Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

[jmflu]

Yeah - BC probably used it (or somehow got someone else to use it) to call his mobile number sometime on the 12th... and then put a lock code on it... to make sure no one (especially not LE) could ever use the phone to see who had called who, etc.

That's what I think... but with your smiley face and knowing your thoughts about whether BC did it... I'm not sure if you're serious.

 

[jmflu]

Hi jmflu :seeya:

The article says Police investigating the disappearance and death of Nancy Cooper recently re-examined a cell phone and two address books belonging to the Cary mother, according to a new search warrant returned in the case.

Of course......I don't know what they hoped to find that they may have missed the first time

First of all... I LOVE YOUR COW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, back to the subject. You just moooooved me with that big red kisser!!!

If they are re-examining, why would they need a SW all over again?

 

[Anderson]

To me, it makes more sense that some recent discovery or thread-of-investigation has led them to want to learn more about NC's interactions with other individuals. The newspaper article says that the SW is for access to the internals of her mobile phone (which would be contacts, text-messages, etc)... and... other (presumably non-phone) address books.

It doesn't make sense (to me) that this would be a 'general info sweep' that LE is undertaking. FWIW, it also doesn't make sense to me that BC would have used the phone for alibi purposes, then put a lock code on it. Makes much more sense that (as the newspaper article implies), NC herself previously kept a lock code on it, due to pending divorce proceedings, and/or some other desire to keep things private.

I see what you are saying JS. Your logic is very helpful. I still don't fully understand this.

If BC had access to this phone all this time, then it wouldn't surprise me if he has also had access to the information. Perhaps he is not the technical genius that I think he is, but perhaps he could unlock and relock the phone without leaving a trail. And it is POSSIBLE that he could edit information. That worries me a bit.

I am honestly still surprised that this is just being investigated now, whether the investigation is related to calls and/or data on the phone.

 

[reddress58]

Hi jmflu :seeya:

The article says Police investigating the disappearance and death of Nancy Cooper recently re-examined a cell phone and two address books belonging to the Cary mother, according to a new search warrant returned in the case.

Of course......I don't know what they hoped to find that they may have missed the first time

Thanks, Mahmoo. The "re-examine" explains somewhat. But I still don't know why they'd need a separate SW.

 

[jmflu]

I wonder if they are looking for her address book(s) because they think she might have written her passcode to the phone in it, such as some folks do with their computer passwords to keep track of all of them?

 

[jumpstreet]

That's what I think... but with your smiley face and knowing your thoughts about whether BC did it... I'm not sure if you're serious.

Smiley was b/c it seemed a small stretch to me jmflu, but who knows, it's as possible as anything I guess, so yeah, it's as good as any theory to put on the table.

My frontrunner thought on it is that LE has become interested (for some reason) in other persons NC was in contact with around the time of the murder, and this is why they're wanting to delve more into the phone, and her other address books. May or may not mean anything - maybe it's just a matter of "leaving no stone unturned", etc...

We probably won't know for sure until the trial (if then) [ unless Sleuthy sets up that appt with Det Young of course... ]

 

[mahmoo]

Thanks, Mahmoo. The "re-examine" explains somewhat. But I still don't know why they'd need a separate SW.

I dunno............just guessing here really........but, I would think once the property was returned (after the 1st SW)......they would would need a 2nd one to re-seize the phone. Only thing that comes to mind with that scenario is LE possibly looking to see what may have been removed since they had it last.

 

[SleuthyGal]

He has no idea if thisis the case since he hates the phone. His book is at the office he thinks and of course is not willing to go to RTP to get it.

I will save him the trip by providing a link to the user guide online!

 

[jmflu]

I will save him the trip by providing a link to the user guide online!

Wow. You never cease to amaze me, SG!

 

[reddress58]

I also do think it's possible that she was going to leave the next morning - permanently.

It may also be possible that she had been connecting with someone and that relationship was helping her "get herself back" and stand up to Brad.

It could have really pissed Brad off if he found out and if she was getting "stronger" and not being controlled by him. I suspect that he would have preferred that she move back to Canada - and not be there as a constant reminder of the "failure", and have to see her live her life while he would have to pay child support and perhaps alimony. He'd certainly not want to see her with someone else where she may have had the potential to live a 'better' or wealthier life....

Perhaps she found someone that was starting to make her happy?

RNC, I'm glad you brought up again about the possibility that she was preparing to leave for good. I feel strongly about this. Mainly because Runr mentioned it and then left the boards without answering. That always makes me think someone knows something we don't.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hey Sluethy! I think it's time you ask your honey J. Young out for that beer. We need to know the dish on this cell phone inquiry! Ha! Ha!

All in good time, my sweet. First I have a little yard work to get him to attend to.... :wink: oh and that would be J.A. Young (hoping it's a 'he').

 

[mahmoo]

Wow. You never cease to amaze me, SG!

For really !!!!

 

[reddress58]

All in good time, my sweet. First I have a little yard work to get him to attend to.... :wink: oh and that would be J.A. Young (hoping it's a 'he').

Eek! I just assumed it was a "he".

 

[jmflu]

RNC, I'm glad you brought up again about the possibility that she was preparing to leave for good. I feel strongly about this. Mainly because Runr mentioned it and then left the boards without answering. That always makes me think someone knows something we don't.

And I was wondering if Runr was a friend of NC's...

 

[SleuthyGal]

I have been assuming J.A. Young is a 'he' too, but Mom thought the signature on the affy's signed by J.A. Young looked 'feminine.' So...I'm adding the caveat of if it's a 'he.'

 

[jmflu]

I have been assuming J.A. Young is a 'he' too, but Mom thought the signature on the affy's signed by J.A. Young looked 'feminine.' So...I'm adding the caveat of if it's a 'he.'

Free yardwork and it wouldn't matter to me...

 

[mahmoo]

I have been assuming J.A. Young is a 'he' too, but Mom thought the signature on the affy's signed by J.A. Young looked 'feminine.' So...I'm adding the caveat of if it's a 'he.'

Surely, in all our "sleuthiness" we can nail this down.....LOL !!! Are there any locals here that know for sure ??? Come out of hiding and verify for us.......LOL.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Surely, in all our "sleuthiness" we can nail this down.....LOL !!! Are there any locals here that know for sure ??? Come out of hiding and verify for us.......LOL.

Ya know, there were some cops directing traffic near Bond Park last weekend and I ALMOST stopped to ask them if they knew who "J.A. Young" is in their dept and if it's a he or she. I swear to doG! However, I :chicken::chicken: out.

 

[reddress58]

Ya know, there were some cops directing traffic near Bond Park last weekend and I ALMOST stopped to ask them if they knew who "J.A. Young" is in their dept and if it's a he or she. I swear to doG! However, I :chicken::chicken: out.

Knowin' you...they must have been CUTE cops.

 

[jumpstreet]

I will save him the trip by providing a link to the user guide online!

After a quick scan of that user guide (thanks SG), I don't see that the device supports the notion of a password to prevent one from making calls, vs a password to generally prevent one from accessing the device.

It seems to support a device-level password (which prevents general access, including accidental (or malicious) calls, etc). It also prevents a (more simple) device "lock", which simply prevents accidental calls.

In other words, it seems unlikely that there was a password set up on it to block say "contact" access, but to allow anyone to make calls without entering the password.

My take therefore: If there was a password set on the device at the time calls were made from that device, then the person using it must have known the password.