SleuthyGal
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 1
You're very welcome.
Today's a good day for sure! Esp. with OJ sentenced (FINALLY).
Today's a good day for sure! Esp. with OJ sentenced (FINALLY).
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're very welcome.
Today's a good day for sure! Esp. with OJ sentenced (FINALLY).
Hey SG - to the jailed one's list of lies - and this is now a confirmed lie, one can add that per this warrant the jailed one was reading Nancy's email at 10:13 pm on July 11 - while in his deposition he claims he was sound asleep with the girls by 9 pm.
LIAR -not an inconsistency - a flat out lie.
Isn't that interesting? While Nancy is back at the party across the street, Brad is on his laptop, reading Nancy's private emails.
Isn't that interesting? While Nancy is back at the party across the street, Brad is on his laptop, reading Nancy's private emails.
That might have been the final 'trigger.' We were thinking it was Nancy correcting him at the BBQ (for not being able to understand what Katie wanted), but this has me rethinking that.
But the portrait of his ability and willingness to do this type of thing was described long before this warrant.
Yes it was. And here JWB was labeled by some as a "bitter ex with an axe to grind," and NC's friends as 'liars.'
That might have been the final 'trigger.' We were thinking it was Nancy correcting him at the BBQ (for not being able to understand what Katie wanted), but this has me rethinking that.
Approximately a month ago on here, I put "out there" a rhetorical question with regard to Alice Stubbs and it was in reference to my curiosity about her feeling slightly guilty over the proposed agreement she drafted, knowing (via NC) BC would be livid. It seems the amount being sought was absolutely outrageous/unreasonable.
I also wonder if there were e-mails from NCs "flame" in Canada? If yes, BC would have been livid about it too; especially in light of NCs rage (understandable) over BCs "indiscression" with HM -- then he finds out she is pursuing a relationship behind his back (possibly).
I feel so sad when I learn of these things. Brad's ability to read NC's emails...sigh... poor Nancy didn't have the technical expertise to better protect her email/electronic communications. Her lawyer probably didn't realize what was possible either.
There are some key things to do to protect oneself from prying eyes, but then again, you'd have to know what you're dealing with.
I agree, Piedmont. With a sneaky-*advertiser censored*/techie/estranged husband, the last thing Nancy should have been using for confidential correspondence was any computer in her own house (or any computer Brad had access to/control of), or any email address Brad knew.
She probably used the email address that was setup for her when they first established Internet service; even if she changed her password he still could install a key logger on all computers in their house and gain access to alter her settings. It's just so unfortunate that she continued to use the computers in her house, not realizing what he was doing (but having the sense that he was spying on her, which he was).
Had she setup a brand new email address, with a new password that was not something Brad could guess, and she only used that email account on external computers (like at the library or at a friend's house), Brad would not have been able to hack into her account and see her communications with her lawyer or anyone else.
A unique email addy should always be setup for exclusive use with one's lawyer and not given to anyone else and not accessed on any shared computer in an estranged household. Passwords should be unique and not shared between accounts and should never be something that anyone could guess.
I am in NO way blaming Nancy at all. She didn't know and the fault lies solely and completely on the jailed-one. But at the same time there are some lessons to be learned and ensuring one has confidential communication be it email, cell phone, texting, IMing is paramount, especially in an estranged/contentious marriage, separation, and divorce.
G'morning RC!
I'm not placing blame on anyone EXCEPT the jailed-one, and hopefully I conveyed that thought in my original post.
As a techie myself I know what is possible, which is why his being able to snoop on Nancy frustrates me--because I also know how to prevent it, and the part of me that wishes I could *do something* wishes I could magically be transported back in time and help protect Nancy in that way.
It's the emotional reaction I'm having--learning what Brad boy was doing, even though it didn't surprise me in the least.
Sorry SG - didn't mean to imply blame was being placed - not my intent. I understand what you are saying but as you point out, being a techie gives you an advantage. For me, the average bubba - these kinds of thoughts never enter my mind - someone intercepting my email i.e. especially not my spouse. For the average joe I doubt it would enter their mind either is all I'm trying to say. I'm not surprised to hear the jailed one was doing this and I suspect more will come out of a similar nature actually. I agree - emotionally it is disgusting and shows a certain depravity.
Nancy perhaps should have realized the potential given the jailed one is a techie and there was obvious concern about the telephone, and BC's past history - i.e. BC not being able to admit a closet adventure even though the rest of Cary seemed to know about it. We take a lot of things for granted daily. What is infinitly more disturbing to me is, having followed conversations here, the understanding of abuse and its manifestation seems to be lacking for some, too many IMO.
Good Morning back at you !
As I understand NC was a techie too and just didn't consider this; or knew he would/could intercept and frankly didn't give a hoot - not considering/fathoming BCs reaction to it.
It did seem Alice Stubbs proposed $ amount per month was over the top and really unreasonable based on the deposition and BCs math in public over the amount per month - far exceeded his after tax income.
I believe we will hear BC testify he "inadvertently" (perhaps suggest NC left the computer logged in under her credentials) saw e-mail traffic between NC and, I believe his name is "Brett" from Canada. Clearly there was text traffic between the two. Believe one of the affidavits explained how JA saw a text on NCs phone from a man named "Brett" and really had an emotional reaction - perhaps thinking "Brett" was her husband. So, if there were text messages, there may very well be other forms of communication and "the interceptor" was lurking...
I also believe he will say she came home from the BBQ and he approached her with regard to his "accidental discovery" and challenged her. He may say she got physical with him and he restrained her and somehow it led to her death.