The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
gracielee said:
JBean said:
Couple tips :)

If you want to quote another member you can:
1.Hit the button that says
under the post you wish to copy to your own. This is the best because you can hit the little white arrow in the newly quoted post and it will take you back to the original quote.
OR
2.Copy the post-paste the text into the new post box. Highlight the text you want wrapped in quotes and hit the little quote tag icon
quote.gif
and it will automagically wrap your text.

3. If you break a quote for some reason, you can manually fix it. Just make sure your quote begins with


I'm going to copy & paste this and send it to myself in an email, so I can study it further. :( I'm very confused by it, but perhaps if I try to do it step by step, if I should need to quote more at one time, in the future..... I have a lot of trouble with comprehending numerous steps in a process. :banghead: I will make every effort to do it correctly in the future. :( Thank you for your help and for correcting my previous post.
Click to expand...
just demonstrating what happens when a quote gets broken. see how it looks like I said what you did?
then if someone quotes this post it just gets worse and worse as the posts are quoted..

I'll start a thread in forum finesse so we don;t have to do this here in the thread. I'll add a link when I am done.
ETA:please direct responses and questions to the thread below instead of here. thanks

Broken post quotes - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Click to expand...
 
DogWood said:
Ed Crump's interview with Mr. Kurtz.

(Sorry if this has been posted before and I overlooked it. The only one I had seen was WRAL.)
Click to expand...

Somestimes I find the media sooooooo frustrating. That interview, IMO, was equivalent to a paid television advertisement....about $100,000++++ worth.) It seems as if WRAL was willing to do anything to say the station had produced an exclusive.

HK is sitting in front of law books that lawyers seldom use anymore. He appears to be wearing make up or the lights are very hot and his complexion is "warmed up." When HK reached the part of the interview when asked how he felt about the verdict, he nobly intoned that he really didn't want to go into a court room again. But, following his vacation, he was sure he would walk into a courtroom again for his clients. (paraphrase) The only gimmick missing was a little Mighty Mouse Cape being blown by a fan as HK spoke the words. He appeared "so noble".

Frankly, I would find it objectionable to knowingly or, ESPECIALLY, unknowingly aid either prosecution or defense during the actual questioning during a trial. I have no interest in helping either side write its closing arguments or answering the questions that seem to be causing "issues" on a discussion forum. It's just WRONG.

Issues and rulings about the relationship between social/public media and an attorney's ethical conduct are about 3-4 years behind the technology. Some issues are cleareer than others. IMO, attorneys, their representatives (and, IMO, that would include trial/jury consultants) and/or their friends who use others' discussions to direct their approach to a case, questioning during a case, and/or arguments during the case in chief, should be required to reveal their relationship/professional status on boards such as WS. Then, others involved in the discussion could decide for themselves if they want to participate in "test" posting. JMHO
 
Tink56 said:
Somestimes I find the media sooooooo frustrating. That interview, IMO, was equivalent to a paid television advertisement....about $100,000++++ worth.) It seems as if WRAL was willing to do anything to say the station had produced an exclusive.

HK is sitting in front of law books that lawyers seldom use anymore. He appears to be wearing make up or the lights are very hot and his complexion is "warmed up." When HK reached the part of the interview when asked how he felt about the verdict, he nobly intoned that he really didn't want to go into a court room again. But, following his vacation, he was sure he would walk into a courtroom again for his clients. (paraphrase) The only gimmick missing was a little Mighty Mouse Cape being blown by a fan as HK spoke the words. He appeared "so noble".

Frankly, I would find it objectionable to knowingly or, ESPECIALLY, unknowingly aid either prosecution or defense during the actual questioning during a trial. I have no interest in helping either side write its closing arguments or answering the questions that seem to be causing "issues" on a discussion forum. It's just WRONG.

Issues and rulings about the relationship between social/public media and an attorney's ethical conduct are about 3-4 years behind the technology. Some issues are cleareer than others. IMO, attorneys, their representatives (and, IMO, that would include trial/jury consultants) and/or their friends who use others' discussions to direct their approach to a case, questioning during a case, and/or arguments during the case in chief, should be required to reveal their relationship/professional status on boards such as WS. Then, others involved in the discussion could decide for themselves if they want to participate in "test" posting. JMHO
Click to expand...

JMO, but I think the whole process has become flawed, back to the introduction of jury consultants like Jo-Ellan Dimitrius. It's no longer a jury of ones peers. If anything, Kurtz admission of checking the social boards/networks in real time should have shown him that wasn't such a good idea. I'm thinking professional jurors might be in order. MOO
 
NCEast said:
Madeleine, do you or anybody know how Trenkle became involved in this case? Was he appointed to help Kurtz? I don't think I've ever known.
Click to expand...

Trenkle is the main go-to guy for indigent people changed with 1st Degree Murder. That's how they wound up together.

"Durham - A staff attorney with the Office of the Capital Defender is the new interim head of that office effective July 1. Robert C. Trenkle was appointed on June 1, by Tye Hunter, Director of Indigent Defense Services (IDS).

As capital defender, Mr. Trenkle will be in charge of administering the statewide representation of indigent defendants charged with first-degree murder. His duties will include the appointment of counsel in all first-degree murder cases in all the judicial districts and the appointment of experts to those cases.

Mr. Trenkle has been handling capital cases at the trial level, representing capital defendants in North Carolina and in Florida. He has previously
been an assistant public defender in the 15B Judicial District and for the State of Florida. He was in the private practice of law, as well as a faculty member of the University of Florida College of Law."

===> http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/aoc/pr/trenkle.htm
 
I watched the full Kurtz interview. He did not say the CPD planted evidence, it was irresponsible video editing by WRAL which made the news story seem like he did.
 
Maja said:
Goes to show me BC got what WE, State of North Carolina, paid for. Understand his defense was paid for by tax $.
Click to expand...

Yep, you said it! Our dime...
 
PolkSaladAnnie said:
Actually, maybe the def are taking BC's guilt too personally? Seems like the trial hasn't finished on these pages, lolll. The testimonies that were blacked out were done for a very good reason. The jury were the only group privy to that info - and it had to be crticial. That info, is none of our business. The decision probably has a lot to do with local, state and probably national security. That should be respected.

The Judge asked of the jury, as all Judges generally do, to also *use their common sense*. Common sense, logic, the timeline, BC's lies, means motive and opportunity were huge. Some want blood, a weapon or video of BC committing the crime. Never going to happen.

BC just didn't have time to clean up everything (including his laptop) because he was ambushed some 12 - 24 hours earlier than expected. Yes, yes, that pesky little friend of his wife showed up and smelled a mega rat. From noon that Saturday, BC knew he couldn't get rid of anything else.

It was a gamble he had to take. And finally, after 2 and half years and 2 exhausting months ... Brad Cooper lost....
Click to expand...

BBM

I believe the blackout was because the LE witness might need to go undercover in the future. Wish they had at least allowed audio. Silly since it was open court and there are pictures that are likely of them.

The National Security argument was the basis for denying the defense any way to evaluate or contest the work products provided by the FBI. This violates the defendant's rights under Article VI and the 6th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. (You heard K object on these grounds repeatedly.) If let stand, this one seemingly tiny exception is enough to deprive you of all your other rights and protections.

To show how this works, let's further restrict the N.S. exception to apply just to the forensic analysis of computers, including disks and their content. Now suppose that under a valid search warrant the police and FBI perform a computer forensic analysis of your laptop and its disk. You are suddenly arrested for possession of child *advertiser censored*, distribution, money laundering, wire fraud, and lots of other charges. (Your assets might be seized or forfeited, and even if charges are dropped or you are found NG, you have no guarantee to regain your former assets.)

In court, the FBI testifies that they analyzed you computer and were able to recover the hidden files presented into evidence against you. "Where are these files? The defense is unable to find this evidence on its forensic copy of the disk? The defense requests the prosecution provide its processes and methods for examination and evaluation by defense. Objection -- National Defense. You can trust the FBI. Sustained.

Defense objects on grounds the submitted files lack proper foundation no basis established supporting State's claim the submitted files are derived and flow from the defendant's computer disk already in evidence. These files could be from anywhere. Overruled. Files recovered from defendants disk are admitted into evidence. Objection, denial of defendants Constituional rights. Overruled.

The State has already provided to Defense a forensic copy of the disk with all the data, and placed in evidence the files recovered from it by the FBI. The defense claims their expert needs us to provide detailed instructions on how to do his job. The State is not responsible for the Defendant's choice of expert witnesses, nor for him lacking the adequate qualifications, skills, or tools.

Who will they believe? The FBI forensic expert and the files he recovered, or a filthy lying scum like you -- denying you did it, expecting us to believe you're being framed. You are sick and disgusting. You can't fool us. You aren't ever going to get out or be allowed anywhere near another child ever again.

Just one missing link in the chain of evidence.
 
This case remind anyone else of Shawkshank? After seeing the recent mugshot, I wonder if Tim Robbins (aka Andy Dufrense) might play BC in the television drama?

 
unc70 said:
BBM

I believe the blackout was because the LE witness might need to go undercover in the future. Wish they had at least allowed audio. Silly since it was open court and there are pictures that are likely of them.

The National Security argument was the basis for denying the defense any way to evaluate or contest the work products provided by the FBI. This violates the defendant's rights under Article VI and the 6th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. (You heard K object on these grounds repeatedly.) If let stand, this one seemingly tiny exception is enough to deprive you of all your other rights and protections.

To show how this works, let's further restrict the N.S. exception to apply just to the forensic analysis of computers, including disks and their content. Now suppose that under a valid search warrant the police and FBI perform a computer forensic analysis of your laptop and its disk. You are suddenly arrested for possession of child *advertiser censored*, distribution, money laundering, wire fraud, and lots of other charges. (Your assets might be seized or forfeited, and even if charges are dropped or you are found NG, you have no guarantee to regain your former assets.)

In court, the FBI testifies that they analyzed you computer and were able to recover the hidden files presented into evidence against you. "Where are these files? The defense is unable to find this evidence on its forensic copy of the disk? The defense requests the prosecution provide its processes and methods for examination and evaluation by defense. Objection -- National Defense. You can trust the FBI. Sustained.

Defense objects on grounds the submitted files lack proper foundation no basis established supporting State's claim the submitted files are derived and flow from the defendant's computer disk already in evidence. These files could be from anywhere. Overruled. Files recovered from defendants disk are admitted into evidence. Objection, denial of defendants Constituional rights. Overruled.

The State has already provided to Defense a forensic copy of the disk with all the data, and placed in evidence the files recovered from it by the FBI. The defense claims their expert needs us to provide detailed instructions on how to do his job. The State is not responsible for the Defendant's choice of expert witnesses, nor for him lacking the adequate qualifications, skills, or tools.

Who will they believe? The FBI forensic expert and the files he recovered, or a filthy lying scum like you -- denying you did it, expecting us to believe you're being framed. You are sick and disgusting. You can't fool us. You aren't ever going to get out or be allowed anywhere near another child ever again.

Just one missing link in the chain of evidence.
Click to expand...

I read a series of articles written by an attorney who now does forensic analyses. He educates people about the proper way to handle forensic evidence. One of the things I really picked up on is that, from the start, the selection of the forensic expert in charge of the extraction of data from the computer or cell phone should be appointed by the court and should be agreed upon by both parties and the entire procedure should be documented by video and detailed notes with dates. It was wrong that defense never had a chance to properly cross-examine the data from the computer.
 
why did the defense not use a Cisco expert, who would know the inner workings of Brad's work computer more than Cisco?
 
Palomine said:
why did the defense not use a Cisco expert, who would know the inner workings of Brad's work computer more than Cisco?
Click to expand...

Jay Ward worked at Cisco for several years. He was/is a network security expert. The best person to determine the validity of the incriminating evidence on the computers.
 
sunshine05 said:
Jay Ward worked at Cisco for several years. He was/is a network security expert. The best person to determine the validity of the incriminating evidence on the computers.
Click to expand...

How does network security expert = determining validy of incriminating evidence on the computer :waitasec:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 150 more.
Total: 2,452 (members: 151, guests: 2,301)

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
2,301
Total visitors
2,452
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,841
Messages
18,100,173
Members
230,936
Latest member
earworm
Back
Top