Wildhorses
Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 230
Obviously we disagree. Rudi if subjected to cross would break down. Quizzed on why he said they weren't there in the Skype call but changed his story. His story can't stand the rigors of cross. Going through his story of the left handed man and all just would come off as lies. He won't testify but just asking makes for good press.
Napoleoni can't lie effectively since she wasn't there. She would be exposed for the later messing with the data base etc. What would she say they did on the 6th and 7th in the cottage?
Yep, we disagree. Rudy's a wild card. Very wild. I wouldn't risk it.
Nevertheless, if it's true he wouldn't testify, no harm asking.
Napoleoni: I'm only semi-obsessed with this case. I may have missed something. Offhand, it's not clear to me what you're hoping she'd say. Whatever it is, I expect her to be pretty good at covering her ass.
If there is exculpatory evidence there, of course.
I find it maddening this is not known with certainty. For all the thousands of words that get posted about this case daily, you'd think we'd know.
My opinion on the computer evidence is based on what I've read here. Insider-type posters have said it is exculpatory. (And I recall a link to a nice explanation of how/why various forensic software tools probe different subsystems). IF there's data showing someone was on the computer at Raff's house all night, at least one of the principals is off the hook. I see no way around it. Computer logs don't lie.
My impression is multiple lines of evidence show the computer was in use, but I haven't read of a translation of Raff's appeal.
Lesser importance and difficult to do now since things probably changed.
You're mistaken about the difficulty. I live and work in Silicon Valley. I know communication companies. The right engineer could settle the issue in milliseconds. Doesn't matter if things have changed. I guarantee you communication companies have boatloads of documentation on the configuration of cell towers at the time of the murder.
Seems to me it's very important because it puts a 10:00 limit on TOD. And like computer logs, cell network data doesn't lie.
The provenance of that call doesn't have to be a matter of opinion. It can and should be clarified by experts, not left to the antics of Keystone Cops.