whine....beg....whine....beg
Is that kind of like "la la La La La I can't hear you!' ?
whine....beg....whine....beg
I was under the impression it was left on, not that they turned it on. Does anyone know?
I believe so, and Brad apparantly did a beer run on his way home too..I wonder why he didnt pickup milk..oh yeah, he never picked up any of her calls that day did he..so wouldnt have known about the milk shortage:waitasec: But it is odd that Nancy doing her shopping at 245PM that day not to have purchased it IF they were low on milk???.Im with many here who believe Nancy did wear that necklace and earings..and they (friends) could only say, she always wore it, or maybe could have said they recall seeing her wear it whenever they saw her....I just think Defense is wasting so much time trying to make every state witness out to be liars...and had agenda to frame Brad....
She likely did wear it 99% of time.but what is important, was she wearing it that night when she left the party at 1230... when last seen by anyone but Brad...
Only if you care more about getting to the truth than getting to a guilty verdict.
I also find it odd that for people so sure he is guilty how much of the actual evidence so many are not aware of.
It would depend on when the tampering occured. The computer was deemed in the custody of the police the moment the search warrant was executed on the house. The computer remained powered up and on the network until the detective(s) unplugged it and removed the battery. If the tampering occured after the house was seized but before the computer was powered down, it could still have been Brad. MOO
Interesting people can watch him testify without objection and still maintain the belief BC is guilty yet think the jury should not be exposed to this dangerous testimony...
Curious to me that Kurtz said it's not the state's fault they haven't gotten it from Cisco.
Sunshine - I think the jury has a pretty good idea that the defense can rebut the computer forensics. They have sucessfully rebutted just about everything assessed importance by the pros, and due to the litany of objections and the obvious line drawn as to JW's testimony, they knew JW was prepared to argue the integrity of the files.
I believe he is guilty, but I don't think anyone would mistake me as a charter member of the BDI club. I came into this unbiased, stayed on the fence for the longest time. The google search really just is damning to me. That's the evidence to me that puts the glue to all the other CE. This is how it looked to me..
You have all this CE. Think of them as basically pieces of paper spread out. Some make sense, some don't. Some you can get an explanation for, some you can't. But there is not a whole lot that links them together, they are just kind of out there on their own, like islands. Then you get the google search testimony. Now all of a sudden you start putting it all together, knowing in the back of your mind he searched the dump site the day before. Now a lot of that CE has links to them. Some of the CE makes sense when used in a certain context. The story becomes a little clearer.
That being said, I believe there has been many mistakes made in this investigation and trial. I do believe that a number of NC's friends believed from day one that he was guilty and made sure they were going to do anything in their power to cast him in a negative light, regardless of the truth unless someone else confessed. I do believe that CPD focused on him from the beginning, in part because of these stories by the neighbors. I also believe that because of those two points I just listed, at first glance you look at this case and you see someone who's an introvert and was in a bad marriage and it feels like he's getting railroaded because some people just don't like him (for various reasons). It feels like he's getting railroaded to the casual observer because it happened in Cary and Lord help us if we have a random murder happen in Cary.
I hope that answers your question.
I'd put money on BC accessing his own laptop remotely.
I've been trying to think how all the these deleted and invalid files could appear, that would not involve someone trying to frame BC.
Browsers today have a Private Browsing feature. What happens is: you turn on private browsing, you surf the web, and then you exit private browsing mode. The browser then deletes all the temporary files, cookies, history, and cache.
I'd like to know if BC had a version of Internet Explorer that supported inPrivate browsing at that time. I'd like to know if that version had any bugs that would leave cache files in some cases. I'd like to know what would happen if a PC crashes or was powered off during private browsing or during the private browsing clean up phase.
Well, IMVHO, it wasn't LE.maybe brad? last ditch effort to cover his tracks?
It would depend on when the tampering occured. The computer was deemed in the custody of the police the moment the search warrant was executed on the house. The computer remained powered up and on the network until the detective(s) unplugged it and removed the battery. If the tampering occured after the house was seized but before the computer was powered down, it could still have been Brad. MOO