Post verdict discussion of evidence

[DB in FV]

I would like to ask a question, in the hopes that someone here can clear my confusion.

According to this article from WRAL, police found a Lowe's receipt for a drop cloth in Brad's car, and then 5 days later found a drop cloth in a Home Depot bag in Brad's garage.

Now, that is either a misprint by WRAL or something that I feel should have been talked about a lot more.

If it's not a misprint, I think that little difference could have been a factor in the jury's decision. It would lead me to believe that the drop cloth found is not the drop cloth purchased that Friday morning by Brad.

That, in turn, would lead me to believe that Brad spent that Friday morning getting ready to execute the plan he had devised, right down to the 1:15 google search of where he was going to go with the body.

There's no logical explanation for why a drop cloth bought at Lowe's would be in the garage in a Home Depot bag.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I would like to ask a question, in the hopes that someone here can clear my confusion.

According to this article from WRAL, police found a Lowe's receipt for a drop cloth in Brad's car, and then 5 days later found a drop cloth in a Home Depot bag in Brad's garage.

Now, that is either a misprint by WRAL or something that I feel should have been talked about a lot more.

If it's not a misprint, I think that little difference could have been a factor in the jury's decision. It would lead me to believe that the drop cloth found is not the drop cloth purchased that Friday morning by Brad.

That, in turn, would lead me to believe that Brad spent that Friday morning getting ready to execute the plan he had devised, right down to the 1:15 google search of where he was going to go with the body.

There's no logical explanation for why a drop cloth bought at Lowe's would be in the garage in a Home Depot bag.

The drop cloth he bought at Lowe's was not put into a bag. He carried it out in his hand. The Home Depot bag was found in a bucket in the garage and the drop cloth that was purchased at Lowe's was in the bag. I don't know if there were any other items in the bag or not.

 

[macd]

Did you watch Masucci's proffer? Aside from the acknowledgement that .bmp files are not uncommon, how do you arrive at the rest of your conclusion?

You left out much of his relevent testimony and seem to have conflated it with someone else's testimony? opinion?

I plan to post a transcript of his entire proffer when I'm done with it.

Most telling was his conclusion: "The IBM was tampered with".

pair this with Boz in closing arguments: "No witnesses have suggested the IBM was tampered with"

Wow, talk about bunk.

For Masucci's proffer, I thought the most telling quotes were:
"I consider 'tampering' to be the same as 'spoilation'"
So, he would claim tampering if their was nothing suspicious at all about the laptop, and only an automated update occurred.

"I only looked at what I was asked to look at. I did not look at anything else." This is standard defense-expert witness testimony to help them form helpful conclusions without lying.

For information on LastAccessTime, google "microsoft vista last access". There are several sites that discuss this change to vista.

For invalid timestamps, one poster here found invalid timestamps in his own Internet cache. Also, here's a link to a forensic investigation of invalid modified timestamps.link

I'm looking forward to reading GM's proffer. Thanks in advance for posting.

 

[jrb0124]

For Masucci's proffer, I thought the most telling quotes were:
"I consider 'tampering' to be the same as 'spoilation'"
So, he would claim tampering if their was nothing suspicious at all about the laptop, and only an automated update occurred.

I would agree if auto-updates were the extent of it, but he also said (twice) that he detected direct human interface after assumption of custody. Spoilation+human interface=deliberate tampering

For information on LastAccessTime, google "microsoft vista last access". There are several sites that discuss this change to vista.

For invalid timestamps, one poster here found invalid timestamps in his own Internet cache. Also, here's a link to a forensic investigation of invalid modified timestamps.link.

Okay, the way you worded it I thought you meant GM testified to this, which he did not. GM was pretty clear when he discussed last access vs creation date and how he only sees that in certain circumstances...even with Vista. Keep in mind this is a guy who has examiner 500+ machines, not 5 like the State expert. Let's have this discussion about the above after I post the transcript + charts.

I'm looking forward to reading GM's proffer. Thanks in advance for posting.

I got to the 50:00 mark out of 1:08:00 so far, just before BZ cross and then HK redirect. I will try to finish and post it tonight. I plan to post it in the appeal info thread because I'm sure his proffer will be a centerpiece for the appeal...but will also link it from here.

 

[jrb0124]

In keeping with the theme of this thread, evidence discussion, here are a few tidbits from the media:

"Nancy's father, Garry Rentz, said he thought his son-in-law's defence team did a good job with what they had. "Some days you think, ‘Oh, gee. I didn't see something,' or ‘I missed something. Maybe I should change my mind," said Rentz. [link]

"I believe that the Blackberry was intentionally deleted – that it was not the result of somebody who did not know how to deal with evidence. It was the result of somebody who was eliminating evidence, "said Kurtz. [link]

Howard Kurtz says the evidence at the scene where Nancy's body was found points to someone other than Brad. [LINK]

 

[RaleighNC]

For Masucci's proffer, I thought the most telling quotes were:
"I consider 'tampering' to be the same as 'spoilation'"
So, he would claim tampering if their was nothing suspicious at all about the laptop, and only an automated update occurred.

"I only looked at what I was asked to look at. I did not look at anything else." This is standard defense-expert witness testimony to help them form helpful conclusions without lying.

For information on LastAccessTime, google "microsoft vista last access". There are several sites that discuss this change to vista.

For invalid timestamps, one poster here found invalid timestamps in his own Internet cache. Also, here's a link to a forensic investigation of invalid modified timestamps.link

I'm looking forward to reading GM's proffer. Thanks in advance for posting.

I don't believe this ThinkPad was running Vista. While it likely had a Vista Certificate of Authenticity, it as likely running the corporate standard OS - which in 2008 was Windows XP since Vista was such a complete debacle. Most large corporations skipped it entirely and are moving now off of XP onto Windows 7

I believe that Cisco is in this majority.

 

[Madeleine74]

Does 'tampering' and 'spoilation' of files on the IBM laptop mean that BC could not have remotely accessed that laptop at some point during the hours before it was powered down? It was still on the network. He had the password and the credentials. He stayed in SH's home. SH has at least one computer.

 

[Maja]

The drop cloth he bought at Lowe's was not put into a bag. He carried it out in his hand. The Home Depot bag was found in a bucket in the garage and the drop cloth that was purchased at Lowe's was in the bag. I don't know if there were any other items in the bag or not.

I believe the drop cloth in the bag in the garage is NOT the one BC bought on the morning of 7.11.2008.

 

[gritguy]

It turns out a juror in the case is with a firm we are working with currently on a project. I know him but know more of his work, and he is a sharp fellow. Certainly, he is not mildly retarded or someone who shirks hard work. I'm not going to call him to ask him about the case, but it does put a slightly different spin on the jury than I had imagined, since I never went to see the case.

 

[jrb0124]

Does 'tampering' and 'spoilation' of files on the IBM laptop mean that BC could not have remotely accessed that laptop at some point during the hours before it was powered down? It was still on the network. He had the password and the credentials. He stayed in SH's home. SH has at least one computer.

I have seen this posted before and its part of a conspiracy theory involving:

*BC also doubled as a secret expert in cell phone technology and rigged NC's blackberry to self delete as soon as it sensed a non-expert turning it on since BC knew that Det Y would be the first person to examine it. Since Det. Y was a non-expert as soon as he turned it on it self-wiped.

*BC had 2 FXO-port routers at his home capable of spoofing a remote call in such a way that he did not have to be within range of the router, and could still do it without leaving a trace anywhere by remotely wiping cell/data records at AT&T.

*BC accessed his laptop from SH's house after leaving the house through a secret relay at his office into the Cisco VPN, then broke into Cisco (after his access had been revoked), was able to get into the logs (different dept from his) and delete the evidence without leaving a trace - OR - BC was in the maroon van (because a maroon van would be unnoticeable to the CPD) parked just close enough to the Cooper residence to access his laptop on the wireless network.

*BC's accomplice was the woman (who has never surfaced) whom RZ actually did see. She's also the one who got rid of the router, sticks and running shoes while BC was acting normal Saturday morning.


I don't understand how anyone could believe all of those things happened, IMO there are much more believable explanations where you don't have to twist and contort the evidence to fit the BDI theory.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. this post is partly humor intended for bottlecap & gritguy, you'll have to go back a few pages to make the connection

 

[macd]

Does 'tampering' and 'spoilation' of files on the IBM laptop mean that BC could not have remotely accessed that laptop at some point during the hours before it was powered down? It was still on the network. He had the password and the credentials. He stayed in SH's home. SH has at least one computer.

I doubt BC accessed his laptop after the house was seized. For it to be accessed remotely, it would have to have been configured in advance to accept remote connection, such as VNC Server, SSHD, or Windows Remote Desktop. It's possible, but I think it would be atypical for someone to be running that on a laptop that they usually carry with them. If he did access it through normal means, there would have been an entry in the windows system event log. If so, I'm sure that would have been found and presented. Also, I don't think we would have assumed that the computer was left powered on and connected. Who'd have thought the CPD would make this error in his favor?

I believe the FBI expert that said all 691 files were a result of automatic processes. Between email downloads, automated backups, automated software updates, and disk defragmentation... I'm surprised there were only 691 changed files.

 

[gracielee]

Not yet. I'm surprised one of them hasn't spoken yet. I'll be very surprised if there is not a surprise in terms of what they thought was important to them during the trial.

IMO, this lends credibility to the jury's decision and the concept that none of them were in this to 'make a buck'. Again, MOO, but it also lends creedance to the impression that none are bursting at the seams to disagree or say that they felt cooerced in any way. Usually those types speak up fairly quickly IMO.

 

[ncsu95]

I believe the drop cloth in the bag in the garage is NOT the one BC bought on the morning of 7.11.2008.

The testimony from the trial is that the drop cloth in the picture matches the one he bought at Lowes on Friday (ie, same manufacturer, model #, thickness, etc). So I'm not sure how you could reach that conclusion.

 

[momto3kids]

Has anyone wondered why BC had the V-Tech Owner's manual out in his office right at his laptop, top of a small pile on July 12th?:waitasec:

 

[ncsu95]

Has anyone wondered why BC had the V-Tech Owner's manual out in his office right at his laptop, top of a small pile on July 12th?:waitasec:

Not really. I have a stack of phone user manuals for all of my phones (home and voip) sitting on the floor beside me. I haven't looked at them in years either (probably never to be honest). That's just where I put the manuals.

 

[momto3kids]

Not really. I have a stack of phone user manuals for all of my phones (home and voip) sitting on the floor beside me. I haven't looked at them in years either (probably never to be honest). That's just where I put the manuals.

The manual is on the desk, the laptop is actually sitting on a corner of it. A small electronic device is under the manual as well as a pack of eclipse gum. Not been there for any period of time IMHO. More so has recently been just referred to.

 

[gritguy]

Well done jrb!

 

[Maznblu1]

I find the concept of life without parole - no hope for any type of rehabilitation - to be very disturbing. It gives the impression that professionals lack the skills to work with criminals, to try to put them on the right path. I'm obviously not an advocate of the death penalty, and always have hope that most of those people that make tremendous mistakes in their lives can become better people at some point before they are dead. Certainly some people are hopeless, but I see them as a minority requiring psychiatric care due to severe psychological disturbance.

That's funny, because many people, myself included, find the thought of anything less than life without parole for murderers to be very disturbing.

 

[Maja]

The testimony from the trial is that the drop cloth in the picture matches the one he bought at Lowes on Friday (ie, same manufacturer, model #, thickness, etc). So I'm not sure how you could reach that conclusion.

I believe it's another one. Wonder if they dumped the Home Depot bag of stuff to see if there was a reciept in the bag? Either way, it's what I surmise is the case. He bought the one at Lowe's Friday, used it after midnight, and disposed of it prior to sunrise on 7.12.08. No proof, just my thought on it.

 

[Danielle59]

<snip>
"I only looked at what I was asked to look at. I did not look at anything else." This is standard defense-expert witness testimony to help them form helpful conclusions without lying.
<snip>

I believe this standard is also used with the Prosecution experts, and if I recall correctly the Durham PD officer used this excuse when asked about file dates.