April 8th wknd of Sleuthing

[cody100]

My prediction is there is not testimony coming that will confirm how a call was made. If there is, then the prosecution picked an incredibly lame way to question the Cisco guy. He kept him up there for hours talking about all of these confusing, very technical ways of doing clever things with VoIP and call servers. I'm sure that the jurors were either about to fall asleep or have their heads explode.

If they have proof of which of the 10 ways he used to do it, they should have just focused on that way. Have the VoIP expert explain how it works, then show the data that proves that it was done. Instead, he treated the jurors to a smorgasbord of possible ways with no implication that they had any idea of which was used.

This isn't Christmas. You don't have to let the anticipation build.

I agree totally with what you have said. I think the state doesn't know which way that call was made or if it were by NC. They are on a fishing expedition and trying to show all of the smoking mirrors. Now, I could be wrong, but your reasoning makes so much more sense. May justice prevail for everyone in this case.

 

[Just the Fax]

I'm surprised by this. I would think murder in a home would be an adverse material fact. Not doubting you, just surprised.

Perhaps the disclosure laws are different in NC?

Must be.
WRAL interviewed a realtor on that very question.
She said she would disclose that for her own personal ethics, but nothing would compel the disclosure. Only thing required would be material defects,ect.... not that someone died in the home.

 

[Just the Fax]

cody..please correct your quote so LyndyLoo is not pinned for that post

 

[cityslick]

Could he have set it up prior to that morning? When did he acquire the FXO? Just askin'.......

He ordered the FXO card in January. No idea when he had the router to put said FXO card in.

 

[gracielee]

Good observation LM.
Nancy was around her buds chatting away before Brad arrived and ruined her night.
Does anyone think she would tell Brad this, yet not her buds when she actually spilled the wine????

I call total BS on Brad's statement.
Absolute lie used as an excuse for washing evidence from the dress.

And I'll add, they lived across the street. If I spilled something on my dress enough that I'd gripe about it, I'd also pop home and change my clothes.

 

[LyndyLoo]

A lot of southerners do like duck. I for one, do not. Anyway, what were the ducks on the refrigerator? Were they different ones? I have seen several explanations.

LOL..I do think those ducks they are speaking about were decorative ones, maybe ceramics or something similar..NO they werent the "Rubber Duckys kids would have in their Bathtub, nor kids toys, nor Duck Magnets on a fridge....Since they were never found, I tend to think they are resting with FXO, maybe a router, two rights/ or was it lefts of Nancy's runners, and Brad's missing shoes..not to mention some other items..like that T SHirt Nancy had been reported to be wearing when Brad last saw her????????

I dont really blame Brad for getting a lawyer..however It doesnt look good for him at this point i the trial..JMOO...LOL Im not a duck person either :floorlaugh:

,

 

[SleuthSayer]

Well, I think your reasoning is rather skewed. If they can not prove that it was set up by Brad or through an automated program, then they have not proved that NC didn't make it. Therefore, the state has not proved beyond all doubt that she wasn't there and made the call.

You're thinking about the old model of how our system of justice worked. The new model is that the state shows that you could have done something and then it is your responsibility to prove that you didn't. In absence of that proof, the assumption is that you did it.

 

[Just the Fax]

He ordered the FXO card in January. No idea when he had the router to put said FXO card in.

Brad said he installed Cisco VOIP late Jan or early Feb 2008.
To do so, the router would need to be in place then.

 

[LyndyLoo]

cody..please correct your quote so LyndyLoo is not pinned for that post

Yikes..See why I dont always quote :truce:..Dont ever wish to pin some one else for something they didnt say :maddening: TY JTF for pointing that out..You are the Best !!!

 

[cityslick]

And I'll add, they lived across the street. If I spilled something on my dress enough that I'd gripe about it, I'd also pop home and change my clothes.

She told her friends everything except that she planned on painting the following morning.

She told her friends everything except mentioning that she planned to move very soon and had left her RE a vm saying it was urgent.

Just saying...

 

[DogWood]

Must be.
WRAL interviewed a realtor on that very question.
She said she would disclose that for her own personal ethics, but nothing would compel the disclosure. Only thing required would be material defects,ect.... not that someone died in the home.

I'm glad she would disclose.

Died no... As in suicide, accidental death, or natural death. Murder, yes. IMO.

The disclosure laws must be different there.

Thank you.

 

[cityslick]

Brad said he installed Cisco VOIP late Jan or early Feb 2008.
To do so, the router would need to be in place then.

He would of needed this particular router to install the VOIP?

I really don't know the answer is why I'm asking.

 

[Just the Fax]

You're thinking about the old model of how our system of justice worked. The new model is that the state shows that you could have done something and then it is your responsibility to prove that you didn't. In absence of that proof, the assumption is that you did it.

Be fair please.
We are talking about one piece of evidence that can't be totally proven either way (at this point). The jury can decide what weight to assign or who they believe.
Most of the long list of CE I heard points clearly to Brad's guilt.

 

[Just the Fax]

He would of needed this particular router to install the VOIP?

I really don't know the answer is why I'm asking.

I didn't know either.
Our Voip 'experts' here say yes.

 

[SleuthinNC]

He would of needed this particular router to install the VOIP?

I really don't know the answer is why I'm asking.

To place calls using the TWC voice line, yes.

 

[cody100]

cody..please correct your quote so LyndyLoo is not pinned for that post

Thanks, I realize now that didn't quote over correctly. My apology, Lyndyloo.

 

[cody100]

My prediction is there is not testimony coming that will confirm how a call was made. If there is, then the prosecution picked an incredibly lame way to question the Cisco guy. He kept him up there for hours talking about all of these confusing, very technical ways of doing clever things with VoIP and call servers. I'm sure that the jurors were either about to fall asleep or have their heads explode.

If they have proof of which of the 10 ways he used to do it, they should have just focused on that way. Have the VoIP expert explain how it works, then show the data that proves that it was done. Instead, he treated the jurors to a smorgasbord of possible ways with no implication that they had any idea of which was used.

This isn't Christmas. You don't have to let the anticipation build.

This is a correction to my earlier post. I agree completely with your comments in this post. I do not think the State can show that this call was not made by Nancy Cooper. If they can, they would have done exactly what you said to do. Instead they have a bunch of smoking mirrors.

 

[cody100]

Be fair please.
We are talking about one piece of evidence that can't be totally proven either way (at this point). The jury can decide what weight to assign or who they believe.
Most of the long list of CE I heard points clearly to Brad's guilt.[/QUOTE


We are talking about one of the most critical pieces of evidence and it may not be able to proven. Ultimately the juror must decide what weight to assign to this piece of evidence. If I were on there, that would definitely cause me to think hard about this case. If they follow the letter of the law, then they won't convict because the state will not have proved their case without any doubt based on today's evidence.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Be fair please.
We are talking about one piece of evidence that can't be totally proven either way (at this point). The jury can decide what weight to assign or who they believe.
Most of the long list of CE I heard points clearly to Brad's guilt.

We are talking about one of the most critical pieces of evidence and it may not be able to proven. Ultimately the juror must decide what weight to assign to this piece of evidence. If I were on there, that would definitely cause me to think hard about this case. If they follow the letter of the law, then they won't convict because the state will not have proved their case without any doubt based on today's evidence.

The don't have to prove beyond any doubt. It is beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[Madeleine74]

Didn't that Samsung cellphone Brad had also be shown to be connected to the cell tower closest to Nancy's body that morning?