April 15th wknd of Sleuthing

[Danielle59]

It was definitely locked. That is why it struck me as interesting that HP lied about talking to Det. Dismukes about possibly knowing how to unlock it. Det. Dismuke's reply was interesting too "We got the information we need off it..."

That reply bothers me, but I did surmise earlier that they may have gotten into it and found it didn't meet their direction, but hurt it, and then they erased it.

 

[Palomine]

It was definitely locked. That is why it struck me as interesting that HP lied about talking to Det. Dismukes about possibly knowing how to unlock it. Det. Dismuke's reply was interesting too "We got the information we need off it..."

does any one think it is strange the defense team told the Police be very careful with Nancy's cell phone...not any other phone just Nancy's

Brad would have known the steps needed to access the phone..I think he rigged the phone so it would erase..during the access attempt
I can't see Nancy locking her phone since she used it just the night before

Can you imagine if everyone who followed Sprint, or AT&T etc. instructions to access their phone if it got erased??

 

[sunshine05]

I have thought about this.....

when my phone rings and it is locked, if the caller is a contact, you can still see on a greyed out screen who is calling, you just can't unlock the phone to answer. don't know if this is true for other phones bc i only have an lg.

on another note...i am not sure if this has ever been mentioned before here, but i will throw it out there to see if there is any possibility for this scenario.....

Remember when BC took NC's phone from her. I am not clear for how long, only that it was gone for at least overnight and the next day. it was said it was because she ran up too much of a bill. if that were the case, why didn't he just terminate her service since he was account holder at this point? why take her phone? unless he wanted it in his possession.

so here is where i may go off on a wild ride, but hear me out for the sake of argument....

suppose she wasn't talking on home phone bc she thought he was listening, so she goes only to cell. (doesn't sound or look like she was home much anyways.) if he took her phone, and is the account holder, he could have gotten past a password with ATT. He could have installed spyware on the phone, and also, something like this:

http://handheld.softpedia.com/get/Security/Utilities/remotePROTECT-32164.shtml

a program called remote protect. it was designed so that if your phone is stolen, you can remotely wipe everything, including the sim. you can even specify how many password attempts you will allow before it automatically wipes. i have wondered if this is what happened to the CPD. they followed instructions, and as everyone says, there should have been a second screen to warn of deletion. he never testified to this, and some thought he was being dishonest. it makes me wonder.....

back to building thomas the train tracks......

It's interesting, and certainly possible. But it doesn't seem that BC would have any reason for wanting her cell phone erased. If he killed her, he could have even disposed of the phone along with the other evidence. But, he specifically asked for safe handling of that phone, indicating that he wanted to know what was on it, showing he had nothing to hide in regard to the phone.

 

[gbay]

I got 16 minutes or 8.7 miles. From 1920 Maynard to Fielding Dr.

I think your 1.58 was Lowe's on Walnut to Fielding Dr.

That can't be it because he was either 10 or 12 minutes from the house to Walnut Street, not the exact address, and Fielding is 12 to 13 minutes to Walnut Street.

Ok...I did it again using the correct information....House to the Lowes on Walnut is 2.83 miles (5 mins) and then Lowes to Fielding dr, is 3.35 miles or 6 mins. Sorry about the confusion!!

 

[LyndyLoo]

does any one think it is strange the defense team told the Police be very careful with Nancy's cell phone...not any other phone just Nancy's

Brad would have known the steps needed to access the phone..I think he rigged the phone so it would erase..during the access attempt
I can't see Nancy locking her phone since she used it just the night before

Can you imagine if everyone who followed Sprint, or AT&T etc. instructions to access their phone if it got erased??

You know, I got from all that testimony that it was NOTlocked but Password Protected..and since AT&T gave the Puk Code to unlock it, and it wasnt actually locked but PW Protected..it happened..And Yes..very interesting about the letter Kurtz made so much about..

Just as aside..So many use the term lying or are lies or are liars..and pertaining to JA..maybe she knew the PW ( Nancy had told her for some reason).and Det. Dismukes just unfortunately put her off, thinking they got what they needed from AT&T??..

JA sure knew alot about Nancy..and was a trusted friend to Nancy..so why not?..JMOO as a possibility..

 

[sunshine05]

does any one think it is strange the defense team told the Police be very careful with Nancy's cell phone...not any other phone just Nancy's

Brad would have known the steps needed to access the phone..I think he rigged the phone so it would erase..during the access attempt
I can't see Nancy locking her phone since she used it just the night before

Can you imagine if everyone who followed Sprint, or AT&T etc. instructions to access their phone if it got erased??

I think it would have been easier for him to just dispose of it.

Defense told them to be careful with her phone because they didn't know what was on it. I brought this up before too. Why didn't the police try to get into her phone immediately? As soon as she went missing? Why stick it in a drawer for a couple weeks when timing of things could have been so critical? And if he did rig it to "immediately erase" that would have been evident right away.

 

[dramamama]

does any one think it is strange the defense team told the Police be very careful with Nancy's cell phone...not any other phone just Nancy's

Brad would have known the steps needed to access the phone..I think he rigged the phone so it would erase..during the access attempt
I can't see Nancy locking her phone since she used it just the night before

Can you imagine if everyone who followed Sprint, or AT&T etc. instructions to access their phone if it got erased??

OK, I have fixed the train track......

Yes, I said something in a post a few minutes ago just like this....

I am glad I am not the only one thinking this way.

I did think it was strange that they sent a letter to request caution.

If you think about it with logic, when people are REALLY trying to hide cell phone activity, they get another phone. (think J. Edwards) So, if she took off, which is what happens in some missing persons cases, if she didn't take her cell, it wasn't important to her. At the time, they were thinking this was missing persons, and it was more likely she ran off than was murdered. Also, if you don't want to be found, you do not take the cell phone everyone knows, which has gps, or your car with it's license plates. you leave as much as you can behind.....

i don't know, this whole phone thing is so strange...

 

[dramamama]

It's interesting, and certainly possible. But it doesn't seem that BC would have any reason for wanting her cell phone erased. If he killed her, he could have even disposed of the phone along with the other evidence. But, he specifically asked for safe handling of that phone, indicating that he wanted to know what was on it, showing he had nothing to hide in regard to the phone.

That does make sense....

 

[sunshine05]

OK, I have fixed the train track......

My 6 year old son is a total train fanatic. We've gone from the wooden trains and tracks to the wooden (non Thomas) trains...more realistic like CSX, etc. And now we have a model train display set up, lol. It's not something he appears to be outgrowing!

 

[sunshine05]

It's slow here today, probably because the weather is so nice, but my husband took the kids to the museum so I actually have the house to myself. So here I am thinking about this case!

So I was thinking about the "smoking gun". The detectives decided to have the FBI check the computers. They didn't have to. They could have conducted their own analysis, or they could have outsourced it to a private forensic computer expert. In both of these situations, defense would have received the copy of the report, including methods used to extract the data. But they didn't do either of those things. Instead, they sent it to FBI, the one source where they can claim "Homeland Security" and not have to divulge either the methodology or the report to the defense. And that is what they did. The one and only "smoking gun" was the only piece of evidence that was not shared with defense.

I believe this case will set a precedent for the handling of evidence such as this and a higher court will have to examine the legalities of this, as it does/could infringe on the rights of the defendant.

 

[Palomine]

anybody think court will be canceled tomorrow

 

[Palomine]

can you imagine if every criminal had great representation ...courts would be backlogged for years!

 

[Overly-Curious]

I missed the part where BC confiscated her phone...Ain't that some stuff?

 

[Palomine]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9436521/#/vid9436521

this is the argument ...when Defense wants to know how they got the master file table

 

[LyndyLoo]

It's slow here today, probably because the weather is so nice, but my husband took the kids to the museum so I actually have the house to myself. So here I am thinking about this case!

So I was thinking about the "smoking gun". The detectives decided to have the FBI check the computers. They didn't have to. They could have conducted their own analysis, or they could have outsourced it to a private forensic computer expert. In both of these situations, defense would have received the copy of the report, including methods used to extract the data. But they didn't do either of those things. Instead, they sent it to FBI, the one source where they can claim "Homeland Security" and not have to divulge either the methodology or the report to the defense. And that is what they did. The one and only "smoking gun" was the only piece of evidence that was not shared with defense.

I believe this case will set a precedent for the handling of evidence such as this and a higher court will have to examine the legalities of this, as it does/could infringe on the rights of the defendant.

BBM~~ I think they brought in the FBI to do this forensic analysis once they realized the level of computer skills their "Person of Interest" had....Back when they initially collected his home computer and Cisco Laptop followed by Cisco Office..they understood quickly just how skilled Brad was..So I dont blame them..as they wanted to go as deep a they could and who else could do that?/ Yep..FBI who has honed the skill and expertise to get past other really good hackers and cybercrime types etc...

Nestled in the hills of West Virginia is a high-tech hub that supports crime-fighting and national security.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis

Sorry, but Brad's Expert Status and Expertise led the LE to seek the best possible investigative tool they could..and I for one am glad they did!!

 

[Palomine]

It's slow here today, probably because the weather is so nice, but my husband took the kids to the museum so I actually have the house to myself. So here I am thinking about this case!

So I was thinking about the "smoking gun". The detectives decided to have the FBI check the computers. They didn't have to. They could have conducted their own analysis, or they could have outsourced it to a private forensic computer expert. In both of these situations, defense would have received the copy of the report, including methods used to extract the data. But they didn't do either of those things. Instead, they sent it to FBI, the one source where they can claim "Homeland Security" and not have to divulge either the methodology or the report to the defense. And that is what they did. The one and only "smoking gun" was the only piece of evidence that was not shared with defense.

I believe this case will set a precedent for the handling of evidence such as this and a higher court will have to examine the legalities of this, as it does/could infringe on the rights of the defendant.

:banghead:

they didn't claim homeland security this is information the FBI uses to get information from criminals pedophiles etc..do you really want pedophiles to know how FBI gets information??

 

[dramamama]

My 6 year old son is a total train fanatic. We've gone from the wooden trains and tracks to the wooden (non Thomas) trains...more realistic like CSX, etc. And now we have a model train display set up, lol. It's not something he appears to be outgrowing!

All three of my boys have been through this phase, and my youngest is in the throes of it! I try to have the older ones build tracks for me, but sometimes, I am the only one. I just built one that looked great, but had him going in the same circles! We had to modify, twice, and now we are okay!

 

[dramamama]

anybody think court will be canceled tomorrow

That would be good for me, because I have three young boys at home on Spring Break, and still three more sessions of video to watch...:crazy:

Too bad they can't schedule the trial around the viewers!

(Poor jurors)

 

[LyndyLoo]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9436521/#/vid9436521

this is the argument ...when Defense wants to know how they got the master file table

I watched that argument..and altho Kurtz was attempting to frame it differently..It just came down to the "Tool" or Browser used to obtain the MFT...The defense got a copy of the Harddrive, and a copy of MFT obtained by the FBI..BUT what they did not get was just which TOOL they used to get their findings....AND that right now is TOP Secret as they cant allow CyberCriminals to know this....Too Bad..Soo Sad :floorlaugh:

 

[sunshine05]

they didn't claim homeland security this is information the FBI uses to get information from criminals pedophiles etc..do you really want pedophiles to know how FBI gets information??

Yes, that's what I said. Due to "homeland sec." concerns, they were not able to divulge that information. This is a clever way to get around sharing evidence with defense. I'm sure there are ways to work through it though. Perhaps they could have excluded these documents from public record. Regardless, this is something that will come up again in trials.