April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

Madeleine74 · Apr 23, 2011

I just remembered something. Brad himself told detectives he was in his office, bouncing around on the Internet and doing Google searches the morning of July 12. IIRC no one had asked him what he was doing on his computer, but he volunteered this info.

I wonder if Brad thought there could be incriminating evidence and he was already trying to give an explanation for it? Seems like a very specific detail to offer up when no one has asked.

Much like offering up that the missing wife who he didn't see when she left that morning to go running was wearing a black/red/gray jogging bra.

gracielee · Apr 23, 2011

Bottle Cap said:
Something else I don't get. Why is it so hard to believe a husband would never dump his wife's mostly naked body in a ditch? Where'd Scott leave Laci's? Where'd condition did Jason leave his wife in? How's about OJ? How long does the list need to be? Maybe Drew Peterson left one of them in a nice warm scented bubble bath because he loved her so much, but I kinda doubt it. There's a LOT of opinions here I can't make sense of, but that one just baffles my noggin.

Exactly, and when the washed up remains of Laci & Connor were shown at trial, scott didn't even blink an eye. Controlling Brad couldn't have cared less at dumping the mother of his children, naked, face down in a drainage ditch IMO. Remember Mark Hacking was it, where did he dump his wife? And I will never forget that one out west. What was his name? his little girl Abby has never been found, but I remember still, the way his wife's leg kind of 'fell out' from the compacted garbage at the dump after volunteers had been searching for her for days.

unc70 · Apr 23, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Care to elaborate?

Not between G and NG, but in the other choices. I am expecting you will need a cascading set of options in 7-10 days to allow for other defendants. There is too much stuff going on to keep a lid on it.

otto · Apr 23, 2011

gracielee said:
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.

Brad not knowing middle names and so on doesn't bother me at all, and I wouldn't conclude that he wasn't interested in his children because he didn't know his mother's middle name. As far as providing the name of his brother's young child to a lawyer, knowing that it may become public record ... I too would probably forget names.

Brad telling Nancy that she was welcome to move is one thing, but telling her that she could take the children out of the country sounds like something completely different. Brad was talking about having a nanny for the children, and suggested that Nancy might like to be paid to watch the children while he worked. I understand that this was considered offensive by Nancy and her friends, but it meant that the children would not be uprooted, that Nancy could have an independent income, and that Nancy could live separate from him without leaving the country. In fact, maybe they could have had an arrangement where the children remained in the home and the parents rotated out every week.

gracielee · Apr 23, 2011

ncsu95 said:
But again, the equipment he would have dumped (router and fxo) card is not all that was needed. It still would have required a computer to run the call manager. And there has been zero evidence that that any computers are missing (sans the sony laptop...but there is an explanation for that one). And since none are missing and none are wiped, there would have been forensic evidence showing the call manager on it and that a call was made. We know that none of the call managers at Cisco showed record of any calls. So if that is what he did, he ran his own. But where is the evidence of it? It would have to be on one of the computers that they seized.

My own impression of the witness testimony was that it was possible to do it, Brad had access to and receipts for cisco equipment, and that it was possible to do it and not leave any trace. As a non-techie, that was the understanding I came away with after listening to his testimony. And I'm stickin' with it. :seeya:

Bottle Cap · Apr 23, 2011

Right. Whole new tack on this.

Brad hacked himself from home. Motive, means, opportunity (and all those tech qualifications). He was trying to clean it up. Took him 3 tries, but he got all the timestamps changed. He knew exactly which 41 seconds to look for.

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

FullDisclosure said:
To be clear, it was all the timestamps in the SAM column. Of all the timestamps on the whole computer history, somewhere around 2% were invalid. 100% of the timestamps in the SAM column for the 41 second Fielding Dr. search were invalid. It made me go hmmmmm.....

What is SAM?

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

jmflu said:
I'm kinda confused as to which side of the fence you were currently on!

I've been clear since the "smoking gun" bomb that I was on the guilty side, but barely hanging on the fence. I wanted to see what the defense had to offer.

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
I guess it would depend on the mindset. When Brad was being interviewed, he seemed very focused on the jogging bras. If a person were of that mindset, the first thing they might determine had to be put on a jogging woman might be the jog bra. Once he had to struggle with that, he gave up on the rest. That makes a lot more sense to me than someone taking every other single item off except that bra. (They are easier to get off than on. MOO)

Again, I did a google search for women murdered and found only in a bra (not jogging bra, just bra) and there were tons of hits. So it's not that "unusual" to find a murder victim with nothing but a bra on

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

WolfpackWoman said:
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 OS changes that cause invalid time stamps at the exact moment he is doing a google search sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

otto · Apr 23, 2011

ncsu95 said:
What is SAM?

Security Accounts Manager --> Read all about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Accounts_Manager

gracielee · Apr 23, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Sounds like you have an interesting weekend ahead of you. :floorlaugh:

I just love it when you use the little guys!:great:

'Make's me wanna dance, throw my head back, dance' :woohoo:

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

FullDisclosure said:
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--??????)

Wow, how ridiculous. The "star" witness for the prosecution doesn't even fully look at the data until the night before he is to testify. Really?

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

Bottle Cap said:
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.)

It was an interesting thread, but yes she did reenact it twice. The first time (if I remember), it was her husband trying to put the jog bra on. The second time, she "played dead" and he drug her around. We're trying to get the prosecution or defense to call her as a witness. :floorlaugh:

jmflu · Apr 23, 2011

ncsu95 said:
I've been clear since the "smoking gun" bomb that I was on the guilty side, but barely hanging on the fence. I wanted to see what the defense had to offer.

I wasn't being smart with you. There's a lot of posters and I honestly couldn't remember!

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

otto said:
So did Brad modify the time stamp on the computer, do the search, then return the time stamp to the correct time?

I'm pretty confident in saying No. If he was going to do that, why not just use another computer at the office that wasn't his (like a lab computer).

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
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.

He would know the password to get in. The attempts wouldn't have failed (at least not 3 times).

jmflu · Apr 23, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Again, I did a google search for women murdered and found only in a bra (not jogging bra, just bra) and there were tons of hits. So it's not that "unusual" to find a murder victim with nothing but a bra on

No, that's not unusual in and of itself. It's the fact that she went running and should have had shoes and socks, and most importantly, Brad had a clairvoyant moment and offered up the info of the one and only thing she was wearing.

gracielee · Apr 23, 2011

ncsu95 said:
I don't agree with him doing it, but he posted nothing about the evidence in the trial. He was basically trying to clear up the misconceptions being posted in here about him.

He did make vague references to 'there being something on the computer' dadada dah You know, that spooky music right before something scary happens in a movie. :fence: Me thinks judge would be ready to burst with fury. I mean, he was scary about the tweets. Witnesses just don't post online, during a trial. Even Judge Ito would have burst a vein.

ncsu95 · Apr 23, 2011

Bottle Cap said:
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?

He wouldn't need to access it remotely. The laptop was in the Cooper house on Friday night.

April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

Knower of Things

Active Member

New Member

Verified Expert

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Verified Expert

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics