April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

Status
Not open for further replies.
He wasn't even linked to the FBI. He was part of an AUSA task force on Cyber Crime that had access to FBI gear. (Another reason this thing is so jacked up. A) Why were they involved? and B) why the blind tools really?) He was a Special Dep. Marshal under all of that.

Hasn't there been an ongoing, international kiddie *advertiser censored* investigation? IIRC, there was at least one major arrest of somebody in Cary. Linked to arrests in Missouri, a couple other states and some foreign countries.
 
Chappell did not offer an opinion on why they showed invalid timestamps, but opined that it could just be normal for the OS. The defense has contended that they were altered to reflect 7/11. The other timestamp on all of the files shows 7/11.

Normal for an operating system to screw up the time stamps of really important evidence that is needed to convict someone of murder? I don't think so. And it's also true that police neglected to note the altered time stamp on that very important evidence because they thought it was irrelevant? There's something wrong, and this is made worse by the fact that investigators keep volunteering their opinion that Brad is guilty. How desperate are they to see him convicted?
 
I think one poster on this board is actually employed by Kurtz. If they aren't, they should be getting a commission. I agree, trying to sway public opinion on a message board is certainly a waste of time and resources. We don't get to vote.

Yes, but that was one of the factors in the OJ case, was that the general public was allowed much more information than the jurors. (They didn't hear details of the Bronco chase, suicide note, or even his first interview with the cops.) There was publicity every night on the national news over what was happening, and lots of coverage of much more inconsequential stuff, the stuff being presented, and reviews of both the pros and def performances.

Now, this case is barely being touched in the press. Yes there is an update every day, but it does little to shed light on what is actually happening in court. So it makes sense that if you have a family member/friend in the trial, you are going to look for more detailed accounts. And that leads you to boards at this point. And we hope jurors don't discuss, but come on...to hear your husband say, I have seen what is going on with BC, and it looks fishy to me. Your response could be, I can't discuss, but it makes you wonder.

And as in OJ, they only have to provide doubt, not another solid theory. And those doubts do become viral on boards, etc., and they garner more attention sometimes than the plain facts.

And what I am concerned about, is whether the prosecution is taking all procautionary measures to ensure that they can wipe out the doubt. Trying to fight information away, like they did in OJ, rather than just confront it head on seems risky now with media involvement and internet...
 
Okay, before I go to bed, here's the other part of cross I found relevant.

Kurtz began asking about router logs...
K-FBI never asked for router logs. Is it true that dropping a file from an internal hard drive can result in an invalid timestamp?
C-It's possible.
K-You are aware of a lot of activity on port 445? C-Yes. K-Port 445 is for file sharing. All activity was denied, wasn't it? According to the CSA log?
The fact that attempts from an internal address were denied --couldn't that mean that someone made it into the network?
C-Give me the date.
K-July 15. 3 attempts in a row. What could this mean? That someone made it into the network?
C-Yes, but it could be benign.
K-When did you look at the CSA log?
C-Last night.
K-Why didn't you look at the CSA log before last night?
C-This is not the only case I was working on.

(Me--??????)

What!!! The expert testified that someone made three attempts to crack into the network on July 15?
 
Bottlecap, you joined the party late. Let me just say that we have some dedicated sleuthers on the board. ;) It has been done. I can report, without reservation, that a person can be dragged by a sports bra. And the bra rolls either under or up, depending on how it's grabbed.

You guys don't mess around do ya? I don't know, might still have to do it over here myself, and drag someone by their arms or legs. Never heard of anybody being dragged BY a bra. (Well I have, but that's another story and all the people were alive.)
 
She said all 500 files modified during that 41 seconds had an invalid timestamp. Not just a file.

So did Brad modify the time stamp on the computer, do the search, then return the time stamp to the correct time?
 
Let me share some totally unscientific and meaningless "survey" data with you. Thursday and Friday as I went about my regular activities, I did my own crude sample of local public interest and opinion on the Cooper case. I live in Chapel Hill, about 20-25 miles from that part of Cary. My sample is of people in CH and west Durham.

As I saw friends and acquaintances at stores, post office, laundry, bank, etc., following a typical interchange "Hi, how are you, what have you been up to?", I might respond "Oh, probably watching too much of the Cooper trial." Roughly half of the people immediately starting talking about the trial, a few others did after I followed with "Have you been following it any?" Tried to avoid any bias until I got a read on their position,
heard their comments. A few of these people are friends, the rest acquaintances who I know relatively little about beyond what I see. Ages 25-65; 3/4 women; 2/3 AA. A range of education and job types. (CH-Durham is even more educated than Cary!)

And the results!

Of the 25 people, I was surprised that 2/3 were following the trial at some level, 1/3 had read various news reports in addition to TV. Several had been watching trial videos like we have. Every single one who was following the story thought BC would walk. Two volunteered that they had not watched the videos, but their SOs had and were certain BC would walk. Every single one, some a lot more certain than others. Not a one thought BC would be convicted, even those who watched WRAL as their main new source.

Their comments were varied. About how long the trial was taking; about not wanting to be on that jury; about the lack of evidence; about how much money NC and friends spent and still complained, then wanted all that money in a divorce; about what she was spending all that money on; about her not being physically abused. Many still thought BC might have killed her, but thought the case was a joke.

Out of this small sample of just over a dozen, two raised the possibility that NC was putting some of the money up her nose!

Someone a couple of days back had suggested that the women on the jury would connect with NC's plight. If the jury reactions are anything like my small sample, they should not count on being cut much slack. This crowd was harsh.

Thought I would share this for your amusement. It means nothing except wrt my friends and acquaintances. Too small a sample, even if I had constructed a valid and robust survey instrument.
 
What!!! The expert testified that someone made three attempts to crack into the network on July 15?

I would need to know the time. Could it have been Brad trying to get back into his own computer from a remote location? That would make the most sense to me.
 
Oh and for the websleuthy awards, I would nominate gracielee for the "best use of smilie emoticons".

Oh Thank you, thank you..... You LIKE ME! YOU REALLY LIKE ME!

< sally fields off >

:blushing:

:dance:

:blowkiss:

:party:
 
And why didn't nancy try to fight to get away?

Someone held a gun on her before they overpowered her. There is no way to know whether she would have frozen in fear if someone had done that -- and maybe even threatened to kill her kids if she did not cooperate.
 
I would need to know the time. Could it have been Brad trying to get back into his own computer from a remote location? That would make the most sense to me.

If Brad was home stewing at the computer Friday night, reading Nancy's email, logging on and off, getting himself worked up because he knew she was at the party talking about him... and realized he'd screwed up by leaving evidence of the Google search on his work computer, you mean? He might have tried to access it remotely to clean it up?
 
Let me share some totally unscientific and meaningless "survey" data with you. Thursday and Friday as I went about my regular activities, I did my own crude sample of local public interest and opinion on the Cooper case. I live in Chapel Hill, about 20-25 miles from that part of Cary. My sample is of people in CH and west Durham.

As I saw friends and acquaintances at stores, post office, laundry, bank, etc., following a typical interchange "Hi, how are you, what have you been up to?", I might respond "Oh, probably watching too much of the Cooper trial." Roughly half of the people immediately starting talking about the trial, a few others did after I followed with "Have you been following it any?" Tried to avoid any bias until I got a read on their position,
heard their comments. A few of these people are friends, the rest acquaintances who I know relatively little about beyond what I see. Ages 25-65; 3/4 women; 2/3 AA. A range of education and job types. (CH-Durham is even more educated than Cary!)

And the results!

Of the 25 people, I was surprised that 2/3 were following the trial at some level, 1/3 had read various news reports in addition to TV. Several had been watching trial videos like we have. Every single one who was following the story thought BC would walk. Two volunteered that they had not watched the videos, but their SOs had and were certain BC would walk. Every single one, some a lot more certain than others. Not a one thought BC would be convicted, even those who watched WRAL as their main new source.

Their comments were varied. About how long the trial was taking; about not wanting to be on that jury; about the lack of evidence; about how much money NC and friends spent and still complained, then wanted all that money in a divorce; about what she was spending all that money on; about her not being physically abused. Many still thought BC might have killed her, but thought the case was a joke.

Out of this small sample of just over a dozen, two raised the possibility that NC was putting some of the money up her nose!

Someone a couple of days back had suggested that the women on the jury would connect with NC's plight. If the jury reactions are anything like my small sample, they should not count on being cut much slack. This crowd was harsh.

Thought I would share this for your amusement. It means nothing except wrt my friends and acquaintances. Too small a sample, even if I had constructed a valid and robust survey instrument.

Thanks for that. That's where I'm at right now. I think it's quite possible Brad did this, but that is based on the fact that wives are often murdered by their husbands. In terms of evidence proving that he is responsible, I'm either not seeing it or what I'm seeing is shakey. Opinions from officers, admissions that there is no proof, and the Judge showing a little to much interesting in seeing a conviction all raise eyebrows.
 
I don't think that Brad would ever have agreed to the children being so far away in part because of the additional cost for visits, not to mention the limited contact. That was what Nancy wanted, and although we have heard that Brad was just fine with that, I suspect that there was more to it. If it was that straight forward, she would have moved to Toronto. Instead, he was keeping the passports (or they split them between the two parents) to ensure that she didn't take the children and leave the country. I don't see that as controlling, I see that as asserting his rights as a parent. Nancy and friends seem to think it was perfectly fine for Nancy to take the children and leave the country, but part of me wonders why. Children need both parents, even after divorce.

Brad himself said he spent the majority of his time at work and training for his competitions. On his site he said 12 or 13 hours a day on the week-ends. I think he would have been perfectly fine with nancy taking the girls, but for that pesky separation agreement. He didn't want to have to pay. Brad himself bought the 'interview suit/clothes' for nancy to job hunt in Toronto. Why would he do that if he didn't want her to go. He checked into renting a moving van as opposed to hiring movers. DD bought her ticket to fly home from Toronto after driving up with nancy and the kids. It was all set. Brad wanted her out by the end of April. And then that pesky separation agreement, with child support and alimony turned up in nancy's stolen email, and all plans were off. MOO Brad kept up with his French cutie. Brad would have been perfectly fine IMO. He never even met his nephew, didn't know his name. Brad's not into family much.
 
Well, the expert said, "Yes, but it could be benign."

????

I suppose that means that the operating system did that too? That doesn't sound quite right. The operating system randomly altered the time stamps on specific files crucial to the case, but it was considered irrelevant, and three consecutive attempts to hack into the computer went unnoticed until the night before he testified?
 
FullDisclosure said:
K-Is that something you omitted intentionally?
C-I omitted lots of things I didn't find relevant.
K-Did you note that all 500(?) files in this 41 seconds had invalid time stamps?
C-I was satisfied that the other 7 time stamps were correct.
K-Why didn't you put your name and the date on your report?
C-It was really just notes, not a report.

Thank you so much. All the files in that 41 seconds have invalid times stamps!!!!!

First place I have seen that reported. So much for the Google Maps evidence.
 
I would need to know the time. Could it have been Brad trying to get back into his own computer from a remote location? That would make the most sense to me.

Brad hacking into his computer to alter time stamps on files so they illustrated a search of the drainage ditch location on July 11? I'm still not clear on what time stamp the files actually had, or whether that could not be determined. If they had an altered time stamp, and the original time stamp can't be determined, then it's a little difficult to conclude that the files were created on July 11. Except, if they were in some sort of stacking order and those particular files had the incorrect time stamp, but at the same time the access to the files could be placed in between other files that were accessed on July 11?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
3,902
Total visitors
4,047

Forum statistics

Threads
591,661
Messages
17,957,150
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top