possumheart
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2012
- Messages
- 4,028
- Reaction score
- 211
1 degree above zero here. Still warmer than GBC's heart IMO
Just found out today that when an iPhone registers itself on a wifi network it immediately connects to the apple push notification servers and sends to the server the ip address of the wireless router they are connected to.
To register on the wifi network the phone must have previously connected to the wifi network and the user saved the network password.
Now this will be the case for GBC, NBC and Allisons iPhone.
What this means is that the QPS can find out from apple when these phones registered on the wifi network at GBC house. For Allisons phone they should be able to find out when Allisons phone last registered on the wifi network by asking apple for the logs. They should also be able to find out when apple was last successful in sending a push notification to Allisons phone. Push notifications are sent out regularly to notify users of an app update.
Even better,fever if NBC had location services turned off, if he was within range of GBC wifi that night, and his phone had previously connected to that wifi this will still have resulted in apple receiving the ip of GBC wifi via NBC phone. Similarly if GBC was within range of NBC wifi that night.
It all hinges on how long apple keeps logs of the ip registrations as iPhones register onto wifi networks.
I really hope the QPS are aware of this and are following up, or have already followed up, with Apple. If anyone has a contact at QPS please run this info past them.
-----------------
http://theiphonewiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=FaceTime
How does Apples (FaceTime) Server know the IP Address of the 2nd (to be called) iPhone*?
Easy, every iPhone registers itself at Apple's push notification server whenever WiFi is available ("calls" Home).
Basic Process:
iPhone detects Wi-Fi Connection
iPhone gets IP address via DHCP (if not set to static in Settings)
iPhone sends a HTTP request to www.apple.com/library/test/success.html
Apple's servers send back a HTML page containing only the word "Success" in the title and body
iPhone knows it is connected to the Internet
iPhone gets iphone-wu.apple.com/7day/v2/latest/lto2.dat to enable a quick GPS fix for Location Services; LTO stands for long-term orbit. This is unrelated to FaceTime.
iPhone contacts the FaceTime server, init.ess.apple.com
iPhone downloads EVIntl-aia.verisign.com/EVIntl2006.cer
iPhone joins Apple's Jabber server at 17.149.36.99
Apple knows the iPhone's IP, which is then used for FaceTime and other push notifications.
Hey now, I think that is a bit unfair. Everyone in business needs a financial advisor. He's been in real estate for the last decade right? So he is out of the loop on business related financials, and therefore it's a good idea to have a financial advisor who is on top of every law that relates to business. JMO.
What worries me is that we all think he did it. I see a few 'allegedly' comments there. Shouldn't there be more of those?
Is there anyone here who's willing to suspend belief to accept that possibly he didn't do it? Perhaps it was all an accident and he's made it 1000 times worse with his actions...
Sure with what's been released, it makes him look guilty. Guilty as heck. But let's entertain the notion that Australia has the presumption of innocence first and foremost. And who's releasing the info? Police, media etc.
I worry that this discussion is all trial by media and we're part of his 'getting off'. If Gordon Wood can be found innocent of murdering Caroline Byrne, then anyone can.
Perhaps the strange thing seen at the roundabout was NBC trying to get WiFi? Maybe he was running around the roundabout searching for it - phone up in the air, tripping over etc.
IMO.
What worries me is that we all think he did it. I see a few 'allegedly' comments there. Shouldn't there be more of those?
Is there anyone here who's willing to suspend belief to accept that possibly he didn't do it? Perhaps it was all an accident and he's made it 1000 times worse with his actions...
Sure with what's been released, it makes him look guilty. Guilty as heck. But let's entertain the notion that Australia has the presumption of innocence first and foremost. And who's releasing the info? Police, media etc.
I worry that this discussion is all trial by media and we're part of his 'getting off'. If Gordon Wood can be found innocent of murdering Caroline Byrne, then anyone can.
You may or may not recall my first post here - only a week or so ago - in which I suggested that we really do need to keep a little corner of our mind open to the possibility that he may NOT be guilty. I got pretty soundly "scolded' for saying it, too. But I have a thick enough skin and accepted the general mood. However, no matter how unlikely (and I do think it is unlikely) there is the possibility (not the probability) that the real story may just be something we least expect.
I think that all the postulating, the hypothesizing, the sleuthing, etc etc is all fine - and I have to say that I enjoy it as much as the rest of you.
But maybe it's just my medical training (and I'm sure those with legal training would tend to think similarly) but I keep coming back to the reality that we have very little in the way of FACTS. We only have what we are told by the media, and what came out in that bail hearing.
If I were trying to diagnose a medical problem, there would be a degree of "gut instinct" in there for sure, but before suggesting treatment, we would need to have as many facts (eg history, examination, test results, etc) before making a provisional diagnosis. Even then, the final diagnosis is often not achieved until the pathologist gives us the reports on the tumour we've removed, or whatever.
It is that very logical, fact and evidence-based approach, that dictates that we MUST leave open the possibility that GBC is not guilty of what he APPEARS to be guilty of.
We just don't have enough information to make that call yet - that's what the legal process is for.
Dang - now I've gone and put myself in everybody's bad books again....! lease:
:truce:
Perhaps the strange thing seen at the roundabout was NBC trying to get WiFi? Maybe he was running around the roundabout searching for it - phone up in the air, tripping over etc.
IMO.
Yep, UnfoldingTruth suggested this in the previous thread. It crossed my mind too.
And for the record GBC now has 3 lawyers!!!!!
It's on the courier mail website but for some reason i can't copy and paste it
You may or may not recall my first post here - only a week or so ago - in which I suggested that we really do need to keep a little corner of our mind open to the possibility that he may NOT be guilty. I got pretty soundly "scolded' for saying it, too. But I have a thick enough skin and accepted the general mood. However, no matter how unlikely (and I do think it is unlikely) there is the possibility (not the probability) that the real story may just be something we least expect.
I think that all the postulating, the hypothesizing, the sleuthing, etc etc is all fine - and I have to say that I enjoy it as much as the rest of you.
But maybe it's just my medical training (and I'm sure those with legal training would tend to think similarly) but I keep coming back to the reality that we have very little in the way of FACTS. We only have what we are told by the media, and what came out in that bail hearing.
If I were trying to diagnose a medical problem, there would be a degree of "gut instinct" in there for sure, but before suggesting treatment, we would need to have as many facts (eg history, examination, test results, etc) before making a provisional diagnosis. Even then, the final diagnosis is often not achieved until the pathologist gives us the reports on the tumour we've removed, or whatever.
It is that very logical, fact and evidence-based approach, that dictates that we MUST leave open the possibility that GBC is not guilty of what he APPEARS to be guilty of.
We just don't have enough information to make that call yet - that's what the legal process is for.
Dang - now I've gone and put myself in everybody's bad books again....! lease:
:truce:
I have a few questions for Hawkins et al...
With Chris nyst joining the team, would you think that gbc and his family perhaps are not confident with their current representatives? Why would they choose to bring this guy on when they are supposedly represented by some pretty hefty council already? And given this guy has represented a few cases now surely he would know the rules about being approved before speaking with the defendant so why on earth throw a tanty because he wasn't allowed in? Seems reasonable to me. Or is this just about creating a bit of a story for the media?
Could it be they can't afford Peter Davis sc any longer?
Should we be concerned about another solicitor joining ranks or this a sign of trouble for the defense team
I'd just like to know wth is going on? How many lawyers will be on this thing - and more importantly, how is our team looking as opponents?
All IMO etc.
sorry i didn't copy the link before trying to paste it into the link lol
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/third-lawyer-joins-baden-clay-team/story-e6freon6-1226415091838
GBC must have had 2 x $1 coins in his prison gear pockets to actually retain the additional 2 legal eagles :floorlaugh:
Agreed ... I keep a 1% open to other possibilities. :floorlaugh:
GBC must have had 2 x $1 coins in his prison gear pockets to actually retain the additional 2 legal eagles :floorlaugh:
sorry i didn't copy the link before trying to paste it into the link lol
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/third-lawyer-joins-baden-clay-team/story-e6freon6-1226415091838
What worries me is that we all think he did it. I see a few 'allegedly' comments there. Shouldn't there be more of those?
Is there anyone here who's willing to suspend belief to accept that possibly he didn't do it? Perhaps it was all an accident and he's made it 1000 times worse with his actions...
Sure with what's been released, it makes him look guilty. Guilty as heck. But let's entertain the notion that Australia has the presumption of innocence first and foremost. And who's releasing the info? Police, media etc.
I worry that this discussion is all trial by media and we're part of his 'getting off'. If Gordon Wood can be found innocent of murdering Caroline Byrne, then anyone can.