April 8th wknd of Sleuthing

[Just the Fax]

So sunshine05, I take it you are now willing to concede Brad did wash the green dress, like he admitted to CPD on 7-13-08?

 

[Palomine]

does anyone have the cache of the website talked about in this article

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l.../EDM_cooper_080802/20080802/?hub=EdmontonHome

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes, no one is denying it. Sleuth Sayer pointed some very simple ways to do it that does not require a VOIP phone even. But everything is recordable. That's the problem.

My husband works at Cisco and has 2 CCIE's and he has no idea how one could spoof a call with no record of it on the call center log. Actually, he doesn't know how to do it period, but it's not something he has ever had to try to figure out.

Interesting information.
Does your husband know Brad by chance?

 

[Just the Fax]

Can you show me where he stated that? It was my understanding that he told the police he didn't know if it was washed because he didn't know which dress was THE dress.

it's in the CPD interview notes.
That was stated as fact, unless you think the state lied too?

 

[Tipstaff]

According to him, he didn't presume she was missing that morning. Just clarifying.

Or, maybe he knew she was dead and he wanted to remain in the house and plan his alibi?

 

[Just the Fax]

No, never met him. They worked in totally different areas. He knows the guy the state called as a witness though.

Just curious, does he take the same 100% Brad is innocent stance you do, refusing to admit anything at all is suspicious about Brad's actions?

 

[Just the Fax]

Where are the interview notes so I can read them?

Why can't you respond without making a snide comment? Does it make you feel better to do that?

Nobody here has read the case file.
The DA's office certainly has, and that is where I got the information.
Nothing "snide" about my response.
You stated numerous state witnesses have lied, so I simply asked if you think the DA's office lied too?

 

[less0305]

Ahhhhhh, it's beginning to make sense.

 

[SleuthinNC]

It's not a huge amount of trouble for these computer guys. I asked my husband to ask his co workers (he works near cisco at another big company) if they could spoof a call and how hard it is and they all said its not hard and they could do it in a few minutes if they needed to and they are not working in phones or anything.. they work with computer storage.. no voip, no phones.. and they can do it no problem.. BC is an expert in this phone technology it would take 30 seconds for him and we know for a fact he had the equipment and that it isn't checked in or out at cisco so he could have tossed it very fast July 12 in a dumpster because it would not be missed.

Yes you can spoof a call easily with no voice knowledge. This is a spoof that shows the caller-id as a number different than what it actually was on the receiving device. To place a call using the actual phone line such that it creates call records on the TWC reports is not a 30 second job.

 

[Just the Fax]

He thinks, based on what I've told him that he is probably innocent but does not follow the case closely at all.

What about your family members? Do they all think he is guilty even though there is not one shred of proof?

I have not encountered a single person that thinks he is innocent.....NG perhaps, but not innocent.

 

[CrimeAddict]

Another topic to discuss. Does anyone believe that BC did in fact have the phone tapped like NC told everyone? Curious what you all think about that. It keeps coming up.

I just don't think he had the ability to do that. I did not however hear all of the tech testimony but I do recall someone on the stand saying how he couldn't from his office listen to them if they weren't test calls. Not sure they said it exactly that way, but that's what I remember. I think the clicking sound NC kept saying she heard to her friends was just the phones.. I just think she felt paranoid because he was controlling the $ and things were just really bad with them.

 

[borndem]

Check 18:21 of opening statement.
Brad produced the dress the next day and told the cops in a documented interview he washed it because there was a wine stain on the dress.

Further, the dress was in full view over the chair in the dining room (IIRC, it was the dining room) after his washing marathon. A coinky-dink? Me not so think...

 

[Maja]

Diana Duncan testifed she saw it hanging ove rthe dining room chair on Tuesday, didn't she? So Tuesday would have been the 14th?

14 = Monday

 

[Just the Fax]

You were able to read them from the DA's office?

So why are you asking me questions about something I have never heard, can't read and can't listen to?

listen to the opening statement again.
Unless the ADA is lying, she said Brad told CPD in an interview he washed the dress.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Another topic to discuss. Does anyone believe that BC did in fact have the phone tapped like NC told everyone? Curious what you all think about that. It keeps coming up.

He could have, it would have required setting up a Contact Center system in addition to the Unified Communications Manager. The thing is it would not make crackles or other strange sounds on the phone line being monitored. It does not "break into the line" like a traditional call monitoring system.

 

[sunshine05]

He could have, it would have required setting up a Contact Center system in addition to the Unified Communications Manager. The thing is it would not make crackles or other strange sounds on the phone line being monitored. It does not "break into the line" like a traditional call monitoring system.

Thanks. I've been wondering about it for a while and JA states in her affidavit that calls became disconnected frequently, implying that BC was cutting off the calls. Maybe it really was just NC hanging up on her.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I will concede that there might be ONE such techie juror - and one is enough to hang the jury, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of that jury is normal every day people who can't quite figure out their own cell phones and have a hard time hooking up a DVR player. It would be reasonable to conclude from the evidence presented that he did spoof the call. Of course, I will stand corrected if the jury finds him not guilty and walks out of the courtroom and to a microphone and say these words, "We had to find him not guilty because we all work in the technology field and know he couldn't fit a FXO card into a ZZZZ router and then connect it to his YYYY computer and filter it through New Zealand back to his cell phone."

I absolutely agree with this part. I have said several times, that he's probably guilty, but whether he's guilty or not he's going to be convicted. The only thing that might stop it is one or two holdouts that result in a hung jury.

 

[Palomine]

Yes, no one is denying it. Sleuth Sayer pointed some very simple ways to do it that does not require a VOIP phone even. But everything is recordable. That's the problem.

My husband works at Cisco and has 2 CCIE's and he has no idea how one could spoof a call with no record of it on the call center log. Actually, he doesn't know how to do it period, but it's not something he has ever had to try to figure out.

My Dad work for Northern Electric and used a dinosaur version of this almost everyday at work...plus he did it from our basement so we would pick up the phone upstairs

 

[borndem]

Maybe it is just me but if I am expecting somebody to come over to my house I don't get out of bed at the same time I expect them to arrive.

They were good friends -- they were going to paint -- she probably took 2 minutes to put on some "slop" clothes -- they were not going to tea. It was Saturday, and the kids were probably sleeping. She knew NC wouldn't care if she had just awakened. At least that's the way it is with me and my good friends...

 

[SleuthSayer]

Yes you can spoof a call easily with no voice knowledge. This is a spoof that shows the caller-id as a number different than what it actually was on the receiving device. To place a call using the actual phone line such that it creates call records on the TWC reports is not a 30 second job.

The part that I don't get is those that say that it's all but proven that he spoofed the call because of the Cisco expert's testimony that he had the ability to seem to be ignoring the fact that most if not all of the ways that Paul mentioned would require some remote data access concurrent with the spoofed call. He mentioned a number of things (telnet, point-to-click, remote desktop, etc) but all of those require remote data access at the same time as the spoofed call.

I didn't see the part where the cell records were discussed, but I have read here that there was no 6:40am data activity involving his cell. So, the only other alternatives would be: 1) another smart phone, 2) some WiFi access with a laptop. Yet, I haven't heard a suggestion of either of these.