April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

[ncsu95]

Eh, you don't need a fax machine. The IBM Thinkpad could have done that. If the call wouldn't show up as a fax, that would be the easiest way to do it.

But it would have to leave some record on the laptop. It requires a program to do it. There would have to be some forensic record on there indicating that was done.

 

[johnfear]

Can you explain more about the cross. I've seen you mention this a few times. I also find it interesting that Chappell is actually a Durham police detective and not really an FBI agent.

He wasn't even linked to the FBI. He was part of an AUSA task force on Cyber Crime that had access to FBI gear. (Another reason this thing is so jacked up. A) Why were they involved? and B) why the blind tools really?) He was a Special Dep. Marshal under all of that.

 

[ncsu95]

Were GPS devices standard on BMW's circa 2007 on?

There was testimony that his was not equipped with one.

 

[ncsu95]

When a computer is wiped by D-Ban or any other DOD-grade cleaner, there is no way to know what application actually did the wiping. All you have left over is a hard drive with no meaningful data (all 0's, all 1's, alternating 0's and 1's).

Wasn't there a computer that was wiped for resale or recycling by Brad? Thought I recalled that in prior discussions.

ETA: Not saying a wiped computer is evidence of nefarious intentions, only that it's possible.

Yes there was back in April (at least according to the defense).

 

[Cheyenne130]

CD testified that NC "kept doing things and using her as an alibi". CD was not comfortable with being used like that and they drifted apart as a result.

It was actually CW and yes she said that but she didn't specify how she was being used. I fail to see what she would have needed to do to provide an "alibi" for NC. The defense did not pursue it and it did not seem genuine to me. If I were a juror and were instructed to use my own judgement in giving weight to the testimony of a given witness, I would have given her very little. MOO

 

[Towhee]

It was another thing that would have tied up a lot of loose ends but did not fit into the timeline (wipewise) as being useful to all of this madness.

But, hey, who knows...maybe somebody fishing out at Jordan lake will come up with an FXO, a router and a hard drive sometime in the next couple of years.

Lake Jordan holds many secrets, I'm sure.

 

[gracielee]

Just thought I would add..that Brad himself was surfing Websleuth when nancy was missing..So whomever is lurking or posting no doubt had directive to follow here...I am sure he got the drift initially..as all Good sleuthers do..give both sides of equation..however as time went on..and lies got exposed and I cant help but think for somer reason Brad et al~` want to impress you awesome group of peeps!! This site really is a cross section of normal peeps..so why not be "The devil's advocate"..and I also wonder if that isnt why JWARD felt compelled to post here the night after he testified...

:waitasec:

JWARD= self-serving And I didn't buy his explanation for usage of '' either. Yes, words have little meaning, even to me. But that goes for words like fu*k or various other of the four-letter words. A word is just a word, doesn't have any power, etc. Except when it comes to words that denegrate a type of people, be they retards or f*gg*ts or what ever. That's a whole separate type of WORD IMO. If somebody wants to call me a C-word, okay, no skin off my nose. I know I'm not one, so big deal. But if you call my gay sibling a F-word, that's a whole nother matter. IMO. And I'm trying to not get myself on TO here. I don't have any problem using or hearing words per se. Of course I wouldn't speak in front of children, etc., but words don't effect me unless they are used to put down a specific sect of persons. Be they racially motivated or using a derrogatory reference towards retardation. Man, it's hard to try and *say* this within the constraints of a forum. Anyway, I didn't buy his whole explanation or attitude. I'm about as liberal as one can get when it comes to stuff like this, but I set my limits at hurting other people personally. Long before bullying became in vogue like these days, my daughers were taught from toddler on 'how would you feel if somebody called you a name? hit you? made fun of you? etc. Ever since they were kids, people would tell me 'what nice girls I had'. Not just what people say in passing, but making a point of seeking me out to tell me 'what nice girls they are.' I was and continue to be proud of them as people, humans, thoughtful, considerate, etc. I'd be horrified if one of my daughters brought home a JWARD - type. I can call him a jerk, because jerks could change. Disabled people can't help their disability, it's always ALWAYS been my belief that gay people are born gay. JWARD chose to be a jerk MOO

< rant off >

 

[Bottle Cap]

I'm trying to follow Madeleine's line of thinking.

If you believed a random attacker did it, then you have every right to be irritated at CPD for not following up leads. But there's no point in going on and on about someone hacking Brad to frame him.

If you believe some Nancy knew did it, then you're correct to be all off down the trail of who-hacked-Brad, but the CPD following up on leads to do with random attackers in vans is something that shouldn't concern you in the slightest.

So: random attacker people, don't concern yourselves with hacking theories because it makes no sense.

So: Nancy's boyfriend people, stop grumping about CPD not contacting every single tipster personally to assure them that the info they already had was, er, re-had.

Yes?

 

[Cheyenne130]

But it would have to leave some record on the laptop. It requires a program to do it. There would have to be some forensic record on there indicating that was done.

One would think. That's why I'm curious about the two computers mentioned in evidence but not in testimony. If I was going to use a computer as a call manager and I was going to erase it, I guess I would use it for the fax option too. I know, I said IBM Thinkpad but it could have been one of the other computers.

 

[gracielee]

Thanks. That makes sense. It doesn't mean one of her friends couldn't watch the younger one.

I DO NOT THINK SHE WAS INVOLVED WITH ANYONE (yelling it so there is no confusion as to my thoughts on it). I'm simply saying she had the opportunity to if she had wanted to.

I will say though, that it's my belief, because of the spying and controling nature of Brad, he would have known. She thought her email was private. She didn't know brad was getting a copy of every email she got.

 

[ncsu95]

Oh and for the websleuthy awards, I would nominate gracielee for the "best use of smilie emoticons".

 

[otto]

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.

I don't think that Brad would ever have agreed to the children being so far away in part because of the additional cost for visits, not to mention the limited contact. That was what Nancy wanted, and although we have heard that Brad was just fine with that, I suspect that there was more to it. If it was that straight forward, she would have moved to Toronto. Instead, he was keeping the passports (or they split them between the two parents) to ensure that she didn't take the children and leave the country. I don't see that as controlling, I see that as asserting his rights as a parent. Nancy and friends seem to think it was perfectly fine for Nancy to take the children and leave the country, but part of me wonders why. Children need both parents, even after divorce.

 

[SleuthinNC]

One would think. That's why I'm curious about the two computers mentioned in evidence but not in testimony. If I was going to use a computer as a call manager and I was going to erase it, I guess I would use it for the fax option too. I know, I said IBM Thinkpad but it could have been one of the other computers.

Only if they had a fax capable modem card.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm trying to follow Madeleine's line of thinking.

If you believed a random attacker did it, then you have every right to be irritated at CPD for not following up leads. But there's no point in going on and on about someone hacking Brad to frame him.

If you believe some Nancy knew did it, then you're correct to be all off down the trail of who-hacked-Brad, but the CPD following up on leads to do with random attackers in vans is something that shouldn't concern you in the slightest.

So: random attacker people, don't concern yourselves with hacking theories because it makes no sense.

So: Nancy's boyfriend people, stop grumping about CPD not contacting every single tipster personally to assure them that the info they already had was, er, re-had.

Yes?

Unless the cpd caused the file changes on BCs computer. I don't believe anyone hacked into his wireless network. I'm not so certain that someone didn't modify files on his laptop.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Okay 2 for he's likely guilty but state may not have proved it, 2 for "random attacker," and 2 for "it was someone who knew Nancy."

For those who think it was a random attacker (i.e. someone who did not know Nancy and who Nancy did not know), this 'laptop hacking' scenario doesn't fit with that scenario.

Laptop hacking to place incriminating evidence fits with the 'someone who knew Nancy' scenario. That is, if you believe someone actually hacked into the BC's computer and did such a thing.

You can add me to the "random attacker" category. I think the laptop hacking scenario fits perfectly with that. You have a neighborhood of people who are certain that BC is guilty (and an entire CPD force). Many of both categories are computer savvy. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for someone to "help" CPD along the way with their investigation by putting some "real" evidence on the machine. I could only guess as to whether it was a neighbor, a law enforcement officer, or someone with some other motive. Obviously, this is all speculative on my part, but I can see a situation that is logical to me, where it is both random, and computer hacking.

 

[ncsu95]

One would think. That's why I'm curious about the two computers mentioned in evidence but not in testimony. If I was going to use a computer as a call manager and I was going to erase it, I guess I would use it for the fax option too. I know, I said IBM Thinkpad but it could have been one of the other computers.

It's frustrating, right? But if there was any remote possibility that there is evidence of it on any of the computers, it would have been presented by the prosecution. That is why I believe the 6:40 call is real. And if BC killed NC, he did it as soon as he got home from harris teeter. Of course there are lots of issues to overcome that theory as well.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Unless the cpd caused the file changes on BCs computer. I don't believe anyone hacked into his wireless network. I'm not so certain that someone didn't modify files on his laptop.

Ok. Let me update then.

If you believe a random attacker did it, then you also believe CPD is framing him, but there's no sense in you going on about who NC had a fight with, or an affair.

If you believe her boyfriend did it, there's no reason to snark about police not personally visiting every random tipster.

Has that got it?

 

[johnfear]

Unless the cpd caused the file changes on BCs computer. I don't believe anyone hacked into his wireless network. I'm not so certain that someone didn't modify files on his laptop.

I was going with the idea of taking a "looksie" pre-probable cause with the Cisco Investigations and Security Team while Brad was at lunch and this causing some of that to line up with the other stuff.

This one thing (smoking gun and all) is really hard to explain away and it's not helped with the subterfuge from both sides.

Say they simply used a single time to reset to on day before they got the warrant and simply set it all back to the 11th or so.

And yes, I know...we can say they'd never do that, but I just don't know. I don't think it was "planted". I think it was screwed up.

 

[gracielee]

But there is no evidence that the call was generated electronically...which increases the likelihood that it was NC (and I don't believe for one moment that the 4 year old made the call).

Not me, spoofed call, dumped the equipment on one of the HT runs or when he took the kids out to 'look for Nancy'. We all know brad would never have looked for nancy. C'mon. At least admit that. Brad was far more likely to be out evidence dumping then he was nancy searching.

 

[otto]

CW testified that NC "kept doing things and using her as an alibi". CW was not comfortable with being used like that and they drifted apart as a result.

ETA: Just relistened to her testimony. She was so nervous because something from her personal life came up briefly. Anyway, on cross when CW mentioned NC's lover being "politically connected", it gets really really quiet for a bit before the cross continues.

I had the impression that she was connected to someone that knew someone, as in, someone that is a public figure. Her ex-husband was politically connected, so maybe the unasked question was whether she provided Nancy with an introduction to the politcally connected person in Florida.