Haven't heard that Gracielee...Still scanning for information...
I heard at least 5 so far. Very scary day,. Just got our power back on. A tornado touched down 1 block from my house! Sorry I am shook up, this was way too close for me!!!
Haven't heard that Gracielee...Still scanning for information...
Doubtful.I haven't seen any evidence yet that they checked Cisco for these. I'm sure if they did they would have brought it up at trial. This is $3k+ worth of equipment. I'm betting it is tracked at some level (at least the router).
So glad to see that you are posting and hope everything is ok. I've been worried about you since we didn't hear anything after the storms finally passed.
I was thinking the same thing but just let it be. I work from home full time. I have multiple sip phones logged into work using my regular router. Are we sure that they system he set up earlier in the year required the use of the bigger router and fxo card?
Doubtful.
Really, pretty much nothing is known about the router and FXO card. Presumably, he had such items at his house at some point if he connected his own little VoIP network to the TWC digital phone. However, that's about all that is know. Of the things that aren't known:
- Exactly when he brought them home
- Whether the ones he brought home were the same ones ordered in Jan '08
- When they were removed from his house
- Where the ones that he ordered in Jan '08 are
- Where the ones that he had at home are (if they are not the same as above)
Presumably we don't know (4) and (5) because no one has really tried to look for them. If they were returned to Cisco, they could be very difficult to find, particularly given that no one knows specifically what it is that they are looking for. And even if they were found, there is no way to know when they were returned.
I believe that the way we got to the notion of a bigger router is as follows.I was thinking the same thing but just let it be. I work from home full time. I have multiple sip phones logged into work using my regular router. Are we sure that they system he set up earlier in the year required the use of the bigger router and fxo card?
Others here have stated that he set up his own little small business like VoIP network with Cisco IP Phones (both wired and wireless) and that this network reached the outside world via the TWC Digital Phone. IIRC, they concluded that from something that he explained in the deposition. I haven't had (and don't expect to have) 6 hours to invest in watching the deposition, so I am relying on what others have said.I didn't think he connected the home phone to it. I thought he did it to use the wireless sip phones. Also, wouldn't he only need the fxo card at home if he wanted to route it out TWC? He could use the home phone connected to an IAD without the router/fxo. I use a cordless phone logged in with an IAD so I can have a phone to walk around my house with (it's logged in to my work).
I didn't think he connected the home phone to it. I thought he did it to use the wireless sip phones. Also, wouldn't he only need the fxo card at home if he wanted to route it out TWC? He could use the home phone connected to an IAD without the router/fxo. I use a cordless phone logged in with an IAD so I can have a phone to walk around my house with (it's logged in to my work).
Others here have stated that he set up his own little small business like VoIP network with Cisco IP Phones (both wired and wireless) and that this network reached the outside world via the TWC Digital Phone. IIRC, they concluded that from something that he explained in the deposition. I haven't had (and don't expect to have) 6 hours to invest in watching the deposition, so I am relying on what others have said.
Okay, so once again, here we go:
You guys want me to jump to the guilty side based on this:
1) He may have made a spoofed call to cover for an alibi that required careful planning and coverup (I mean, he bought it in January, no? Disposed of it in July? Picked up other pieces along the way) and there are a number of ways to do it and NO EVIDENCE of any of it? Tell me it was his accomplice, I'll believe you, but not this.
2) He may have hovered over the area of Fielding Drive on a google map for 3 seconds (the whole thing was only 41 seconds, but that area was 3 seconds) on the day before his wife went missing, and it's three miles from his house and he had NO business being there.
3) Her mom, dad, sister, brother, et al and etc. say he MUST have done it.
4) A bunch of people who lived in his neighborhood and told inconsistent stories about the levels of what was going say he MUST have done it.
5) We (admitted on the stand by DD) have NO, ZIP, ZERO eyewitnesses of any kind to any type of any violence between the two of them other than a few instances of cursing and screaming?
6) The divorce process went on for SIX months and he definitely was all up in her business about it, controlling the cash flow and snooping like a dumb-@$$.
7) He was READING her emails from old boyfriends and didn't say/do anything about that until one day in July (allegedly).
8) He actively participated in borrowing tons of money from her fam for his AND Nancy's benefit.
9) There may or may not have been eyewitnesses the morning she supposedly jogged and what not who saw her/didn't see her, but the bottom line is NO ONE CARED enough to pay any attention until hind sight kicked off.
10) The DETECTIVES in a MISSING PERSONS case took dozens of photos of the missing person's house and SPOKE to each other about red scratch marks, now rub marks on the defendant's neck and NO ONE thought to sneak a photo, for "prosperity(sic)'s" sake?
11) All of these people are AWARE of some computer expertise on the part of the defendant and snatch up all of his computers and lock them away between July and October and a bunch of smart phones, etc. but somehow erase one of them and act like they know NOTHING about smart phones, etc. and now want us to believe it really didn't matter anyways.
You guys want to look at all of this and try and tell someone that you can't prove a negative?
Okay, maybe CPD is not corrupt (I never really thought they were "framing" or "maligning" him on purpose) but you want to tell me that this, coupled with everything else we were watching for the last six weeks of our life (some of us nearly three years) and you guys want to call it EFFECTIVE police work, and EFFECTIVE prosecution.
Are we watching the same set of circumstances here?
At this point, I've decided I will forever remain on the fence, but only because of this:
Gritguy and the like won't have to write long, compelling, intelligent narratives for me in a trial where the person is obviously guilty (JY for instance) and the main reason I will be watching those other trials is because of curiosity, BUT...you guys think that what has been shown to this jury shows him as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Really?
You are THAT sure. I cannot believe you haven't seen some major snafus in what I've written. This is not JUSTICE. This is JUST A MESS.
I left out the lies part of this for one reason and one reason alone. He didn't lie to anyone and say "I didn't do it". He didn't LIE about that. He didn't say anything at all. And sometimes when you see someone who lies constantly, the only time they are telling the truth is usually when their mouth is closed.
Oh, and you want me to believe it was because he suddenly got angry and snapped, but planned it for months....riiiggghhht. Forgot that part.
He was using the wireless phones to replace the home cordless phones so he would have connected to TWC or they had to change the phone number they gave to friends, family, etc. He could use and IAD but would then also need to run an external UCM server vs. UCM Express directly on the router.
I'll be the first to say that it's possible BC committed this crime. Heck - I'll even go as far to say that he is the likely perpetrator. I mean, who else could it be? But based on the evidence I've seen these past 6 weeks, I can't say without a reasonable doubt that he is "the one". Think about that statement for second - beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can convince yourself that it's possible BC didn't commit this crime based on the circumstantial evidence you've seen, then you must come back with "Not Guilty". Not because you're 100% convinced of his innocence...but rather that you're only 75% convinced of his guilt.
If you don't know what the heck I'm talking about, go add "12 Angry Men" to your Netflix queue, and when it arrives in the mail - pop a giant bag of popcorn and watch it with your family. Not only is considered a cinematic masterpiece, but it's a reminder of the burden of proof that still remains the lynchpin of our justice system.
I'll be the first to say that it's possible BC committed this crime. Heck - I'll even go as far to say that he is the likely perpetrator. I mean, who else could it be? But based on the evidence I've seen these past 6 weeks, I can't say without a reasonable doubt that he is "the one". Think about that statement for second - beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can convince yourself that it's possible BC didn't commit this crime based on the circumstantial evidence you've seen, then you must come back with "Not Guilty". Not because you're 100% convinced of his innocence...but rather that you're only 75% convinced of his guilt.
If you don't know what the heck I'm talking about, go add "12 Angry Men" to your Netflix queue, and when it arrives in the mail - pop a giant bag of popcorn and watch it with your family. Not only is considered a cinematic masterpiece, but it's a reminder of the burden of proof that still remains the lynchpin of our justice system.
I don't know the answer to this question--so you VOIP people (or anyone really) may have to jump in. Can you mask your number? So, if the home number is dialed, it's routed to the IP phone? And that's the number that's displayed when it's called out? That way they don't have to change their number, or have their friends call a different number, and it still acts as if it's the home number all along? Because, I agree, it'd be ridiculous to have a different number for the Spring (is that the right time frame??), and then switch back.
All I can say is: If Bradley walks from the criminal trial, I sure hope the Rentz file a civil lawsuit immediately and have Bradley go straight from criminal to civil proceedings. He's guilty and needs to pay for his crime. If he had money problems in 2008, I hope a civil judgement will keep him in the poor house for the rest of his life, at which time he will face a higher judgement than any he faced on earth.