Recent content by CyberPro

There is a picture of it in evidence from the trial. It is possible it is not from that piece of equipment, but it showed there was a place where a piece of equipment had been long enough for a print to be seen in the dust, and it was approximately the same dimension.

The discussion was of a log file that showed that BC's laptop was attached to a router which could have been used to route a phone call. This router was shown to have been signed out of an inventory by BC, and could not be located later. There was an outline in dust conforming to a device that...

You are confusing the time the phone call supposedly took with the log file that indicates a computer was connected to the router to perform the configuration that would allow the call to be routed. They are related, but the time would not have to match at all. It is like saying you come into my...

(Predicated on this MAC address info being real, and not having seen it myself) this is yet another mistake BC made. Understandably, under a stressful situation. He could have connected the router by a serial "rollover" connection, which is a light blue cable that can be used to configure a...

They are a trophy of his "dealing" with his problem. The only other reason that I can come to is that they might have some bearing as evidence in a civil trial, should one ever come up. As with the OJ case.

:websleuther::grouphug: Thank you all for your comments and insights. We might not all agree all the time, but I do respect you all.

I knew about twitter before this case, but never followed or logged in to it. I did not really see the point. I would log in for updates during blackouts in this trial, but did not like some of the commentary then. I am happy to say that you are safe to "go with your gut" sometimes. I am...

Well Said GhostCrab. I know that you have mentioned that you are an attorney. I don't know if you are active in your practice, how many years of experience you have, or what area of law you focus on. I will say that there has to be a happy median here though. I agree that the prosecution...

:websleuther: :hourglass: :scale: :grouphug: :waiting:

OK, so maybe I am unusual (lol, like that is a MAYBE) but dust is one thing that I will do when some other stuff probably should be done. For some reason the dust on surfaces gets under my skin. I fall very far short on many household chores, but if I see something that is dusty I am all over...

Nope, you forgot. He is a techie. It would be "IF I Did it 2.0"

http://www.wral.com/news/video/9247382/#/vid9247382

Meh, Doesn't sell me much. I never was a fan of the book "All I Needed to Learn I got in 140 Characters" :innocent:

More likely that the Google servers are Unix (or Linux) machines and when the files are dropped on a Windows system they keep their creation timestamps. If that is the case (and I have a very strong suspicion that is the case) the whole invalid timestamp stuff belongs in the bit bucket.

I noticed that the files with the 1970 dates are Javascript and Cascading Style Sheet files, and according to the path seem to indicate that they are related to support/account. This might be indicating that you have an account on Google and have logged in/or visited the support pages...