April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[johnfear]

Hmmmmmmm....has it ever been suggested that the prosecution may also have posters on these boards? Seems like they would need it more than the defense. But - I don't think either side has anyone posting on any boards....they may be looking but don't really think they have the time and resources to plant people on these boards.

I have seen office mates of both sides with this and two other sites like it up. They are not folks we have seen on camera in the trial, but they were affiliated with either the DA's office or K and B.

 

[sunshine05]

Okay, here were the choices:

1. Random attacker?
2. Someone who knew Nancy?
3. Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?


NCSU and FD believe in #1 (yes?) That was the first scenario.

#2 is most likely to me.

 

[sunshine05]

Do you agree that he did have that equipment in his home, as recently as April, in order to run his home IP phone system through the Time Warner account?

Yes....

 

[johnfear]

Do you agree that he did have that equipment in his home, as recently as April, in order to run his home IP phone system through the Time Warner account?

The great majority of ways he would have done it with what he is know to have had would have left a trail somewhere (either data or phone record wise) that would be fairly obvious.

 

[ncsu95]

I wonder if the mods would let us have some fun after this is all over and have an awards thread "The web sleuthys". We could take nominations and poll votes for categories like "nicest", "snarkiest", "most genuine", "most stubborn", "favorite poster in the BDI camp", "favorite poster in the BII camp", "favorite fence sitter", "wittiest" (I nominate JohnFear), "poster most deserving of a banning", etc.

That would be entertaining.

 

[Tink56]

You were actually responding to a lawyers post. I think he has a valid perspective on innocence until proven guilty.

If he is an attorney, his comments are more understandable. Sorry I missed his curriculum vitae...AND, I am surprised.

I certainly hope he's retired....Thought WS asked "experts" to be certified before they posted on their expertise.

Curious...

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Okay, here were the choices:

1. Random attacker?
2. Someone who knew Nancy?
3. Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?


NCSU and FD believe in #1 (yes?) That was the first scenario.

I believe it was a random attacker

 

[sunshine05]

The state rested it's case with testimony included that setting up a call manager on a home computer is definitely possible.

They have the computer. Where is the evidence of that?
ETA:I don't actually remember any testimony about a non-Cisco call manager. Only heard it from people here. Did I miss that? If so, whose testimony was it?

 

[FullDisclosure]

Okay, here were the choices:

1. Random attacker?
2. Someone who knew Nancy?
3. Someone who knew Nancy and had skillzzz to hack into Brad's computer?


NCSU and FD believe in #1 (yes?) That was the first scenario.

I can't speak for ncsu, but when I quoted him that I also reluctantly fell into the first category, I thought he meant that he believed that BC was guilty but the State had not proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt--that's where I am on the scale. I'm not SURE he did like many here, though. (I think that statistically speaking, BC probably did it...but if he didn't I have no idea who did--probably someone known to her but could be a random.)

Sorry for the mix-up--that's what happens when the quoting is several posts out from the original!

 

[ncsu95]

Do you agree that he did have that equipment in his home, as recently as April, in order to run his home IP phone system through the Time Warner account?

I believe he did, yes. However, he didn't on the 12th based on the pictures. And here is my issue with this...if he was smart enough to get rid of router equipment that LE would have no concept could be used in conjunction with a call manager to spoof a call, then he would have been smart enough to know that a web search of the dump site before would likely be found. It's fairly common knowledge that your activity on a computer isn't "erased" when you clear your internet cache, etc. And the call manager would need to run on some type of computer, yet that software or traces of it weren't found on any computer in the house (or at least weren't discussed in this trial). I have a hard time reconciling those things.

 

[FullDisclosure]

I wonder if the mods would let us have some fun after this is all over and have an awards thread "The web sleuthys". We could take nominations and poll votes for categories like "nicest", "snarkiest", "most genuine", "most stubborn", "favorite poster in the BDI camp", "favorite poster in the BII camp", "favorite fence sitter", "wittiest" (I nominate JohnFear), "poster most deserving of a banning", etc.

That would be entertaining.

Hahaha great idea! I want a sleuthy tiara!

 

[Cheyenne130]

They have the computer. Where is the evidence of that?
ETA:I don't actually remember any testimony about a non-Cisco call manager. Only heard it from people here. Did I miss that? If so, whose testimony was it?

Which computer? They had several.

The Cisco expert explained that you could set up a call manager in your own system. Brad set up his own system in his house. The calls were not going through Cisco. They were going through Time Warner.

 

[ncsu95]

Also, I'm thinking about starting a websleuths anonymous 12 step program. I am ncsu95, and I am addicted to webslueths. Anyone else care to join?

 

[ncsu95]

Hahaha great idea! I want a sleuthy tiara!

No, it would either be a golden gavel, or the scales of justice statue.

 

[momof7]

#2 is most likely to me.

Me too. Its the only thing I am sure of in this case.

Kelly

 

[ncsu95]

If he is an attorney, his comments are more understandable. Sorry I missed his curriculum vitae...AND, I am surprised.

I certainly hope he's retired....Thought WS asked "experts" to be certified before they posted on their expertise.

Curious...

He's not posting here as an expert. He's just interested in the trial.

 

[gracielee]

And you know, Gracie, I've been thinking about it some more - and being the control freak that he was, even if he believed or had knowledge that the separation agreement was just a first draft, I don't think BC wanted to give up control of just how much he believed NC should receive after separation. I don't think he liked one bit that the control would be taken over by the State of N.C. Even if the terms were less than what was asked for in the agreement, it still meant somebody else was telling him just what he would be prescribed to pay. I honestly believe BC thought when he admitted the affair and told her he was in love with HM that she would just "lay down and die" and skulk back to Canada to her family and be done with him. That didn't happen. All of a sudden NC grew a backbone and called an attorney and wasn't just going to accept HIS terms. Once the state was going to be involved, he wasn't going to have any of that. He knew he couldn't control the state like he could NC.

I'd like to ask your and Madeline's opinion of another issue I've been kicking around - do you think it's possible that NC might have suggested or threatened to sue HM for alienation or do you think her attorney may have mentioned it in any communications with NC that BC stole - and that sent BC over the edge?

Me personally, I don't know. She might have yelled at/threatened him with that. But I don't think it was anything she would ever have followed through on. Nancy doesn't strike me as the type that would use alienation. It's not something I'd ever consider. Nancy strikes me the same. But yelling at him, 'Maybe I'll sue Heather too......' could be. I wonder what provoked the call to the realtor. I do think if only nancy had gone back to Toronto *before* he saw that separation agreement. I do believe Brad would say something like had been reported about 'never seeing nancy or the girls again.' Something about him, he doesn't have or express any sort of empathy. Tossing her body into that culvert.......like a heap of garbage. This was not a random crime. I think that's what the police chief meant.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I believe he did, yes. However, he didn't on the 12th based on the pictures. And here is my issue with this...if he was smart enough to get rid of router equipment that LE would have no concept could be used in conjunction with a call manager to spoof a call, then he would have been smart enough to know that a web search of the dump site before would likely be found. It's fairly common knowledge that your activity on a computer isn't "erased" when you clear your internet cache, etc. And the call manager would need to run on some type of computer, yet that software or traces of it weren't found on any computer in the house (or at least weren't discussed in this trial). I have a hard time reconciling those things.

Yeah. I've wondered about the Dell and the HP. Those were taken into evidence but there has been no mention of any forensic exam. That tells me that they found nothing. If one or both had been wiped with D-Ban, I would think that would have come up.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Also, I'm thinking about starting a websleuths anonymous 12 step program. I am ncsu95, and I am addicted to webslueths. Anyone else care to join?

Starting midnight tomorrow night, I'm giving up websleuth's for Lent.

 

[johnfear]

Yeah. I've wondered about the Dell and the HP. Those were taken into evidence but there has been no mention of any forensic exam. That tells me that they found nothing. If one or both had been wiped with D-Ban, I would think that would have come up.

That, coupled with what NCSU was saying re: cleaning EVERYTHING else up but the 41 second search is what has me stumped. Besides the fact that a lot of the technology stuff is likely to be both the Anchor and Net in many criminal cases to come, it's a little "too clean" for me.