April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[Cheyenne130]

There's not. There's a coworker who says "I talked to him on the chat program around 11:30 at work, but that doesn't mean he wasn't there before that." Or something to that effect. We've had no testimony on the time he arrived at work on Friday at all.

The testimony was in the form of cell phone pings. They sort of tracked where he was at what time based on phone activity.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Personally I found it strange that SA J did the initial investigation of the laptop but CC did the testimony around the Google search.

The FBI testimony also said they saw the invalid files one said he could not explain them and the other didn't mention them in his report.

All these things seem fishy to me.

Why didn't they seem fishy to the FBI? If it's so easy to figure out that they were planted, why didn't the FBI figure it out? And if the FBI figured it out, why did they proceed to testify for the prosecution?

What has to be alleged, in order for this scenario to carry any weight, is that CPD and FBI are corrupt and colluding, to frame an innocent man for ??? reason. (IS there a good reason? LE seems okay with the paper delivery person murder being unsolved...they haven't framed HER boyfriend.) Why go to such convoluted lengths...to plant the files, risk calling in the FBI, when they could have put a teaspoon of soil from the site in the soles of Brad's shoes.

What's more likely, to me, is that Brad Cooper is good with computers. He can manipulate files, phones, access computers remotely, cover his tracks at will, and had motive means and opportunity to do all these things.

 

[Danielle59]

There's not. There's a coworker who says "I talked to him on the chat program around 11:30 at work, but that doesn't mean he wasn't there before that." Or something to that effect. We've had no testimony on the time he arrived at work on Friday at all.

If they talked on Chat at 11:30 then I would make the assumption he was at work at that time.

Thank you, BTW

 

[LyndyLoo]

There's not. There's a coworker who says "I talked to him on the chat program around 11:30 at work, but that doesn't mean he wasn't there before that." Or something to that effect. We've had no testimony on the time he arrived at work on Friday at all.

Didnt the security guy mention badge sign in time??..His badge used to open his office would have indicated exactly what time he got there..I may be mistaken, but that 1130ish time would explain need or reasoning for his excuse of being caught up with kids and home things and thats why he was late??..otherwise 930 ish arrival to office would NOT need explanations??..

 

[otto]

No, the zip code 27518 defaults to zoom 11, which is the middle of the scale. That was the starting point. Then it scrolled and zoomed, scrolled and zoomed to almost maximum. I'm not sure exactly what he meant by almost maximum zoom, but I'm sure about the starting point. Does that help?

Yes, thank you. I get it now. The zoom 11, the start point, is a general road map, and that map was zoomed in as far as it goes, which is full detail. The max # times any map can be zoomed is 21, and the map of the drainage ditch zooms to 18.

I really wonder what the jury is thinking about all this. They can't discuss it with anyone and can't do any independent research to figure out what they're hearing. It must be a bit mindboggling or even mindnumbing.

 

[momof7]

There's not. There's a coworker who says "I talked to him on the chat program around 11:30 at work, but that doesn't mean he wasn't there before that." Or something to that effect. We've had no testimony on the time he arrived at work on Friday at all.

Did he have to scan a badge to get in somehow to his office/bldg at Cisco? If so, why didnt the pros get that information to show that between Lowe's and work there was missing time? If they don't have it, do you think that means he went straight to work, and don't want that information entered? I still would like to know what time he left 'home' that morning. Is that entered/verified anywhere? Depo maybe?

Kelly

ETA: I see there were cell phone pings...that makes sense. Still would have liked to see that evidence coberated with a sign in of some nature at Cisco.

 

[SleuthinNC]

MOO, BC did the search after the body was found. Somebody attempted to change the date to reflect the search being done on July 11 and screwed that process up causing the invalid timestamps.

 

[NCEast]

Wonder if any jurors have as much computer knowledge as it appears some of the posters have. It is interesting to read but most goes over my head. Actually, I just come to the thinking of common sense...who's computer, why would anyone hack it, the chances of it happening when his wife goes missing, etc. and don't get as technical. Someone on that jury is going to have to take the lead with this stuff if it is going to be sifted through as much as it has been here. For me, I think the jurors will pay a lot of attention to the circumstantial evidence of Brad's behavior and the state of their marriage. It will be very interesting to hear from the jurors if they choose to speak.

Your thoughts about the computer testimony and the jurors have been my own for several weeks. Since it may be over their heads, they may go with their gut feelings and base their thoughts on the behavior and circumstantial evidence that has been testified to....which is probably what I would do. I don't know if that would be exactly fair if *somebody* can't explain the tech testimony to the jurors so that it is accurate and they understand it all.

 

[Bottle Cap]

MOO, BC did the search after the body was found. Somebody attempted to change the date to reflect the search being done on July 11 and screwed that process up causing the invalid timestamps.

He knew from the git-go he was a suspect, so he's going to leave a search of the site on his computer to be found?

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Did he have to scan a badge to get in somehow to his office/bldg at Cisco? If so, why didnt the pros get that information to show that between Lowe's and work there was missing time? If they don't have it, do you think that means he went straight to work, and don't want that information entered? I still would like to know what time he left 'home' that morning. Is that entered/verified anywhere? Depo maybe?

Kelly

Great questions, and I wish I knew the answers! I *know* they did have to scan a badge to enter the building, unless you walk in as a group, then you wouldn't have each individual person scan to open the door. I have no idea if there's some verifiable way to tell when he got there on Friday. I don't think cell tower pings are as reliable, because they're all in the same general area. I would think if this information was important, one side or another would have asked for it, and entered it. I do remember in the depo BC stated he went straight to work, but I don't think a time was given. I think he states he left home around 9/9:30, but wasn't sure.

 

[Wyn]

unc70, are you Moravian, perchance, or do you just love sugar cake?

Did you know that Moravians can't get into Heaven unless they scrub gravestones, or so my late FIL always told me......my admittance should be assured by now.

 

[unc70]

So what does this mean? The CPD tampered with the files, Brad thought he deleted them. Somebody else? The operating system updated, Google updated? I'm just trying to get an understanding of what happened and what the next logical conclusion is.

If those 500 other files have similar timestamp problems, then tampering is about the only thing remaining. Even a Google update would give you slight variations in the time stamps. Certainly not from anyone deleting them. Not from an OS upgrade.

Most likely scenario to me is creating the search on another machine, forcing the date to 11 Jul ... and copying via thumb drive, etc. to BC pc. Time could also be forced after inserting the files onto his computer.

IMNSHO

 

[SleuthinNC]

Why didn't they seem fishy to the FBI? If it's so easy to figure out that they were planted, why didn't the FBI figure it out? And if the FBI figured it out, why did they proceed to testify for the prosecution?

What has to be alleged, in order for this scenario to carry any weight, is that CPD and FBI are corrupt and colluding, to frame an innocent man for ??? reason. (IS there a good reason? LE seems okay with the paper delivery person murder being unsolved...they haven't framed HER boyfriend.) Why go to such convoluted lengths...to plant the files, risk calling in the FBI, when they could have put a teaspoon of soil from the site in the soles of Brad's shoes.

What's more likely, to me, is that Brad Cooper is good with computers. He can manipulate files, phones, access computers remotely, cover his tracks at will, and had motive means and opportunity to do all these things.

Your last paragraph illustrates exactly why the Google search makes no sense.

 

[momof7]

Your thoughts about the computer testimony and the jurors have been my own for several weeks. Since it may be over their heads, they may go with their gut feelings and base their thoughts on the behavior and circumstantial evidence that has been testified to....which is probably what I would do. I don't know if that would be exactly fair if *somebody* can't explain the tech testimony to the jurors so that it is accurate and they understand it all.

And I think if there is only one computer savy individual on the panel, there is a good chance he could believe/have knowledge that will place him squarely on one side or the other. Because it is so technical, there could be a swaying of those who have no clue. It will be interesting if the jury does speak to find out 1. How many are literate in technology 2. How heavily this weighed in their final decision 3. How many were unsure, but relied on the others who understood to help them decipher the issue.

Kelly

 

[Bottle Cap]

Your last paragraph illustrates exactly why the Google search makes no sense.

Everybody makes mistakes. That's what a murder investigation IS. Looking for the one little mistake. Brad's a human being.

 

[Danielle59]

Did he have to scan a badge to get in somehow to his office/bldg at Cisco? If so, why didnt the pros get that information to show that between Lowe's and work there was missing time? If they don't have it, do you think that means he went straight to work, and don't want that information entered? I still would like to know what time he left 'home' that morning. Is that entered/verified anywhere? Depo maybe?

Kelly

ETA: I see there were cell phone pings...that makes sense. Still would have liked to see that evidence coberated with a sign in of some nature at Cisco.

He would have had to have scanned his badge to get into the building, the time he hooked his computer to the internal network from his desk would also indicate the time he was in the office and at his desk. For some reason there has been no mention of either time, but I have seen speculation on this website about it. That tells me he was at work when he was supposed to be or it would have been brought up.

 

[LyndyLoo]

MOO, BC did the search after the body was found. Somebody attempted to change the date to reflect the search being done on July 11 and screwed that process up causing the invalid timestamps.

Now that reasoning just makes it worse for Brad.....because the body found there wasnt even identified by the time he left his computer and house...??? That search after ( even tho he denied he look or atttempted to see the site) would only mean he KNEW it was Nancy...I dont bite on that one at all!!

Brad was too busy getting rid of other items, and cleaning his house of all reminents of struggles...and avoiding calling police too

Also websites are very accurate when capturing searches....and if someone tried to alter them the properties alone would indicate initial access and latest access..however, it may appear different in forensic searches of files that maybe had been attempted to delete.. Everyone has to know deletion of search files doesnt really mean they are gone from your hard drive??..

 

[unc70]

I am not sure sure, because the time stamp for that search only indicates one search and time captured was when the search ended..not when he first entered the site to his searchings and zoomings...It to me just indicates he never visited that site again on that map to do further searchings...Thats how I see it....Why would a site keep entrance and exit times of every search anyway?? Just asking...

I know JW believes it indicates program initiated...but not so sure..I hope testimony (Google Guy) clearify's that clear and concisely for the jury..

The timestamps for open hand and closed hand should not be identical with each other. Should at least be tiny variations.

 

[Bottle Cap]

I kinda want to know which individual in the CPD is the whiz that can do all this, and think he can avoid detection. Especially when they didn't power down the computer, and don't really seem to have a good handle on technology themselves.

Or did they just call the FBI and say help, do this for us and then testify! We'll, uh, buy you a beer.

 

[Danielle59]

Great questions, and I wish I knew the answers! I *know* they did have to scan a badge to enter the building, unless you walk in as a group, then you wouldn't have each individual person scan to open the door. I have no idea if there's some verifiable way to tell when he got there on Friday. I don't think cell tower pings are as reliable, because they're all in the same general area. I would think if this information was important, one side or another would have asked for it, and entered it. I do remember in the depo BC stated he went straight to work, but I don't think a time was given. I think he states he left home around 9/9:30, but wasn't sure.

I have been in those buildings, people may walk in as groups but you still have to scan your own badge and I have asked friends that work there and if you're caught not scanning your badge you get into trouble. That is done to keep people that should not be in the building out. Even visitors have to have badges. At some places, like Ericcson you have to go through a turnstile, there are no group entries.