The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[otto]

I'm surprised because now he has said it. I understood his trial comments to be "anyone" could have planted the evidence, even the "real killer". That was the purpose of showing that the wifi connection was not secure.

To actually come out and say the police did it could land him in hot water if he doesn't have evidence to back that up.

He answers questions in such an honest way that I believe him when he says that he has proof that was not easy to find, but once found was very obvious. I don't think he would risk his career and accuse the police of tampering with evidence if he didn't believe it to be true. He would only believe that if Brad told it to him straight and the evidence supported the claim. I think it was Brad that was able to assist with identifying the tampering, something that would be very important to Brad to identify, something that would be difficult to identify and something that would reflect very negatively on investigators.

I found Kurtz's remarks about having a technology-qualified Judge very relevant. If the presiding Judge doesn't even know what an MP3 player is, then he was really in no position to disqualify technology and electronic evidence.

 

[NCEast]

This is just a reminder (because I was asked to remind) that the Dateline tonight is about another wife death/murder case. It's about Sarah Widmer. It comes on in about an hour and a half. There is a forum here for it if anyone is interested in commenting during/after the show.:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89697&highlight=Sarah+Widmer

Thank you for the reminder and the link.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Very interesting interview!

So even though the Judge said that discussion forum people don't know what they're talking about, the defense said that the real time feedback was really important in terms of validating what they thought was happening. For example, if real time posters thought there was a bias in a ruling, they knew about it.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/noteworthy/video/9563382/#/vid9563382

I tend to believe that the Def. Team (Kurtz et al~~) felt emboldeed by all the nasty blogging on GOLO and some of the questions even here on W/S) However, for some reason, he underestimated the common sensical reasonings of 12 people who sat in judgement...So IF he continues on the mindbend..Yessss indeedy..He feels supported in his claim of biases, ineptness and corruptions...Sadly, he underestimated the collective minds of 12 people who saw thru the "Smoke and Mirrors"..

Casting aspersions and blame is one thing, but you simply have to prove to those listening to the evidence (Jury) you are being honest and able to prove your accusations....Unfortunately they could NOT do that to the satisfaction of 12 minds...Bloggers and posters are NOT sitting on that panel..so be very aware just where you place your marbles...:rocker:

Appellate hearings will decide just how this judgement gets handled...Let the higher court decide from here Mr.Kurtz:seeya:

 

[NCEast]

He answers questions in such an honest way that I believe him when he says that he has proof that was not easy to find, but once found was very obvious. I don't think he would risk his career and accuse the police of tampering with evidence if he didn't believe it to be true. He would only believe that if Brad told it to him straight and the evidence supported the claim. I think it was Brad that was able to assist with identifying the tampering, something that would be very important to Brad to identify, something that would be difficult to identify and something that would reflect very negatively on investigators.

I found Kurtz's remarks about having a technology-qualified Judge very relevant. If the presiding Judge doesn't even know what an MP3 player is, then he was really in no position to disqualify technology and electronic evidence.

How about how he zeroed in on JP without calling him by name. Said he absolutely should have been investigated by LE. I bet JP won't be sleeping well until this case is resolved once and for all in the appellate court.

 

[SueY]

Interesting. I was looking at this site just the other day and noticed that the last events were in 2009.
http://www.nancysbutterflyfund.org/caryevents.php

Slightly different website URL has more recent events listed:

http://www.nancysbutterflyfundnc.org/news

 

[cityslick]

Two things that have stood out to me post verdict. First, the comment from the foreman:

“They did their job, but they need to look in the mirror. There’s a lot they’ll need to reflect on,” Gilbert said of Cary police.

The second comment is by Cummings, who basically threw Bazemore under the bus:

"I'm disappointed that she was not here," Cummings said. "Especially when her officers were accused of intentional misconduct."

I think the guy was guilty, so in the end he got what he deserved, but that does not let CPD off the hook for how much of a mess this investigation was. They are saying all the right things to the media, but I'm sure policies/procedures are going to be seriously looked at (if they haven't already).

 

[otto]

I tend to believe that the Def. Team (Kurtz et al~~) felt emboldeed by all the nasty blogging on GOLO and some of the questions even here on W/S) However, for some reason, he underestimated the common sensical reasonings of 12 people who sat in judgement...So IF he continues on the mindbend..Yessss indeedy..He feels supported in his claim of biases, ineptness and corruptions...Sadly, he underestimated the collective minds of 12 people who saw thru the "Smoke and Mirrors"..

Casting aspersions and blame is one thing, but you simply have to prove to those listening to the evidence (Jury) you are being honest and able to prove your accusations....Unfortunately they could NOT do that to the satisfaction of 12 minds...Bloggers and posters are NOT sitting on that panel..so be very aware just where you place your marbles...:rocker:

Appellate hearings will decide just how this judgement gets handled...Let the higher court decide from here Mr.Kurtz:seeya:

I would feel more comfortable with the verdict if the jury had heard the rebuttal to the prosecution computer analysis. For me, that's a gaping hole in the verdict.

 

[otto]

How about how he zeroed in on JP without calling him by name. Said he absolutely should have been investigated by LE. I bet JP won't be sleeping well until this case is resolved once and for all in the appellate court.

Isn't he the guy that slept his way through the neighborhood? He probably doesn't need any more sleep.

 

[otto]

Slightly different website URL has more recent events listed:

http://www.nancysbutterflyfundnc.org/news

Thanks ... I see that the website name is slightly different:

nancysbutterflyfundnc.org

nancysbutterflyfund.org

Perhaps the two sites should be merged.

 

[happy2binNC]

I just listened to the interview with Kurtz. Very interesting and I found him more likable when he wasn't whining to the judge.

One point of irony is how he mentioned that JP was dishonest with the police. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I found Kurtz's interview to be totally self serving and with little factual basis. He is telling you what he wants you to believe. MOO

 

[otto]

Two things that have stood out to me post verdict. First, the comment from the foreman:

“They did their job, but they need to look in the mirror. There’s a lot they’ll need to reflect on,” Gilbert said of Cary police.

The second comment is by Cummings, who basically threw Bazemore under the bus:

"I'm disappointed that she was not here," Cummings said. "Especially when her officers were accused of intentional misconduct."

I think the guy was guilty, so in the end he got what he deserved, but that does not let CPD off the hook for how much of a mess this investigation was. They are saying all the right things to the media, but I'm sure policies/procedures are going to be seriously looked at (if they haven't already).

I wouldn't suggest that Bazemore should also not do much in the way of work for 2 months, but instead ask why officers were kept on staff to attend a two month trial. I was wondering how it was possible for investigators to give up 2 months of work to attend court, how the police dept could afford that, whether police weren't at the same time not doing their jobs.

 

[otto]

I just listened to the interview with Kurtz. Very interesting and I found him more likable when he wasn't whining to the judge.

One point of irony is how he mentioned that JP was dishonest with the police. Pot, meet kettle.

JP is a witness. What reason would a witness have for being dishonest? Something to hide? What? Why?

 

[otto]

I found Kurtz's interview to be totally self serving and with little factual basis. He is telling you what he wants you to believe. MOO

... and at the same time putting his job on the line. Those are high stakes.

 

[Cheyenne130]

... and at the same time putting his job on the line. Those are high stakes.

How was he putting his job on the line in that interview? He wasn't under oath in a court of law. He didn't have to be honest. That was 20 minutes of free advertiseing for him. MOO

 

[cody100]

I would feel more comfortable with the verdict if the jury had heard the rebuttal to the prosecution computer analysis. For me, that's a gaping hole in the verdict.

I agree completely with your comments. It may not have changed the outcome, but there is a nagging feeling that the jury should have been allowed to hear the defense's rebuttal computer expert. Since hearing Kurtz, I really feel more strongly about this opinion.

 

[otto]

How was he putting his job on the line in that interview? He wasn't under oath in a court of law. He didn't have to be honest. That was 20 minutes of free advertiseing for him. MOO

To not state, but only imply, that police could have tampered with evidence to indicate guilt is rather serious. That's a career deal breaker, but it looks like he's prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

 

[Maja]

And what if Kurtz were to have said he believed BC was guilty and justice was served? How would that look?

 

[cody100]

How was he putting his job on the line in that interview? He wasn't under oath in a court of law. He didn't have to be honest. That was 20 minutes of free advertiseing for him. MOO

He is putting his reputation on the line IMO. I do not feel he was after free advertising at all.

 

[cody100]

And what if Kurtz were to have said he believed BC was guilty and justice was served? How would that look?

Well, IMO, he would have said no comment if he thought BC was guilty. Kurtz truly believes his client was framed. He was very emphatic that BC did not do that map search on the 11th.