April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[ncsu95]

The CPD secured the house about 10 hours before they had the search warrant, they told BC to leave. At that point all evidence was in the hands of the CPD, in their possession. We don't know when they entered the house specifically, or if they followed protocol. We don't know if even two LEOs did go in togther if they stayed together once inside, and it appears there are many rooms in the house. Once they obtained the SW it was another 12+ hours before the laptop was powered down. In total the laptop was powered up for 27 hours. The reasoning given was that unplugging it would have corrupted data. They have not been able to adequately explain what made the 27th hour the magic hour.

We do know that the FBI agent was unaware of this lapse of protocol. We also know that CPD has not released the chain of evidence records for the laptop. Finally, we know that they erased NC's Blackberry, and that protocol was not followed with that at all, they didn't even have a SW when they erased it and requested the SW after they had erased it.

They didn't even need to turn the laptop off. All they had to do was unplug the cable modem or router. That would have isolated it unless the laptop was set to automatically connect to a different network.

 

[momof7]

I read an article today tht I don't think I can post a link to. It was a very interesting article re: FBI, Wi - Fi unsecured connections and child .

It made me very sure mistakes can happen.


Kelly

 

[BrownRice]

I read an article today tht I don't think I can post a link to. It was a very interesting article re: FBI, Wi - Fi unsecured connections and child .

It made me very sure mistakes can happen.


Kelly

I think I read that last week. About a guy who basically planted info to bust his neighbor stealing his wifi connection - he wrote some stuff that incriminated himself to be a child user, or something like that - and the FBI came breaking down his door. Is that the case?

 

[3doglady]

Until this past week, I was thinking that a guilty verdict was pretty much set. I began having my doubts on Tuesday. Don't know exactly if there was one thing or several that made me start thinking they were going to find him not guilty. And then the note from the jury made me feel even more sure they are thinking not guilty.....they just want to go home. I want to give them more credit than that, and hope they will take their time in deliberations, that's the only way this long and tedious trial will end well regardless of the verdict.

I feel the same way. I just have the feeling the jury thinks the state has screwed up so many times they don't trust anything they say now. I think BC is mostly likely guilty but I haven't seen the proof.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I read an article today tht I don't think I can post a link to. It was a very interesting article re: FBI, Wi - Fi unsecured connections and child .

It made me very sure mistakes can happen.


Kelly

The case in Western NY?

 

[NCEast]

I took the juror's note differently. I figured it meant (like I speculated here earlier) that they decided he was guilty weeks ago and we are just going through the motions at this point.

I will always believe in my heart of hearts that he did it. However, I wanted more evidence....and as the trial has progressed, there has been less.
Like another poster said earlier, I would rather he walk than to think he would have to spend the rest of his life in prison if he didn't do it.
And if he is guilty and the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict, he spent 2.5 years of his life behind bars. That's the same thing I said about OJ when his not guilty verdict came back. I think everybody in the world who followed that trial, including his own friends, knew he killed Nicole. The jury just didn't want to consider that one of America's heroes could ever do something that bad.
I just want more evidence, more. You guys and girls with all of the technology good sense can work through the router/phone/computer technology and get a much better grasp on things than those of us who have no idea what it means. I depend on you all so much to give me insight on the most simple things regarding that.
Well, if the jury is thinking with their hearts and not their heads--and their seeing the photos of the dump site, the ME's photos, the deposition video-- all of those very tangible things, I can more easily see a guilty verdict.

 

[momof7]

The case in Western NY?

Yes, it was. Even the FBI gets it wrong from time to time.

Kelly

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think I read that last week. About a guy who basically planted info to bust his neighbor stealing his wifi connection - he wrote some stuff that incriminated himself to be a child user, or something like that - and the FBI came breaking down his door. Is that the case?

I thought it was the opposite. I thought the guy left his wireless unsecured and his neighbor was involved in child . Because he was on this guys network, it traced back to him. They obviously got it figured out but initially this innocent guy was under suspicion because it was showing up on his wireless network.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Yes, it was. Even the FBI gets it wrong from time to time.

Kelly

I agree that was a very scary story. And surprisingly relevant to what is going on in this case.

 

[BrownRice]

I thought it was the opposite. I thought the guy left his wireless unsecured and his neighbor was involved in child . Because he was on this guys network, it traced back to him. They obviously got it figured out but initially this innocent guy was under suspicion because it was showing up on his wireless network.

Oh, oops. that is what happens when I skim an article.

 

[momof7]

I thought it was the opposite. I thought the guy left his wireless unsecured and his neighbor was involved in child . Because he was on this guys network, it traced back to him. They obviously got it figured out but initially this innocent guy was under suspicion because it was showing up on his wireless network.

You are correct. I went back and reread the article after BrownRice posted because I had read differently.

Oddly enough, one of the things I was having a hard time thinking could be wrong was the FBI testimony. It, i.e. being the FBI, carried a lot of weight, I mean its the FBI. I think of them as the good guys who save the day. I was thinking of that today, and being out of touch for the week, was doing a little research on some of the FBI stuff. I give up on the computer stuff, I will never understand it. There is no plain english for me when it comes to it. Each of you post, and I greatly appreciate your knowledge, and I believe it. Because I am clueless.

It was interesting, if nothing else, for me as a moment to remember even the good guys don't always get it right. And yes, I understand it wasn't REALLY the FBI someone affiated with CPD.


Kelly

 

[LyndyLoo]

I read an article today tht I don't think I can post a link to. It was a very interesting article re: FBI, Wi - Fi unsecured connections and child .

It made me very sure mistakes can happen.


Kelly

I think I read that last week. About a guy who basically planted info to bust his neighbor stealing his wifi connection - he wrote some stuff that incriminated himself to be a child user, or something like that - and the FBI came breaking down his door. Is that the case?

BUT that case was traceable NO...otherwise we wouldnot have heard about it..Right?..

Yes indeed..we all have to be very careful when using internet...and I hope no one ever gets put on the "HOT SEAT" because of sites they visit..YIKES..When I think about all the sites I look for to link things to post to backup certain ideations..I cannot help but wonder just what anyone would think if they ever had to do a forensics on my puter...Thats something that is always plausible I guess...but I guess you would have to apply it to the rest of the evidence at hand..RIGHT??

:angel::websleuther::gasp::couch:..I guess Ican only assure you guys here..that I am no murderer, no plans to murder..no animousity against anybody..No problems that need resolving..DOes that cover it??:waitasec:


Since this website is on my puter and IF anyone comes here with questions..just say..She was a NICE lady//OKay :floorlaugh: Opiniated maybe..but had some good points :floorlaugh:

 

[unc70]

You are correct. I went back and reread the article after BrownRice posted because I had read differently.

Oddly enough, one of the things I was having a hard time thinking could be wrong was the FBI testimony. It, i.e. being the FBI, carried a lot of weight, I mean its the FBI. I think of them as the good guys who save the day. I was thinking of that today, and being out of touch for the week, was doing a little research on some of the FBI stuff. I give up on the computer stuff, I will never understand it. There is no plain english for me when it comes to it. Each of you post, and I greatly appreciate your knowledge, and I believe it. Because I am clueless.

It was interesting, if nothing else, for me as a moment to remember even the good guys don't always get it right. And yes, I understand it wasn't REALLY the FBI someone affiated with CPD.


Kelly

When you hear FBI, think J. Edgar Hoover. That should you return you to reality.

 

[momof7]

When you hear FBI, think J. Edgar Hoover. That should you return you to reality.

Good one...!

 

[SleuthSayer]

I have another possibility:

* He move the laptop from the office lan to his home network while it was hibernating, etc. When it is resuming it might first tried to continue with the saved network settings. I sometimes see that happen on my own systems.

There are a lot things that can combine to cause this. I don't have much time until Sunday night to do any testing.

I believe in testimony or a post here said that Cisco employees routinely just close the laptop when moving inside their facility and only shutdown at the end of the day. If I could see the log from when he was still at Cisco until a few minutes after this event the answer might be obvious.

I haven't tested this yet, but I believe the IP on the Cisco lan for the 3825 that was somehow cached/retained was the same as one already in used on the home net or being assigned by the home DHCP.

This scenario I believe could explain how a single reference could appear without other network traffic on the home lan.

Am I missing something, or is this another possiblity?

Well, I still can't imagine any way that some device caching or retaining an address caused a duplicate address error to be reported by the laptop (assuming that's really what has been found). Even if some device mysteriously still had that IP/MAC combination, there is really no reason for it to somehow report it to the laptop thus causing the laptop to report the error. But, that's just me.

Here's my opinion, which will be applauded or blasted depending on whose side you are on here. The opinion is based on 2 things: 1) I've been working on data networking my entire career, 2) I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It is: if the 3825's MAC address was detected on the network by the laptop on 7/11, the 3825 was on the same LAN as the laptop (meaning in the house) on 7/11.

 

[sunshine05]

So with the info Sunshine posted, looks like most people who are on trial for spouse homicide are convicted, yet others (general murders) have a much higher rate of getting off. Obviously I am making a lot of assumptions, but that seems more likely.

I still wonder where the 16% of spouse murder acquittals are - I seldom hear of them. But obviously it does happen.

The thing about spousal murder that I hate is that it is automatically assumed that the spouse (mainly the husband) did it. People don't want to look further because the statistics are stacked against them. That's actually another reason I don't think he did it, unless it was an act of rage. But they are using the google map search to point to premeditated murder. I'm much more inclined to believe a rage murder than premeditated. He had to know he would be accused of it with the divorce ongoing, affair, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me that he planned this.

 

[sunshine05]

Well, I still can't imagine any way that some device caching or retaining an address caused a duplicate address error to be reported by the laptop (assuming that's really what has been found). Even if some device mysteriously still had that IP/MAC combination, there is really no reason for it to somehow report it to the laptop thus causing the laptop to report the error. But, that's just me.

Here's my opinion, which will be applauded or blasted depending on whose side you are on here. The opinion is based on 2 things: 1) I've been working on data networking my entire career, 2) I'm not a conspiracy theorist. It is: if the 3825's MAC address was detected on the network by the laptop on 8/11, the 3825 was on the same LAN as the laptop (meaning in the house) on 8/11.

How familiar are you with event logs? What are they typically used to determine? I have NO idea what typically shows up on them.

 

[momof7]

The thing about spousal murder that I hate is that it is automatically assumed that the spouse (mainly the husband) did it. People don't want to look further because the statistics are stacked against them. That's actually another reason I don't think he did it, unless it was an act of rage. But they are using the google map search to point to premeditated murder. I'm much more inclined to believe a rage murder than premeditated. He had to know he would be accused of it with the divorce ongoing, affair, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me that he planned this.

Thats the thing, for me, I can not say I don't think he should be found not guilty of first degree murder. I don't think, IMHO, he should be at all. But, rage, I almost think I could. In that type of trail I think, I if I were a juror, would be more inclined to give more weight to the gossip, he said she said, the divorce, the financials. I would most like without a doubt be more inclined to think 'emotions' play such a part in what I perceive a rage killing to be.

Just my :twocents:

 

[ncsu95]

I was browsing over the Wake County DA's website this morning. I remembered that somebody earlier this week said H. Cummings was next under CW. I assume tenure must be in play. I don't know how much 'hands-on' CW has spent with the ADAs in this case. He may have given them free reign. I can only imagine his anger this past week with the same issues we all witnessed from the ADAs. I don't like what I've seen play out in this trial either, by the CPD or some of the ADA's methods. Cummings' losing it the other day was a jolt. I certainly understand, and agree, with everything you feel. I would hate to think, though, that CW would lose his job just based on this one case. Would like to know what the stats, w-vs-l, are for capital crimes since he's been in office. He has been there a long time.

I've never been to their site. What I find interesting is that people on here rip Kurtz because his specialty is drug cases. Yet both AF and BZ are listed on that site as their primary role is the "Drug Unit".

 

[NCEast]

The thing about spousal murder that I hate is that it is automatically assumed that the spouse (mainly the husband) did it. People don't want to look further because the statistics are stacked against them. That's actually another reason I don't think he did it, unless it was an act of rage. But they are using the google map search to point to premeditated murder. I'm much more inclined to believe a rage murder than premeditated. He had to know he would be accused of it with the divorce ongoing, affair, etc. It just doesn't make sense to me that he planned this.

If the statistics were more in depth, they would probably show that a huge number of spousal homicides were either premeditated or a rage of passion. These types of murders don't usually 'just' happen. The DA may have wonked up on the actual charge because I think Brad killed Nancy in a passionate rage just after she returned from the party. If there was any premeditation via the Google maps, I think it came about because she had been away with the girls the week prior and he got a taste of freedom and that's when his plan really began to take shape. I don't think he knew exactly when he would do it, but I feel the night of the 11th/12th he had simply had enough and it just happened. Of course, this is my most humble opinion.