but I ask you to address the evidence that has been presented, the technical aspects, the scratches, the internet searching ( to come), the insurance claims, the behaviour of the accused. Capture that and address the reality of it.


Its a shame that it took you to February before you could join in the lengthy discussion that has taken place.

Devils advocate can be useful, often when things have stalled, but not in the finality of the moment.

:clap: :clap: :clap:​

 

[Makara]

For the technically inclined, the problem was a logfile that had been partially overwritten, and which the analysis software interpreted as the traces of the Facetime call, linked to one of the contacts in the Contact List - i.e. NBC. This was recognised as an error by the tech, which I consider to be impressively thorough of him, and in fact the software company were notified, and they confirmed it as a false positive as reported on the witness stand today. They fixed the "bug" and released an updated version of the software immediately based on our police tech's report - very smart of him.

So contrary to the opinion of one or two, it was NOT "hushed up" - it was recognised as a false positive and corrected, just as Neil Robertson described today. This was what all the talk was about today between Peter Davis and Neil Robertson about logfiles, and how reliable they were. But what Davis didn't do (deliberately, I'm sure) is to highlight the fact that Robertson was smart enough to pick up the error and get it fixed. One of the tricks of the barrister, right Ali? Leave it hanging where you want it...

This was the gist of all the tech talk on the witness stand today, which may or may not be reported in the MSM, as it was very technical. Kate Kyriacou tweeted a comment about being bamboozled by a load of tech talk - this is what it was all about..

Just out of interest, in case you may be considering doing something sneaky, if you think your iPhone (or most others) are private, think again:

http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-solutions/ios-forensics.html

And a review:

https://viaforensics.com/resources/white-papers/iphone-forensics/cellebrite-ufed/

EDIT: The above is my attempt to put into reasonably straightforward terms the gist of what was talked about in court today, as reported to me by someone who was there and who is a fellow tech-head.

Thanks Doc. Very well explained. Even I understand it. :floorlaugh:

 

[KG1]

For the technically inclined, the problem was a logfile that had been partially overwritten, and which the analysis software interpreted as the traces of the Facetime call, linked to one of the contacts in the Contact List - i.e. NBC. This was recognised as an error by the tech, which I consider to be impressively thorough of him, and in fact the software company were notified, and they confirmed it as a false positive as reported on the witness stand today. They fixed the "bug" and released an updated version of the software immediately based on our police tech's report - very smart of him.

So contrary to the opinion of one or two, it was NOT "hushed up" - it was recognised as a false positive and corrected, just as Neil Robertson described today. This was what all the talk was about today between Peter Davis and Neil Robertson about logfiles, and how reliable they were. But what Davis didn't do (deliberately, I'm sure) is to highlight the fact that Robertson was smart enough to pick up the error and get it fixed. One of the tricks of the barrister, right Ali? Leave it hanging where you want it...

This was the gist of all the tech talk on the witness stand today, which may or may not be reported in the MSM, as it was very technical. Kate Kyriacou tweeted a comment about being bamboozled by a load of tech talk - this is what it was all about..

Just out of interest, in case you may be considering doing something sneaky, if you think your iPhone (or most others) are private, think again:

http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-solutions/ios-forensics.html

And a review:

https://viaforensics.com/resources/white-papers/iphone-forensics/cellebrite-ufed/

EDIT: The above is my attempt to put into reasonably straightforward terms the gist of what was talked about in court today, as reported to me by someone who was there and who is a fellow tech-head.

Thanks Doc, I echo Makara. Glad I still have my old LG pre-paid. :rocker:

 

[KG1]

:cheer:

Certainly worth thinking about, you'll see quite a few threads (40+) that have thrashed a few opinions around.

You've made some strong points as noted above, but I ask you to address the evidence that has been presented, the technical aspects, the scratches, the internet searching ( to come), the insurance claims, the behaviour of the accused. Capture that and address the reality of it.


Its a shame that it took you to February before you could join in the lengthy discussion that has taken place.

Devils advocate can be useful, often when things have stalled, but not in the finality of the moment.

:cheer::cheer::cheer::cheer: