2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

[Queen Bee]

hmmm......it's 4:40........not looking good for a verdict today

 

[Danielle59]

Seems like they avoided each other most of the time. She also had no money of her own to get an apartment, etc. until BC signed the agreement which he clearly wasn't going to. So, living separately in the interim was not an option, was it?

Actually, she could have taken him to court.

 

[calgary123]

how do we really know that? they testified that there was no sign out log (calling it that because i don't know what else to call it....lol)

they never knew where any of their equipment was imo

Now I understand in part why you think he is innocent.

The evidence is, Brad told the equipment manager via messenger that he took the router. The router has never been returned to Cisco.

 

[CrimeAddict]

I can't believe I have avoided doing anything but sitting here with my headphones on just to hear they are excused for the day and I can go about my life... sheesh.. I wonder if I am the only one that planted my kid in front of the tv today? I feel bad, but at least I don't do it every day.

 

[Queen Bee]

Now I understand in part why you think he is innocent.

The evidence is, Brad told the equipment manager via messenger that he took the router. The router has never been returned to Cisco.

oh? i was not aware of that...........did he ever claim to have returned it?
thanks!

 

[ncsu95]

Now I understand in part why you think he is innocent.

The evidence is, Brad told the equipment manager via messenger that he took the router. The router has never been returned to Cisco.

The chat log evidence was that he took the router and he would swap it out with the one he had on order. I understand why people think it was never returned. But my bigger question (not related to the trial) to that is why they ordered equipment that they never used? They ordered an $11k piece of equipment....BC took it as soon as it came in...but it was never missed. Seems like a waste of money to me.

 

[otto]

He tried to get an attorney, he had no money and all the credit cards were denied.

That's rather serious financial trouble. If there had been trial testimony about the state of finances, from income to debt, I would probably see that as motive. I completely missed a couple of weeks of trial and discussion. Was there testimony about the finances?

I know that Nancy's parents gave an equal amount to each of Nancy and her siblings, something like $20k (??). I really wonder why that money wasn't used to pay down debt rather than to buy a $9000 painting of a bear. It's almost like they thought $112k was a lot of money and they lived as though they had that much disposable income. In reality, after taxes, it's not all that much anymore.

 

[BrownRice]

hmmm......it's 4:40........not looking good for a verdict today

I predict tomorrow by lunch. Then they can be done by the end of the day (assume there's housekeeping stuff that has to be done with paperwork, etc.) and then have a long weekend.

I am glad they are looking at evidence and obviously discussing it. I can see any verdict (or mistrial) at this point.

 

[ncsu95]

Cody100...your post disappeared, but I'll explain anyways. You click on the users name that you want to ignore. That will take you to their profile page. Click on the "User Lists" link right under their profile picture. Select "Add to ignore list".

 

[macd]

I believe Chris Fry testified (outside of the jury) that it was a level 3 VPN. I have NO idea what that means, I don't do networking stuff. But that is what I heard.

Layer 3 VPN.
Layer 2 is the local area network which uses mac addresses.
Layer 3 uses IP addresses.
Since the windows system event log included the mac address, the router necessarily had to be on the same LAN. Since the VPN was a layer 3 VPN, there would be no passing of mac addresses, such as via a VLAN, to some other remote location.

The router was in the house, powered on, and connected to the laptop.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I agree - and I would go as far to say it's completely inappropriate to disparage the defendant until he/she is found guilty.

Well, not really inappropriate, grommet. Many of the real facts in this case are disparaging toward Brad and we are free to state them, IMO. We qualify opinions as such also.

 

[CrimeAddict]

That's rather serious financial trouble. If there had been trial testimony about the state of finances, from income to debt, I would probably see that as motive. I completely missed a couple of weeks of trial and discussion. Was there testimony about the finances?

I know that Nancy's parents gave an equal amount to each of Nancy and her siblings, something like $20k (??). I really wonder why that money wasn't used to pay down debt rather than to buy a $9000 painting of a bear. It's almost like they thought $112k was a lot of money and they lived as though they had that much disposable income. In reality, after taxes, it's not all that much anymore.

my jaw dropped when he said he had 77k in equity line of credit taken out. Ouchieeeeeeeeees

 

[gracielee]

One thing I'm having a hard time getting out of my mind is how BC was arrested WITHOUT the google search evidence?

Do we know what evidence there might be that has been ruled out of trial? Much like the 'casey anthony motions now ongoing?' I wonder if the Canadian friends/girlfriends were possibly ruled out as 'too distant in time'? Or perhaps 'more prejudical than probative'?

 

[momto3kids]

I can't believe I have avoided doing anything but sitting here with my headphones on just to hear they are excused for the day and I can go about my life... sheesh.. I wonder if I am the only one that planted my kid in front of the tv today? I feel bad, but at least I don't do it every day.

My home is beginning to look like the Cuppers and I'm not moving. I'm happy I'm not having company or they would think I' depressed because its never looked this way.

 

[BrownRice]

I can't believe I have avoided doing anything but sitting here with my headphones on just to hear they are excused for the day and I can go about my life... sheesh.. I wonder if I am the only one that planted my kid in front of the tv today? I feel bad, but at least I don't do it every day.

Oh yea, my youngest is about to have a shock when this trial is over. He went from 1 hr a day of tv (2 half hour shows) to basically a free for all. Sometimes when I really need him to be quiet to listen to testimony, I'll throw in Wii. I feel horrible. But, I figure it's only a couple of months of his life. He'll survive. Next week (I assume) life will go back to normal. Plus, one day we are supposed to have Spring up here, so maybe it will be warm and we'll be outside too!

 

[foltster]

There is absolutely no way that Cisco would allow a LAN outside of Cisco to be connected at layer 2 to a LAN inside a lab at Cisco.

You can google "cisco on cisco" "scalable vpn remote access" to find case studies on how Cisco IT does deploy VPN.

It wouldn't be a LAN to LAN connection, it would be a node (his laptop) to LAN connection.

His laptop would "think" it was plugged directly into the network via the virtual network adaptor. We really need to see the windows event log to get a solid handle on what this information means.

 

[sunshine05]

That's rather serious financial trouble. If there had been trial testimony about the state of finances, from income to debt, I would probably see that as motive. I completely missed a couple of weeks of trial and discussion. Was there testimony about the finances?

I know that Nancy's parents gave an equal amount to each of Nancy and her siblings, something like $20k (??). I really wonder why that money wasn't used to pay down debt rather than to buy a $9000 painting of a bear. It's almost like they thought $112k was a lot of money and they lived as though they had that much disposable income. In reality, after taxes, it's not all that much anymore.

It has come up throughout the trial, they were on a 2nd mortgage and had also taken a loan out against the 401K. They were in pretty bad financial shape. They also borrowed money from her parents quite often it seems.

 

[nctekguy]

At risk of deletion, timeout, or banned, I wanted to mention the following. When websleuths was first mentioned in the trial and several posters suggested that we go back and read the old posts from July 2008, I did just that. In the early days, one of the most notable posters that predicted most of the early events before the scenario ultimately played out was...Just the Fax.

 

[3doglady]

I predict tomorrow by lunch. Then they can be done by the end of the day (assume there's housekeeping stuff that has to be done with paperwork, etc.) and then have a long weekend.

I am glad they are looking at evidence and obviously discussing it. I can see any verdict (or mistrial) at this point.

I think if they come back with hung jury this week, the judge would ask them to try a little longer. That's usually the way it works. JMO

 

[BrownRice]

I think if they come back with hung jury this week, the judge would ask them to try a little longer. That's usually the way it works. JMO

Absolutely. Agree 100%