April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[unc70]

If the router was at cisco with a 10.x.x.x address, and then his vpn connection tried to assign the same address at home, it could cause this as well...right?

Just got back. Did a quick search on the web for this and found lots of discussion about things that can cause this when establishing VPN. We need some of our Cisco experts to look at this, but from a quick scan of the search results, the 10.x.x.x is being projected through the VPN and is virtually local, but physically at the Cisco office or elsewhere.

From my quick look, these kinds of mismatch errors typically occur when joining the remote. From my very limited understanding of this, the "lost" router was that night was probably somewhere in the Cisco facility, not at their home.

All realities are virtual.

 

[otto]

Since the children were going to be living with Nancy in Canada, Brad could have argued that child support follow Canadian Federal child support guidelines. With an income of $112k, he would have been looking at paying about $1550/mo for the two children.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/legis/fcsg-lfpae/tables2006/on_2.html

 

[unc70]

I wouldn't think so. That would be a huge stretch to assume that this guy suddenly didn't know how to read the log times from one of the company's own computers. It would also go back to what Wolfpackwoman said; it would have to be a conflict with a 10.x. address.

I thought someone with CPD, FBI, ... read the logs and only gave the MAC address to the Cisco security/bouncer/inventory guy

 

[Tink56]

All I remember is that the Rentz family specified what they wanted from the estate, and that included all the art. I seem to remember that this is what they wanted to keep for the girls.

Does it matter what happened to the rest of the house contents? It sounds like each party took what they wanted, and the remainder was given to attorneys to dispose of as they saw fit.

When I was listening to the Mrs. C's testimony, BC's attorney was trying to drive home the point that BC was distraught. He missed his family; his wife and children had been taken from him. Then, after his arrest, he tells his mother he wants the dishes, his workout stuff, and his H.S. momentos???? The distraught motif would work a little better if he kept something to remember his marriage (wedding album?) or pictures of his children. It would work a little better if BC told Mrs. C to check with KR, ask her what the girls need or she thinks they would like.

I hope you're right. I did not hear from Mrs. C that she or BC made any arrangement with NC's family. I hope the NC's family requested the girls favorite books. I hope they received all of NC's jewelry to give to the girls at a future date.

When Mrs. C said she kept a book she bought for the girls, a game, and some CD's as momentos for BC of the girls (there was one other game or ???), I was struck by the few items that were selected versus all the workout stuff and BC's high school memorabilia.

I realize and appreciate this was a difficult time for Mrs. C. However, I am glad the jury gets to evaluate the truthfulness of the witnesses and discard testimony they do not find viable. Probably mothers should never testify about their children. Ramble, ramble....Perhaps, I need to wait 24 hours after seeing the tape before I say anymore. :banghead:

 

[CarolinaTitan]

I don't understand all the criticism for the ADAs in this case....the judge in this case, who's job it is to make sure each side plays by the rules, to keep the trial moving, etc has done a very poor job. He, at times, looks like he's in over his head, especially with the more technical testimony.

Second, it seems to me, as a newcomer, that most people on this board are of the opinion that BC is innocent (or guilty...but blame the CPD and DA for screwing up the case). Now, I'll agree that the ADA has wasted much time on irrelevant testimony. Sometimes, less is more or you risk losing your audience. The ducks, the necklace, gossip ad nauseum all cloud the real proof and the real issues.

A) Could the CPD rule BC out as a suspect? No
B) Did BC have Means, Motive, Opportunity? Yes
C) Were there any other viable suspects? No
D) How many "coincidences" or mismatching facts must it take before one says "ok, that's one too many"
E) The defense may talk about "spoilage"...but the only files(s) related to that google map search are relevant. The rest is diversion.
F) I'm not sure why the defense introduced the jogging route and timeline for NC...because the 6:55am to 7:11am elapsed time from house to where the Food Lion guy said he saw her contradicts the more precise testimony of Rosemary Zednick at 7:10am. Secondly, I don't see NC as the type shopping for meat at Food Lion.
G) On that point, eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence.
H) This is a purely circumstantial case...but people have been convicted on less evidence.
I) Lastly, while not necessary, there is no proof he didn't do it besides that phone call. If the Cisco router info comes into testimony and shows he had the means to place a call to himself.......that's zero.

 

[FullDisclosure]

You are making total sense. I have to say from my perspective that the only way that a conflict could occur with a 10.x address, it had to occur at work. At 10:21 on Friday night at home, the conflict between the laptop and the router could not be a 10.x address no matter where the router was located.

Could you translate that to English for the non-techies among us, pretty please?

 

[Tink56]

For me, I can safely remove "wanted his freedom" from the list of motives. There is nothing freeing about taking care of 2 young children (2 and 8 year old girls in my case) by yourself. I have that pleasure this weekend since my wife is at a church retreat. Definitely nothing freeing about it.

You get the good dad and husband award this weekend. AND, your kids will remember this much longer than you think! I have always believed that two kiddos don't double the work, it's exponential.

HOWEVER, BC, IMO, had no idea how much work is involved in caring for two children. IMO, again, he had a vision of driving them to pre-school, picking them up, swimming, picking up chicken tenders and milk, reading them a book, and putting them to bed. That, as all parents should know, is only the beginning...LOL!

 

[CarolinaTitan]

I really don't see finances as a motive. The life insurance policy was $75,000 - far less than Brad made in a year. There was matrimonial debt, not assets. In divorce, Nancy would become responsible for 50% of that debt. There would be child support, but it wouldn't have been anything that Brad couldn't handle.

I also don't see anything freeing in looking after two preschoolers without a mother. Child support isn't meant to impoverish the non-custodial parent, it's intended to provide for the children in the socio-economic environment that they would enjoy if both parents lived together. Although the first draft may seem excessive, it would have been modified to fit within normal guidelines.

Alimony? Cost of trips every other weekend up to Canada to see his children? Not being able to see his children? She spent all his money and now he was going to be alot less well off. They fought about money all the time. I think it definitely played a role.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

You get the good dad and husband award this weekend. AND, your kids will remember this much longer than you think! I have always believed that two kiddos don't double the work, it's exponential.

HOWEVER, BC, IMO, had no idea how much work is involved in caring for two children. IMO, again, he had a vision of driving them to pre-school, picking them up, swimming, picking up chicken tenders and milk, reading them a book, and putting them to bed. That, as all parents should know, is only the beginning...LOL!

I'm sure he would have dumped them in daycare for 12 hours then gotten some Lochmere mom to watch them the rest of the time.

 

[Tink56]

I don't understand all the criticism for the ADAs in this case....the judge in this case, who's job it is to make sure each side plays by the rules, to keep the trial moving, etc has done a very poor job. He, at times, looks like he's in over his head, especially with the more technical testimony.

Second, it seems to me, as a newcomer, that most people on this board are of the opinion that BC is innocent (or guilty...but blame the CPD and DA for screwing up the case). Now, I'll agree that the ADA has wasted much time on irrelevant testimony. Sometimes, less is more or you risk losing your audience. The ducks, the necklace, gossip ad nauseum all cloud the real proof and the real issues.

A) Could the CPD rule BC out as a suspect? No
B) Did BC have Means, Motive, Opportunity? Yes
C) Were there any other viable suspects? No
D) How many "coincidences" or mismatching facts must it take before one says "ok, that's one too many"
E) The defense may talk about "spoilage"...but the only files(s) related to that google map search are relevant. The rest is diversion.
F) I'm not sure why the defense introduced the jogging route and timeline for NC...because the 6:55am to 7:11am elapsed time from house to where the Food Lion guy said he saw her contradicts the more precise testimony of Rosemary Zednick at 7:10am. Secondly, I don't see NC as the type shopping for meat at Food Lion.
G) On that point, eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence.
H) This is a purely circumstantial case...but people have been convicted on less evidence.
I) Lastly, while not necessary, there is no proof he didn't do it besides that phone call. If the Cisco router info comes into testimony and shows he had the means to place a call to himself.......that's zero.

:wagon:
EXCELLENT first post, IMO!​

 

[gracielee]

You get the good dad and husband award this weekend. AND, your kids will remember this much longer than you think! I have always believed that two kiddos don't double the work, it's exponential.

HOWEVER, BC, IMO, had no idea how much work is involved in caring for two children. IMO, again, he had a vision of driving them to pre-school, picking them up, swimming, picking up chicken tenders and milk, reading them a book, and putting them to bed. That, as all parents should know, is only the beginning...LOL!

I don't think Brad ever intended to keep the girls IMO. His mind was set on France, learning to play the guitar and speak french. It's always been my opinion he would *allow* the Rentz' family to have the children, in Nancy's memory, of course. He'd visit on occasion. MOO MOO

 

[otto]

I don't understand all the criticism for the ADAs in this case....the judge in this case, who's job it is to make sure each side plays by the rules, to keep the trial moving, etc has done a very poor job. He, at times, looks like he's in over his head, especially with the more technical testimony.

Second, it seems to me, as a newcomer, that most people on this board are of the opinion that BC is innocent (or guilty...but blame the CPD and DA for screwing up the case). Now, I'll agree that the ADA has wasted much time on irrelevant testimony. Sometimes, less is more or you risk losing your audience. The ducks, the necklace, gossip ad nauseum all cloud the real proof and the real issues.

A) Could the CPD rule BC out as a suspect? No
B) Did BC have Means, Motive, Opportunity? Yes
C) Were there any other viable suspects? No
D) How many "coincidences" or mismatching facts must it take before one says "ok, that's one too many"
E) The defense may talk about "spoilage"...but the only files(s) related to that google map search are relevant. The rest is diversion.
F) I'm not sure why the defense introduced the jogging route and timeline for NC...because the 6:55am to 7:11am elapsed time from house to where the Food Lion guy said he saw her contradicts the more precise testimony of Rosemary Zednick at 7:10am. Secondly, I don't see NC as the type shopping for meat at Food Lion.
G) On that point, eyewitness testimony is the worst type of evidence.
H) This is a purely circumstantial case...but people have been convicted on less evidence.
I) Lastly, while not necessary, there is no proof he didn't do it besides that phone call. If the Cisco router info comes into testimony and shows he had the means to place a call to himself.......that's zero.

Every husband has means and opportunity, but what was Brad's motive?

JP is a viable suspect.

 

[otto]

You get the good dad and husband award this weekend. AND, your kids will remember this much longer than you think! I have always believed that two kiddos don't double the work, it's exponential.

HOWEVER, BC, IMO, had no idea how much work is involved in caring for two children. IMO, again, he had a vision of driving them to pre-school, picking them up, swimming, picking up chicken tenders and milk, reading them a book, and putting them to bed. That, as all parents should know, is only the beginning...LOL!

Friends of the Coopers said that Brad spent his share of the time looking after the children while Nancy was out with friends. I'm sure he knew what was involved in caring for his children.

 

[otto]

Alimony? Cost of trips every other weekend up to Canada to see his children? Not being able to see his children? She spent all his money and now he was going to be alot less well off. They fought about money all the time. I think it definitely played a role.

That was assuming a judge would order that it was perfectly fine for Nancy to take her children out of the country. We don't know that this would have happened. In fact, I rather doubt it would have happened. They were his children too, not only Nancy's children.

 

[Tink56]

Every husband has means and opportunity, but what was Brad's motive?

1. BC had other plans with other women? (ala Scott Peterson...)

2. BC didn't want to put up with the rudeness and heavy spending of NC?

3. BC had come to hate NC and couldn't figure out any other way to get on with his life without ending hers?

4. BC was a tad obsessive--look at the ex-fiancee. He may be a little narcissistic. NC was simply an encumbrance and like many other psychopaths, he simply didn't want to deal with her anymore?

5. BC wanted to go to France and play the guitar and sing French songs, and hike in the French countryside with a French woman?

Take your pick...take all of them.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

Every husband has means and opportunity, but what was Brad's motive?

JP is a viable suspect.

If you have an alibi, you don't have opportunity.

Motive? That's the one thing not in dispute. They were getting a divorce and clearly disliked each other. How many times has one spouse killed another when they could have just got a divorce? Innumerable.

Why is JP a viable suspect? He fooled around with her one night years earlier and that makes him suspicious why? What's the motive? If he did it, he would have had to get up early on Saturday, assumed NC was jogging at 7am, followed her, get her into his car, strangle her (all without being seen or heard), got her clothes off to make it look like a sexual assault...and then not sexually assault her......

 

[ncsu95]

You get the good dad and husband award this weekend. AND, your kids will remember this much longer than you think! I have always believed that two kiddos don't double the work, it's exponential.

HOWEVER, BC, IMO, had no idea how much work is involved in caring for two children. IMO, again, he had a vision of driving them to pre-school, picking them up, swimming, picking up chicken tenders and milk, reading them a book, and putting them to bed. That, as all parents should know, is only the beginning...LOL!

I disagree. He took care of the daughters frequently. There is also testimony of NC going to DC with friends. He would have had the girls that weekend as well.

 

[ncsu95]

I don't think Brad ever intended to keep the girls IMO. His mind was set on France, learning to play the guitar and speak french. It's always been my opinion he would *allow* the Rentz' family to have the children, in Nancy's memory, of course. He'd visit on occasion. MOO MOO

Then why would he fight for custody? Why would he subject himself to that murder investigation disguised as a custody hearing? I completely disagree with you.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

That was assuming a judge would order that it was perfectly fine for Nancy to take her children out of the country. We don't know that this would have happened. In fact, I rather doubt it would have happened. They were his children too, not only Nancy's children.

I would agree...but the greencard issue makes that one tricky. She would have had to return to Canada without one...which is why BC was working with Cisco to help her get one and the divorce proceedings had stopped at some point.

 

[Tink56]

Friends of the Coopers said that Brad spent his share of the time looking after the children while Nancy was out with friends. I'm sure he knew what was involved in caring for his children.

Spending 2-3 hours with your kids before bed is simply a warm-up for 24/7. BC had no idea what being a fulltime parent was like, IMO...(None of us did Before Children...otherwise there were be smaller and smaller families...:crazy

BTW, NC was out at night the last few months, because she did not want to spend the evening at home with BC. He entered; she exited. She was not going to be part of his plan to have a "functional," loveless relationship.

Prior to April of 2008, BC wasn't home in the evenings. Go figure...He became interested in home when he realized he would be obligated to support his ex-wife and children.