When you watch the whole thing, it's pretty clear that BP has no idea what Timing Advance Records look like and would have no idea if he saw them or not. He knows he saw records received from the AT&T warrants, but he doesn't know what they are.
At one point he says, "The records were provided to FBI agent Ballance, who began deciphering them. I'm not an expert at cell phone records so he was the one conveying information to me so I could understand what it was."
AT asks him when he first saw AT&T's Timing Advance Reports. He says, "I do not recall when I first saw them."
When she presses him, he says, "I do not recall if I've seen Timing Advance Reports. I'd have to see what it looked like to know if I'd seen it."
AT asks, "Do you know what it is?" and he answers, "Not particularly. I'm no expert."
He doesn't know what they look like so he can't say one way or the other if he saw them or not. He knows he saw records, but he doesn't understand what they were.
JMO
I didn't hear him mention Timing Advance Records at all. He's talking about Call Detail Records for the most part. I don't think AT asks him about TARs either.
There's no proof at this moment that the prosecution received BK's TARs or the defense would have produced it. They wouldn't let it get to this point if there was actual evidence. They have what Sy Ray is telling them but there's no evidence Sy Ray is right.
This issue was a win for the prosecution because the defense is not allowed to ask about these alleged missing records in front of the jury unless they have proof--and they very much wanted to do that in order to create suspicion about the investigation and thus reasonable doubt about all of the evidence. It was a small win for AT because she does get to ask Ballance under oath if he got them or not.
JMO
My take on this has always been that Chief Fry meant that this was an isolated attack in the sense that it wasn't ongoing. For example, in the Virginia Tech shootings, 18 years ago today, the attack was ongoing, but they didn't realize it. The first set of shootings occurred about 7:15am at West AJ, a dorm on campus. The campus was briefly locked down, but the lockdown lifted before the second set of shootings at Norris Hall. They mistakenly believed the "event" was over and were investigating someone at a nearby university. When Chief Fry said that it was isolated and there was no ongoing threat, I think that's how he meant it. It was clear that this particular attack was over.
I don't know anything about calling cards or OC, but we do know the wounds on the victims were the type left by a weapon like the one the defendant purchased.
JMO
As far as alternative perpetrators--I'd expect the defense to suggest whenever possible that it could be someone else. And they're allowed to do that. They're just not allowed to say any specific person or throw any names out at trial without proof. Pretty standard.
JMO
Do you mean no actual physical receipt? Because there apparently is proof of purchase, mentioned by both prosecution and defense.
For example, in the State's Response to Defendant's MIL #9 RE: Excluding Amazon Click Activity Evidence at Trial, the prosecution writes:
The Defendant touches on the issue of identifying the account user making the Amazon search inquiries as shown by the click activity. Defendant’s Motion at page 4. The State recognizes that the identity of the user making the inquiries is relevant, and the State intends to rely not only on the click activity but also other circumstances to connect the Defendant to the original knife purchase and subsequent search inquiries for a replacement knife and/or sheath. This will include the Defendant’s financial activities; the click activities vis-a-vis other events, such as the homicides; a related purchase activity connected only to the Defendant; and testimony from witnesses with knowledge that the Defendant purchased a Ka-Bar knife.
We know from the latest hearing he may have used a gift card to purchase it and the judge mentioned click activity tracking shipment and delivery. The Amazon evidence is incredibly damaging for the defense because they are admitting that the DNA on the sheath is his and they have to come up with an explanation for it that the jury will believe. Evidence that he himself purchased this same knife and sheath takes away pretty much every reasonable explanation. They can't claim he handled it in a local shop and left his DNA on it. You have to really stretch imagination and all sense of logic to come up with something and then figure out how you're going to get that before the jury without him testifying. There is nothing low value about the Amazon click activity.
JMO
If I were on the jury, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference in model years at all. I would listen to the experts give their opinions and I think this is true of a good many jurors. The videos are very incriminating because a white car that resembles BK's white car can be seen traveling on various cameras on a logical route with the times matching up to what they should be from one camera to the next. If there is a video capturing a white car without a front license plate in that mix, somewhere in all those snapshots that move logically on the proposed path, that would be very convincing to me as a juror that it's his car. If they have that as they've said, the videos of the white sedan are very damaging to the defense.
JMO
Edited to add link
www.scribd.com
BP testimony:Thanks I needed a laugh today!!!
though not intended to give the fictional Noddy a bad wrap with the homophone, I find a bit of levity helps when following this case from time to time! NODDI is ofcourse jmo!
