April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[cody100]

No proof that it is and no proof that it isn't.

Thanks for replying. I don't have any proof that it is either way.

 

[cassius]

No proof that it is and no proof that it isn't.

Who needs proof when you have a 'feeling'?!!!!

 

[cody100]

Who needs proof when you have a 'feeling'?!!!!

I for one want proof rather than feeling if I am going to say something is happening. With no proof, it is just a hunch or speculation that it may be happening. MOO.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Ok so if I am understanding this computer stuff correctly here is what I have:

During the 41 second time frame of the Google Search:

• There were 500 files with invalid SAM timestamps
• These same 500 files had Created & Modified timestamps of 7/11/2008 that appear to be valid

If this is correct it points much more to tampering than anything else because:

If it were a system update and something was wrong with system time you would expect all timestamps to be off not just SAM.

The fact that it is the SAM timestamp that is invalid is important because it indicates something was wrong with the security permissions. This could be related to different things including:

• CSA may handle account permissions differently than windows
• Windows Vista changed the security access requirements for changing file labels. The default value is "Prompt to Consent" ETA: This is default behavior for any process that requires elevated privilege, not just file labels.

If somebody were attempting to change the timestamps on the files using some sort of backdoor method like mounting the drive externally as JW showed they would not necessarily see the "Prompt for Consent" prompt. If the SAM timestamp requires elevated privilege to change and the consent is not given the change to the timestamp would be invalid.

I would guess this could happen even if somebody was using one of the readily available tools to change the file timestamps if it was a tool developed for a different version of windows being used as if it were fully compatible.

 

[Bottle Cap]

No defensive wounds because she walked into a pitch dark house and got caught unawares. Wasn't the testimony that the house was pitch dark? Someone comes from behind you in the dark, in your own home, and puts something around your neck, not much chance to fight or run.

Re the hacking. Ok, he did the google search right before lunch, then ran out of the office. Supposing in all the rush of lunch, that was the one thing that slipped his mind and he didn't realize til later. Once the computer was taken, but left powered up...possible to hack in then and try to alter the google search data? Are there any windows in which he could have done this?

Brad has far more to gain by hacking in an altering the data than anyone else. Especially if he didn't have time to do it because they were saying come on, lets go to lunch, and he forgot about it until later.

 

[TallCoolOne]

Who needs proof when you have a 'feeling'?!!!!

Whatever you say......

 

[TallCoolOne]

I for one want proof rather than feeling if I am going to say something is happening. With no proof, it is just a hunch or speculation that it may be happening. MOO.

That's fine. Doesn't affect me either way.

 

[cody100]

That's fine. Doesn't affect me either way.

That comment was in general and not targeted at you. Nope, neither impacts me either. Thanks for your insight and provocative questions.

 

[TallCoolOne]

I have seen office mates of both sides with this and two other sites like it up. They are not folks we have seen on camera in the trial, but they were affiliated with either the DA's office or K and B.

Just bumping this post in case it was missed.

'Nuff said.

 

[cody100]

Just bumping this post in case it was missed.

'Nuff said.

There you go. Thanks Tall. I had not seen that post.

 

[GhostCrab]

Just bumping this post in case it was missed.

'Nuff said.

I'm not sure what your point is with this line of thinking, especially if both sides of the case are engaging it in. I would be surprised if they weren't because tactically they would be foolish not to gauge what people are saying on this de facto focus group we've go going here.

 

[cassius]

Whatever you say......

sorry, not good a choosing those little emoticon things or i woulda used one. i was making a joke re DD's spoofed phone call testimony.

 

[TallCoolOne]

I'm not sure what your point is with this line of thinking, especially if both sides of the case are engaging it in. I would be surprised if they weren't because tactically they would be foolish not to gauge what people are saying on this de facto focus group we've go going here.

If you had been following it is in response to those who claim that those who are involved from defense and/or prosecution would not be perusing these boards. Now do you get the point?

 

[unc70]

How many more murdered joggers have there been in the area?

Over the years, a few joggers murdered in the Triangle. A lot more attacked. The warnings to women not to run alone in certain areas are for good reasons. But there are even cases of attacks in "safe" areas.

I am in Chapel Hill, maybe 25 miles from Lochmere. Last year, an attack on a jogger in the middle of town was thwarted:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/05/14/481420/mens-action-thwarts-attack.html

I think the last jogger murdered in CH was in 1993, though a city bus killed one a couple of years ago. We also had the UNC Student Body President, Eve Carson, abducted outside her home and murdered.

ETA: The 1993 jogger and Eve Carson were each murder by strangers.

 

[cody100]

sorry, not good a choosing those little emoticon things or i woulda used one. i was making a joke re DD's spoofed phone call testimony.

I get it now. Didn't at the time. Yeah, I have laughed at that one too.

 

[SleuthinNC]

No defensive wounds because she walked into a pitch dark house and got caught unawares. Wasn't the testimony that the house was pitch dark? Someone comes from behind you in the dark, in your own home, and puts something around your neck, not much chance to fight or run.

Re the hacking. Ok, he did the google search right before lunch, then ran out of the office. Supposing in all the rush of lunch, that was the one thing that slipped his mind and he didn't realize til later. Once the computer was taken, but left powered up...possible to hack in then and try to alter the google search data? Are there any windows in which he could have done this?

Brad has far more to gain by hacking in an altering the data than anyone else. Especially if he didn't have time to do it because they were saying come on, lets go to lunch, and he forgot about it until later.

And yet there was supposedly enough struggle to necessitate removal of sticks and ducks but not cause wounds?

 

[SleuthSayer]

No offense taken. Been around and followed more cases that I want to admit and it happens all the time. Prosecution and defense sides both have been known to follow these sites and glean ideas from them. Why would they not? Have you not noticed that there are some very keen minds that post here? This site has been around for more then 10 years (before the crash) and has grown quite a reputation for having some very astute posters. Anyone can post here and remain anonymous. Those who would think otherwise are being naive.

My opinion is if Brad is facing life in prison and the attorneys that he's counting on to save his a$$ are off getting ideas from anonymous people posting on message boards, he's really screwed.

Similarly, if the taxpayers of Wake County are funding a DA, a bunch of ADA's, paralegals, law enforcement officers, ME's, bug experts, mica gurus, FBI cyber crime experts, and who knows what else, yet the prosecution is picking up tips from people who exchange opinions with cute little animated emoticons, those taxpayers are pretty screwed.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I'm not sure what your point is with this line of thinking, especially if both sides of the case are engaging it in. I would be surprised if they weren't because tactically they would be foolish not to gauge what people are saying on this de facto focus group we've go going here.

I said last night that I really don't follow this logic. This site would be the absolute worst example of a focus group that anyone could pick. The vast majority of the people here had their mind made up that he was guilty 3 years ago. They were sure of his guilt before seeing any physical evidence (other than the HT videos and affidavits).

The focus groups they need are people similar to the jury, who are hearing all of this stuff for the first time and working based purely based on what they hear and see in that court room. Not people who have spent 3 years digging through the evidence, googling factoids related to that evidence, driving by to take some photos of the site where the body was found, etc.

 

[cody100]

My opinion is if Brad is facing life in prison and the attorneys that he's counting on to save his a$$ are off getting ideas from anonymous people posting on message boards, he's really screwed.

Similarly, if the taxpayers of Wake County are funding a DA, a bunch of ADA's, paralegals, law enforcement officers, ME's, bug experts, mica gurus, FBI cyber crime experts, and who knows what else, yet the prosecution is picking up tips from people who exchange opinions with cute little animated emoticons, those taxpayers are pretty screwed.

I hope they aren't here planning their entire strategy for each side. I am hoping they are here on their own free will and not on office business.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

And yet there was supposedly enough struggle to necessitate removal of sticks and ducks but not cause wounds?

I thought maybe the sticks and ducks were a red herring -- that perhaps NC had already removed them, but her friends were so used to seeing them there that in their memories contemporaneous to the crime, those items were still there.

But since they haven't turned up, and no one has testified about receiving them as a gift or that NC routinely decluttered and gave things to the Salvation Army or threw them away, their disappearance is a mystery. The only reasons I can think this lack of testimony would occur is that someone who firmly believes BC is factually guilty is allowing this mystery to remain in hopes that it helps to convict him OR BC got rid of them.

But in this case, people are surprised that the sticks and ducks are gone, and I think it is likely that has something to do with the case and we will never know why. It's a detail that I don't think is important in the grand scheme of things.