1003 users online (176 members and 827 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 408
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    10,387

    Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #19

    Please continue GENERAL discussions here. Look around Nancy has her own forum, there are several threads started on specific topics to try and stay organized.


    Links to previous and similar threads can be found toward the bottom of the page.


    Newbies.....



    I am sad such a tragedy is bringing us all together.

    I advise everyone to read the RULES of WS, Long and Short Version .

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    374
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberPro
    The stuff about possible alterations of the VOIP are speculation only, but worthy of a look.
    ok, thanks. I knew bits and pieces of the info below. Thanks for recapping.

    BC is a CCIE for VOIP with Cisco. According to his affidavit, NC Called him from home during his trips to the store, allegedly to get him to pick up some juice. IIRC, he said she called from home. According to an affidavit from one of the friends, BC had previously installed a Cisco VOIP unit in their home, and NC felt that BC was able to monitor and interrupt the calls to and from home. BC rebuts this claim, and stated that he had removed/replaced the Cisco phone with a normal VTech phone from Best Buy due to a request by NC.
    I read his statement about having a Cisco VoIP system at home, but I'm not sure what he means by that. Cisco doesn't sell consumer grade (i.e., home) VoIP systems. The VoIP systems Cisco sells are intended for small/medium businesses up to large corporations. They would be vast overkill for use as a home phone system. Even for someone with CCIE level skill in working with such a system, the hassle factor would seem to outweigh any benefit you can get from it.

    The consumer level VoIP products that Cisco sells are Linksys brand (Linksys is a Cisco subsidiary since their acquisition). Maybe that's what Brad was referring to.

    I also read where some of the affidavits of Nancy's friends said that Nancy believed that Brad was using the VoIP system to monitor her calls. That makes little sense to me. It is in fact significantly more difficult to eavesdrop on a VoIP network than it is a plain old telephone system. If you want to eavesdrop on telephone calls, you can go to Radio Shack and pay $30 for one of these then go to Target and get a $40 voice recorder and connect it in some clandestine place inside [or under] the house. If you want to eavesdrop remotely, you can hook the Radio Shack device to a laptop instead of a recorder and access that laptop via the Internet.

    All of the above is much easier than trying to eavesdrop on VoIP calls.

    The speculation is that BC was able to configure a phone device, it could have been a computer, fax, or a command in the VOIP system to place the call from home to the cell, thereby to establish a time anchor where an adult (presumably NC) was able to call his cell from home. If this IS actually true, it would mean that she was alive at approximately the time that she was supposed to go for the run. Speculation seems to be running that she was unable to run, walk, talk etc. at that time.
    Yeah, as others have said, there are a number of fairly trivial ways to place a phone call from somewhere other than where you are. I don't see how VoIP makes this any easier.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    See above ^
    Posts
    596
    There is an ability with services like Vonage to have a "soft phone" wherein your PC acts as your phone. Any time you access the web and start your "soft phone", if someone calls your number, it rings on your PC. This is helpful for businesses and folks who might travel frequently. I am not sure that calls initiated with a "sfot phone" register differently on the network than those that go through the telephone adapter at home - because the network may not distinguish them. With VoIP, you can get a NY number that rings in NC, or a Cali number that rings in Alaska, etc. Some folks use it so they can have a local number for where they used to live so friends can call wihtout toll charges. There is a lot of flexibility with VoIP.


    Alternatively, you can take your telephone adapter and reconnect it somewhere else to have your phone "move". Only downside to this - because of 911 - if you disconnect your telephone adapter - you have to confirm that you have not "moved" it and that has to be kept on record.

    I am not sure that TWC provides this type of soft phone service. I know Vonage does. With that - it would be easy to call yourself "from" home to your mobile phone using your laptop at Starbucks or any other network......

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthSayer View Post
    Yeah, as others have said, there are a number of fairly trivial ways to place a phone call from somewhere other than where you are. I don't see how VoIP makes this any easier.
    Given this, even if TWC records were to show that a call was made from the home to BC's mobile at a certain time of day, it wouldn't seem to conclusively prove anything. [ Though perhaps would help with a 'reasonable doubt' factor... if it ever comes to that... ]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    32,579
    I didn't get the impression that Nancy thought Brad was easdropping on her phone calls from work through VoIP but more keeping a log of her calls and having the ability to cause her home phone calls to suddenly disconnect for no reason.

    Of course Brad countered that he'd discontinued this VoIP because Nancy had asked him to. He may have done that, but I believe he could have hooked and unhooked it at will without Nancy knowing it. I know you may need a special kind of phone,but guys like this have a way of making one think you don't believe what your eyes see or that you go along with them and think, 'they wouldn't do that, I'm just being paranoid.'

    I know it's been said that once the phone call goes from the server or router or whatever into the public space the call is traceable and can't be tampered with. But, like I said before, it's not possible until someone figures out how to do it.

    Is it possible for Brad to have hidden the fact he had his home phone connected to VoIP? I mean within his computers?'

    I know once the phone call transfers to public access it can't be changed by him,.........but would this include TWC if it is on their service and not through the world wide internet?

    Is this why they want records of TWC?

    Thanks for all of the information you techies are supplying. I know my question sound simple, and well, they are. This is from a gal that only knows how to turn the computer on and off and access the internet. Give me just one glitch and I'm off to the Geek Squad!


    fran

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    middle tennessee
    Posts
    1,091
    Is there a way he could monitor her calls from his computer at work?
    Hinky Dinky Parlez Vous!-Sleuthy Gal

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,678
    Since I know nothing abou this phone system....

    It appears there are so many variables BC could have used with the phones.

    LE has got to have someone who is sharp and understands the phone system inside & out with all the possible avenues and devices BC could have used to...
    A--monitor NC
    B--place calls at particular times to certain phones from certain phones

    Just one slip up from LE or their expert can toss the entire phone allegations out of court when NC friends go on the stand, especially if this is BC's expertise.

    IMO...This is possibly what is holding up the LE in going to the GJ along with waiting for the DNA results.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    middle tennessee
    Posts
    1,091
    You could be right MT3K. It could be so technical that it's gibberish to the average lay person or juror. They may be waiting for the DNA for backup.
    Hinky Dinky Parlez Vous!-Sleuthy Gal

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,678
    Quote Originally Posted by EntreNous View Post
    You could be right MT3K. It could be so technical that it's gibberish to the average lay person or juror. They may be waiting for the DNA for backup.

    This has gotten so confusing with all the possibilities BC could have used and hearing this is what he essentially does for a living, I am sure LE wants it absolutely clear to the jury how he did it. The more sophisticated he got shows how he intentionally tried to NOT get caught and deceive everyone. IMHO
    Last edited by momto3kids; 08-12-2008 at 12:24 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    203
    I don't think it is as difficult as we're making it. It all just seems too much for someone who just committed as crime of passion...


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,856
    Quote Originally Posted by CARYISHOME View Post
    I don't think it is as difficult as we're making it. It all just seems too much for someone who just committed as crime of passion...
    I agree - I think the KISS principle most likely applies.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    middle tennessee
    Posts
    1,091
    Quote Originally Posted by CARYISHOME View Post
    I don't think it is as difficult as we're making it. It all just seems too much for someone who just committed as crime of passion...
    The monitoring possibility has nothing to do with premeditation to my thinking. But goes a long way in supporting the controlling allegations. Likewise, using the "soft call" feature after the fact could totally be something someone would do in an effort to cover their tracks, whether it was a crime of passion or not.

    And I really don't mean to insult a jurors intelligence but I learned not to take anything for granted when it comes to jurors after the OJ trial.
    Hinky Dinky Parlez Vous!-Sleuthy Gal

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by CARYISHOME View Post
    I don't think it is as difficult as we're making it. It all just seems too much for someone who just committed as crime of passion...
    This has occurred to me too. Who knows what happened, but it does seem a real stretch to think someone who committed a crime of passion would have the presence of mind to think (and want to spend time) "faking" a phone call from home just to (theoretically) set up an alibi.

    BC probably knows enough to know that this wouldn't prove anything anyway (as many have asserted on this board, it's fairly easy to fake this...BC would know it's easy to fake... so why waste time on something that would prove nothing for you... it doesn't make sense).

    If it's a crime of passion scenario, I'm thinking one would be much more worried about making doubly sure everything is squeaky clean in the crib. Setting up a (meaningless) fake phone call would seem hardly worth the while.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    203
    Quote Originally Posted by EntreNous View Post
    The monitoring possibility has nothing to do with premeditation to my thinking. But goes a long way in supporting the controlling allegations. Likewise, using the "soft call" feature after the fact could totally be something someone would do in an effort to cover their tracks, whether it was a crime of passion or not.

    And I really don't mean to insult a jurors intelligence but I learned not to take anything for granted when it comes to jurors after the OJ trial.
    I agree we shouldn't take anything for granted. I'm just saying that things probably got to be very surreal for someone that early Saturday morning; seems to me it would take an incredible amount of thought and planning to do all the things we're suggesting was done.

    I admit I am not familiar with"soft calls, etc." I guess I would not be an intelligent juror.....

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,856
    Quote Originally Posted by jumpstreet View Post
    This has occurred to me too. Who knows what happened, but it does seem a real stretch to think someone who committed a crime of passion would have the presence of mind to think (and want to spend time) "faking" a phone call from home just to (theoretically) set up an alibi.

    BC probably knows enough to know that this wouldn't prove anything anyway (as many have asserted on this board, it's fairly easy to fake this, BC would know this, so why bother).

    If it's a crime of passion scenario, I'm thinking one would be much more worried about making doubly sure everything is squeaky clean in the crib. Setting up a (meaningless) fake phone call would seem hardly worth the while.
    Because Brad said Nancy called him from home - doesn't mean for certain the call generated from the landline. LE already knows this answer - a check of Nancy's cell phone itself might list it and definitely records could answer the question quickly.

Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26
    By christine2448 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 950
    Last Post: 10-12-2008, 10:33 AM
  2. Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #22
    By chicoliving in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 516
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 03:37 PM
  3. Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #21
    By christine2448 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 725
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 01:51 PM
  4. Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #8
    By christine2448 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 447
    Last Post: 07-23-2008, 10:46 AM
  5. Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #7
    By christine2448 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 384
    Last Post: 07-19-2008, 04:17 PM

Tags for this Thread