Page 20 of 40 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 30 ... LastLast
Results 286 to 300 of 591
  1. #286
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,338
    Quote Originally Posted by macd View Post
    Since evidence shows that computer was connected to VPN, then they would not have been able to gain access to the computer by hacking into wireless network. VPN software blocks access through local networks.
    No it doesn't. You can still share through windows, remote desktop, ssh, etc. from the LAN.
    Hoisted with his own Petard


  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SleuthinNC For This Useful Post:


  3. #287
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
    I think it would be enough to sway the jury.

    This has been the weakest part of the state's case IMO - all so hypothetical. BC had the knowledge how to do this which is fact, he USED TO have the right hardware in the house (since he had installed the VoIP network previously) so that's another fact. And that's where it falls apart. Everything else about the call faking is speculation. And then - when no equipment was found in the house that even COULD support the call faking - I think you lost a lot of folks to NG, or at least not beyond RD.

    Now - if you prove that an FXO supportable router was in fact in USE less than 12 hours prior to Nancy's death and then it was not found in the home when the home was secured or even in pictures taken on 7/12 - it makes me think that in addition to all this cleaning, that BC also redid his home network conveniently the day of his wife's death. Not just redid, mind you but disposed of Cisco property in the process (so the folks that say he was just a dedicated employee working on the weekend can't use that if he tossed out hardware Cisco paid for...) Really? Who DOES this?

    Answer - someone with something to hide.
    agreed...this is the smoking gun.


  4. #288
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    It didn't have to be at his house to be used.
    I think the log from the laptop will show that it was locally connected.
    I hope we get some technically competent reporting from the courtroom this afternoon.


  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:


  6. #289
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
    My laymans interpretation of the defense expert, was that he was basing much of his *opinions* on the work product of JWard. JW, IMO, was discredited as an expert, and his work product was derived by means not determined to be accurate. Had this new expert been hired and given the material right from the start, I wouldn't have a problem hearing from him. As a lay person, I don't trust the work product of JWard, and in his posting here at WS, he himself stated 'he told the defense he wasn't an expert in forensic examination of computers.' IMO, that tells me the defense should have politiely thanked him and moved along to find an expert who was tenured as such. MOO Attempting to bring in the new expert, who is basing much of his opinions on the work product of someone who admitted to NOT being a forensic computer expert, rubs me the wrong way and IMO open's up a whole new can of worms. MOO
    JW was not discredited as an expert. And the expert from yesterday said JW was fully qualified to read the material and it in fact does fall under his expertise as a network security expert.


  7. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  8. #290
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
    I think it would be enough to sway the jury.

    This has been the weakest part of the state's case IMO - all so hypothetical. BC had the knowledge how to do this which is fact, he USED TO have the right hardware in the house (since he had installed the VoIP network previously) so that's another fact. And that's where it falls apart. Everything else about the call faking is speculation. And then - when no equipment was found in the house that even COULD support the call faking - I think you lost a lot of folks to NG, or at least not beyond RD.

    Now - if you prove that an FXO supportable router was in fact in USE less than 12 hours prior to Nancy's death and then it was not found in the home when the home was secured or even in pictures taken on 7/12 - it makes me think that in addition to all this cleaning, that BC also redid his home network conveniently the day of his wife's death. Not just redid, mind you but disposed of Cisco property in the process (so the folks that say he was just a dedicated employee working on the weekend can't use that if he tossed out hardware Cisco paid for...) Really? Who DOES this?

    Answer - someone with something to hide.
    If the router was at the office and not at his house then there would be record of any spoofed call.


  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Danielle59 For This Useful Post:


  10. #291
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    Based on what Boz said, it seems he now wants us to think BC had planned to murder NC since January, he is bringing up January pings.

    It has been my interpretation, based on the internal purchase of the FXO router @ Cisco by BC in Jan 08, the "suicide" searches (not privy to the jury) in Feb 08, the e-mail interception of NCs by BC in Apr 08, the initial sep agreement Apr 08, BC confiscating the birth certs etc in Apr 08, there appears to be evidence of what could be interpreted (hind-sight) as planning as early as Jan 08.


  11. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Maja For This Useful Post:


  12. #292
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    554
    This has all been out there for discussion since what, Tuesday? Everyone was in such a tizzy over ducks and necklaces though, that it got lost in the shuffle.


  13. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bottle Cap For This Useful Post:


  14. #293
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    878
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
    I think it would be enough to sway the jury.

    This has been the weakest part of the state's case IMO - all so hypothetical. BC had the knowledge how to do this which is fact, he USED TO have the right hardware in the house (since he had installed the VoIP network previously) so that's another fact. And that's where it falls apart. Everything else about the call faking is speculation. And then - when no equipment was found in the house that even COULD support the call faking - I think you lost a lot of folks to NG, or at least not beyond RD.

    Now - if you prove that an FXO supportable router was in fact in USE less than 12 hours prior to Nancy's death and then it was not found in the home when the home was secured or even in pictures taken on 7/12 - it makes me think that in addition to all this cleaning, that BC also redid his home network conveniently the day of his wife's death. Not just redid, mind you but disposed of Cisco property in the process (so the folks that say he was just a dedicated employee working on the weekend can't use that if he tossed out hardware Cisco paid for...) Really? Who DOES this?

    Answer - someone with something to hide.
    THey should have taken pictures of the dust about the computer equipment. My routers and my modem have more dust than anywhere else in my house. If someone changed a configuration I think it would have been evident in their house.


  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Danielle59 For This Useful Post:


  16. #294
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by macd View Post
    Anyone want to talk on a hypothetical?
    Let's say that the log on the laptop indicates that a Cisco 3825 was in BC's house on July 11 at 10:30pm. Remembering that a 3825 would support an FXO port that could be used to spoof a call.
    Would this move anyone to the G side of the fence?
    It would move me to most likely guilty.

    ETA: Of course, that's about where I am anyways...it would just move me farther in that direction


  17. #295
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Bottle Cap View Post
    Okay. So if it was proven that the router was there on July 11 and missing as of July 12 - that wouldn't give anyone pause??
    It would be pretty damning. The question is what is the states definition of 'prove' in this instance. Before the trial I thought for sure they were able to prove the phone stuff more than they had at this point.


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  19. #296
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighNative View Post
    Hypothetical, but no, that would not move me to the guilty side of the fence. I would need information that the call WAS spoofed, not "could be used to spoof a call".

    I can still change my mind and hop over the fence. But that would not be enough for me. JMO

    If they prove one was there July 11 but not July 12, then the only logical explanation for me is that he ditched it somewhere. And the only reason to ditch it is to hide the evidence associated with it. So it makes the spoofed call much more of a reality. But I have a feeling if it is allowed, it's not going to be so straightforward, and the defense will be able to show that it was accessed through the vpn tunnel. Pure speculation on my part.


  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:


  21. #297
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    See above ^
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle59 View Post
    If the router was at the office and not at his house then there would be record of any spoofed call.
    If the ROUTER was used to connect to the VPN - then it COULD NOT have been at CISCO.

    In order for BC to have accessed the router if it was in the office (and oh, Cisco doesn't have the router..) he would have had to tunnel in VIA THE VPN first - and if he went through the FXO supportable router when he logged on to his VPN - then it was in his home. If VPN is tied to the FXO supportable router - that is the smoking gun to match the Google map search.

    And if that VPN access is late in the evening of the 11th - well - then to me that means he did the call spoofing set up that night. MAJOR premeditation - not just the time it took to strangle.

    One last thing - I also believe he'd been planning this for much longer than just that night.


  22. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to RaleighNC For This Useful Post:


  23. #298
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    362
    Quote Originally Posted by unc70 View Post
    And how to fake them. Probably not relevant at this point.
    My only point was that expert knowledge is not required by defense or prosecution team to decode the mac address.

    If you're implying that the someone planted a forged entry in the log file, then forgot to tell the prosecution until after they have presented their case-in-chief, then you're really stretching.


  24. The Following User Says Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:


  25. #299
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,436
    Quote Originally Posted by macd View Post
    A 3825 is big(4"x18"x15"), heavy(23lbs), loud(50dBA), and hot(8A). Nobody would want one in a living area of a house. If it was in the house, it was there for a short time for a specific purpose.

    If a 3825 is proven to be in the house on the night of the murder, to me this is akin to finding the smoking murder weapon.
    Given there are much smaller ones that could accomplish what he is accused of doing (such as the 2600), why would he use a 3825 instead?


  26. #300
    less0305's Avatar
    less0305 is offline The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember my name!
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    4,241
    My opinion has been he started planning it for sure as early as April. I have posted that I thought February was just as likely. And I can certainly even fit January into my frame of mind. Falls in line with when he admitted the affair and that he loved HM. My opinion is when NC didn't pack up and move back to Canada immediately upon the confession then he started trying to figure a way to get rid of her while keeping his money in his pocket and adding $75,000 to the coffer to boot. He underestimated Nancy's grit and resolve to not make it easy on him to be a free man. I believe he thought she was so miserable she would hit the trail back to Canada ASAP and not ask him for a thing - and that didn't happen. I truly wish Nancy had taken the opportunity then to run - run as fast as she could back to Canada.
    It's my own two cents. You don't have to read or like it.


  27. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to less0305 For This Useful Post:


Page 20 of 40 FirstFirst ... 10 18 19 20 21 22 30 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. State v. Bradley Cooper 4-7-2011
    By hotpinkstef in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 733
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 02:58 PM
  2. State v Bradley Cooper 4-5-2011
    By CyberPro in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 877
    Last Post: 04-07-2011, 11:27 PM
  3. State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011
    By less0305 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 664
    Last Post: 03-31-2011, 10:30 AM
  4. State v Bradley Cooper 3.14 .2011 - 3.?.??
    By otto in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 521
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 01:56 PM
  5. State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011
    By RaleighNC in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 186
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 08:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •