For those who continue to question/debate whether or not the Google search was authentic, I would like to point out the fact that there is a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence that indicates that the DA office knew the map evidence couldnt be trusted. 1) Long before trial but after several months, the defense contacted the FBI agent who had the hard drive and asked him if he was finished and if he could get a copy. He said Yes, no problem. Later that day the defense attorney received a call from Cary police stating that he could NOT have the copy. No explanation was given. This dragged on for some time. Eventually he did receive it - after the privacy policy had expired - making it impossible to verify through Google that the search originated on Brads computer - why did they stall if they trusted the evidence? 2) At a pre-trial hearing in the fall of 2010, the defense requested information about how the computer evidence was extracted, so they could duplicate the exact procedure which would allow them to be certain they were looking at the exact same thing the State had. Judge Gessner denied it. The reason? It could jeopardize national security. The State had an affidavit from an FBI agent stating that sharing any methods or bench notes could jeopardize national security - ridiculous as they could have done this confidentially. What were they working so hard to hide? 3) The Cary police/DA office didnt have to use the FBI for this evidence at all. They could have used the NC SBI, or a private firm. Did they intentionally use the FBI so they could hide behind national security? I believe so. 4) FBI agent Johnson testified that he told Cary police to 3rd party verify the search files. They could have done this by sending a subpoena to Google or they could have checked the Cisco server. They did neither even though it is common practice to verify important evidence such as this - THE most important evidence in the case, in fact the *only* evidence in the case. 5) At trial of course we know what lengths they went to to prevent the defense witnesses from testifying about their findings on the computer. What were they afraid of? If they trusted this evidence, why worry? It should stand up to all questioning if it is trusted evidence. I believe they knew it wouldnt stand up. That is the only thing that makes sense. 6) At trial, the defense wanted Agent Johnson to duplicate the search on any computer in the court room, the prosecutor fought hard against this, the Judge agreed. This conviction would be overturned partly due to this improper ruling. So whether you believe Brad did the Google search or not, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest that the DAs office knowingly hid the evidence from the defense, from the jury and from the public. Now they want to try him again. The State thinks the Appeals court was wrong and there shouldnt have been a new trial ordered. Will the public finally understand all the shady circumstances surrounding the computer evidence? I hope so. Boz Zellinger wants to be the new District Attorney. That is a frightening thought after watching this trial.
Posted on: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:26:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015