Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Crimes and Trials > Trials > Nancy Cooper

Notices

Nancy Cooper Found murdered after being reported missing while on a morning jog


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #476  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:39 PM
NCEast's Avatar
NCEast NCEast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by FullDisclosure View Post
BBM
For a moment, I thought you'd friended him on facebook.
I did and the next day 'friending' was blocked. Can only 'like' now.
I was wondering if profile meant physical appearance or written word.
  #477  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:41 PM
phillygirl phillygirl is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
I'm with some others on this. Let it all in. Let the defense put up their forensic expert from yesterday and let this rebuttal witness testify and let the chips fall where they may. If it's proven that there was a router in his house that night that could contain an FXO card, then the jury has to come back with guilty. If it's not clear or more smoke and mirrors (which quite honestly most of this trial has been) then any of the 3 choices for verdict could be had, probably odds leaning toward NG or Hung.

The state knows their case is thin. I think everyone knows that now. This is pretty much their last ditch effort to drive it home. If they swing and miss, well...
I agree. How would you like to be on that jury and come to a verdict after all this time, only to find out that you didn't have all the information and your verdict would have been different?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to phillygirl For This Useful Post:
  #478  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:46 PM
NCEast's Avatar
NCEast NCEast is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by FullDisclosure View Post
And I think I know which one you're talking about.
When I inquired about this only last week I was berated by another poster. Glad to know there is somebody on the jury who may be following all of the tech. issues.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NCEast For This Useful Post:
  #479  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:50 PM
LyndyLoo's Avatar
LyndyLoo LyndyLoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North of 49th Parallel
Posts: 2,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palomine View Post
it has to do with the router that was brought in and shown during Jay's testimony and it has to do with the command prompts and such that Jay was talking about
LTNS fellow Canuk..thought you were To'd..Anyway..you are correct..Although the actual Router is missing, Cisco has in the 11th hour found the buried records of just what went thru that rounter..and voila!!

That router was actualy Cisco owned,( tho ordered by Brad January '08) so would and should have records of its activity regardless of where it was?? and so they should unless it gets utilized or sold to private party...What really bugs my butt is why did it take so long to figure that out?? Geesh!!..But, maybe Super intellent Puter geeks dont think that way ..Geesh.

Someone may correct me IF I am wrong..but wasnt these records requestioned months (Feb) ago..prior to trial to Cisco?..thus made it admissible?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LyndyLoo For This Useful Post:
  #480  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:57 PM
jrb0124 jrb0124 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palomine View Post
it has to do with the command prompts and such that Jay was talking about
No it doesn't.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jrb0124 For This Useful Post:
  #481  
Old 04-29-2011, 07:57 PM
jrb0124 jrb0124 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndyLoo View Post
Cisco has in the 11th hour found the buried records of just what went thru that rounter
No they haven't.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jrb0124 For This Useful Post:
  #482  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:09 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by fran View Post
I would imagine BC is pretty upset that one of his own fellow Cisco employees is going to show how he had a router that he used the night of 7/11 and now it can't be found.

I mean, seriously,..... IF there is NOTHING to this missing router, why is the def team so bent on not allowing the testimony? Everyone already thinks the pros hasn't proven their case. What's one more piece of useless info, except to make the jury angrier at the pros for wasting their time? Right?

Seems someone is protesting too much.

This is an interesting development. Should make for a week of fireworks between this pros/def. Heck, we might even get a verdict within this next week as well.

JMHO
fran
I think the defense was asking more for fairness. They were saying yesterday that they object for the same reason that M isn't allowed to testify. It really is a fairness issue.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:
  #483  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:12 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by gracielee View Post
Not being snarky in the least, I'm simply curious as to how many trials you have watched or listened to from opening statements to closing arguments? I can't recall when Court TV first came on the air, IIRC it was late '80's/early '90s?? Someone help me? One of the earliest cases I recall is the Michigan anchorwoman, I think her name was Diane something? Shot to death by her husband, in the driveway of their rural home, while her two children were in their carseats in the backseat of her car. And I recall the Native American guy who was drunk, Christmas Eve, driving the wrong way in the interstate, smashed into a car going in the right direction, killing a mother and her three young daughters, critically injuring the husband. That one was either in Arizona or N.M. I've been doing this for over 20 years, and I truly didn't see anything different going on in this trial than others I've watched. The Michael Peterson trial was kind of a wacky one, the Rae Carruth one was very defense biased IMO. Rae got off easy, he so hired those guys to kill Shrarika Adams was it, and his unborn child. MOO MOO MOO

The only one I've come close to watching from start to finish was the circus masquerading as the OJ Simpson trial. I admittedly don't know much about our legal system. However, I do recognize fairness...and what I've seen here isn't fairness.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:
  #484  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:21 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndyLoo View Post
I have been reading, yet have begged off from posting..awaiting if this new revelations are allowed or not...I say in the interest of justice//Let this newbie Forensic Expert testify for defense..and allow this new stuff in too.. IF all else fails..declare a mistrial and start over and forget about missing duckies, forget about suspicions by friends, forget about whether Nancy wore her necklace ALL the time..Just bring in this computer forensics/router logs/phone logs, and point to Bradley basically stalking his wife etc....

KISS would be much more efficient..and in the interest of expedience..leave all the gossip, and cr@pp0ll@ out of it..and not embarrass people.... YES keep in AS and parents and Krista..to give background but forget about all the garbage of who's turned lesbian or who's smitten with whom...Couch trists, closet encouters..There is plenty of other indications to show the directions of their relationship....(I pray those kids are Happy!!)

I have to believe all posters here want justice...so why not get to the bottom on what Brad DID or DIDNT DO, given his expertise, who could have buried things sooooo deep..it took many many minds to dig thru all the cra@pp0ll@ to get to the truth of the matter..IF there is NOTHING there..then OKay..

I am just getting frustrated with all the menusia!!! Sorry

Hope everyone had a wonderful, safe day!!


I do want justice. And for the 3rd time this week, I agree with you 100%
The Following User Says Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:
  #485  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:24 PM
SleuthinNC's Avatar
SleuthinNC SleuthinNC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,338
The twists in this case are so bizarre. JW, CF it's like a security geek cage match. They are very much alike and clearly have great mutual respect for each other. Has the case gone completely haywire and become a techno battle rather than quest for justice?
__________________
Hoisted with his own Petard
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SleuthinNC For This Useful Post:
  #486  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:26 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
So here's the deal: lots of routers have the capability to have FXO ports. However, it is extremely a rare case to actually have an FXO port configured in a router. There simply are not a lot of use cases for this. Most routers with telephone interfaces either have FXS ports (to plug a phone into) or T1 (to plug into a PBX or telephony switch).

If he did have a router that could support an FXO port, it would be relatively easy to figure out if he had configured it with an FXO interface.

Now, in order to configure such router, he would have either needed to telnet into the router or connect a console cable to the router from a PC. Both of these would theoretically leave evidence on the PC that had configured the router. It's not fast or easy to do.

So in order to determine if this whole conversation is relevant, first you would need to determine:

1. that the router was actually there in his household on the evening of 7/11
2. that the router was missing on 7/12 or after

There are two possible ways to do that. First, check any switches that were in the house. They should indicate a history of the router connecting to the switch. You would need to connect to the switch in order to telnet. OR

Second, check whatever program you would use to connect to the router via the console cable. This would be found on the PC.

All of this should be discoverable in either the switch or the PC.
Interesting. These are basically the exact questions I've asked on here this week (would he need the PC to provision the router). I was told by someone (I don't remember who) that you could use a keyboard and monitor directly to the router without the PC. At least I think that is what they said.
  #487  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:29 PM
Palomine's Avatar
Palomine Palomine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
I'm with some others on this. Let it all in. Let the defense put up their forensic expert from yesterday and let this rebuttal witness testify and let the chips fall where they may. If it's proven that there was a router in his house that night that could contain an FXO card, then the jury has to come back with guilty. If it's not clear or more smoke and mirrors (which quite honestly most of this trial has been) then any of the 3 choices for verdict could be had, probably odds leaning toward NG or Hung.

The state knows their case is thin. I think everyone knows that now. This is pretty much their last ditch effort to drive it home. If they swing and miss, well...
Yes lets let it all in ...even all the evidence the Judge won't let the Pros admit because it is too prejudicial to Brad...I am all for letting in ALL the evidence..every little history byte found on his computers ...this was discussed in open court
The Following User Says Thank You to Palomine For This Useful Post:
  #488  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:29 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palomine View Post
it has to do with the router that was brought in and shown during Jay's testimony and it has to do with the command prompts and such that Jay was talking about
The only thing discussed concerning that router was the size of it. That, and Boz asked him to point to the fxo port (which there wasn't one).
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:
  #489  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:30 PM
RaleighNC's Avatar
RaleighNC RaleighNC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: See above ^
Posts: 596
I think this case is showcasing the future of what law enforcement might have to deal with - and highlights the limited capacity of detectives to deal with this kind of data, as well as the limited success in which attorney and experts can paint that picture I spoke of a couple months ago.

Regardless of the verdict - attorneys and PD's all over the country are going to be talking about, and learning from, this case.

LyndyLoo was spot on in her post. The focus on the "evidence" that the CPD was comfortable with - ducks, statements from friends, weird behavior, security tapes from stores, buying habits - all ultimately yielded nothing and perhaps just served to pi$$ off the jury when they realized it was much ado about nothing.

I still believe the jury will deliver NG. Just too much static clouding the case.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RaleighNC For This Useful Post:
  #490  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:31 PM
SleuthinNC's Avatar
SleuthinNC SleuthinNC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
Interesting. These are basically the exact questions I've asked on here this week (would he need the PC to provision the router). I was told by someone (I don't remember who) that you could use a keyboard and monitor directly to the router without the PC. At least I think that is what they said.
I think it was me and I was saying the same thing about connecting the PC to the router using a console cable. I may have worded it poorly.
__________________
Hoisted with his own Petard
The Following User Says Thank You to SleuthinNC For This Useful Post:
  #491  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:31 PM
oenophile oenophile is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
Interesting. These are basically the exact questions I've asked on here this week (would he need the PC to provision the router). I was told by someone (I don't remember who) that you could use a keyboard and monitor directly to the router without the PC. At least I think that is what they said.
No, you need to have a PC of some sort to provision a router. But you can connect to it directly via a console cable, which is a very specialized cable for configuring routers. BC would definitely have had one, no doubt. Anyone who has ever configured a router probably has a console cable lying around. But the log of accessing the router should theoretically be on the PC somewhere (not as confident about that though, since I've never actually searched for a log).
The Following User Says Thank You to oenophile For This Useful Post:
  #492  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:31 PM
Palomine's Avatar
Palomine Palomine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,291
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyndyLoo View Post
LTNS fellow Canuk..thought you were To'd..Anyway..you are correct..Although the actual Router is missing, Cisco has in the 11th hour found the buried records of just what went thru that rounter..and voila!!

That router was actualy Cisco owned,( tho ordered by Brad January '08) so would and should have records of its activity regardless of where it was?? and so they should unless it gets utilized or sold to private party...What really bugs my butt is why did it take so long to figure that out?? Geesh!!..But, maybe Super intellent Puter geeks dont think that way ..Geesh.

Someone may correct me IF I am wrong..but wasnt these records requestioned months (Feb) ago..prior to trial to Cisco?..thus made it admissible?
as I understood it Cisco wouldn't give it up without a court order...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Palomine For This Useful Post:
  #493  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:34 PM
Tink56's Avatar
Tink56 Tink56 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
I think this case is showcasing the future of what law enforcement might have to deal with - and highlights the limited capacity of detectives to deal with this kind of data, as well as the limited success in which attorney and experts can paint that picture I spoke of a couple months ago.

Regardless of the verdict - attorneys and PD's all over the country are going to be talking about, and learning from, this case.

LyndyLoo was spot on in her post. The focus on the "evidence" that the CPD was comfortable with - ducks, statements from friends, weird behavior, security tapes from stores, buying habits - all ultimately yielded nothing and perhaps just served to pi$$ off the jury when they realized it was much ado about nothing.

I still believe the jury will deliver NG. Just too much static clouding the case.
LOL...Actually, since the jury asked about the end of the trial during the defense's case, I think they are voting GUILTY.

Regardless, since so many seem to have "inside" information about the defense and its case, who is the defense's trial/jury consultant?? Are they a local firm?

Thanks...
__________________
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tink56 For This Useful Post:
  #494  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:36 PM
SleuthinNC's Avatar
SleuthinNC SleuthinNC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by oenophile View Post
So here's the deal: lots of routers have the capability to have FXO ports. However, it is extremely a rare case to actually have an FXO port configured in a router. There simply are not a lot of use cases for this. Most routers with telephone interfaces either have FXS ports (to plug a phone into) or T1 (to plug into a PBX or telephony switch).

If he did have a router that could support an FXO port, it would be relatively easy to figure out if he had configured it with an FXO interface.

Now, in order to configure such router, he would have either needed to telnet into the router or connect a console cable to the router from a PC. Both of these would theoretically leave evidence on the PC that had configured the router. It's not fast or easy to do.

So in order to determine if this whole conversation is relevant, first you would need to determine:

1. that the router was actually there in his household on the evening of 7/11
2. that the router was missing on 7/12 or after

There are two possible ways to do that. First, check any switches that were in the house. They should indicate a history of the router connecting to the switch. You would need to connect to the switch in order to telnet. OR

Second, check whatever program you would use to connect to the router via the console cable. This would be found on the PC.

All of this should be discoverable in either the switch or the PC.
Thanks for spelling all this out. This is exactly what I meant when I said it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out what did or did not happen.
__________________
Hoisted with his own Petard
The Following User Says Thank You to SleuthinNC For This Useful Post:
  #495  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:36 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
I think this case is showcasing the future of what law enforcement might have to deal with - and highlights the limited capacity of detectives to deal with this kind of data, as well as the limited success in which attorney and experts can paint that picture I spoke of a couple months ago.

Regardless of the verdict - attorneys and PD's all over the country are going to be talking about, and learning from, this case.

LyndyLoo was spot on in her post. The focus on the "evidence" that the CPD was comfortable with - ducks, statements from friends, weird behavior, security tapes from stores, buying habits - all ultimately yielded nothing and perhaps just served to pi$$ off the jury when they realized it was much ado about nothing.

I still believe the jury will deliver NG. Just too much static clouding the case.
I think they will too. And that verdict will fall squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution team. I can't believe this is what our tax dollars are paying for.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:
  #496  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:37 PM
Danielle59 Danielle59 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palomine View Post
as I understood it Cisco wouldn't give it up without a court order...
Wait, Boz told the Judge this was info from the IBM laptop, so it shouldn't have had to come from Cisco.
  #497  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:39 PM
Albert Albert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 408
OT post/ I am just reflecting on how wonderful life is. Southdide Johnny, grilling food on the grill, sweet Josie beer and time spent with family. No matter how bad things get we always have our memories and thoughts of tomorrow to keep us going. We all make mistakes and we all find ourselves facing hard times. We must always remember that we can always walk and don't look back. Regardless how this ends we should remember that there woo always be better days!!!
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Albert For This Useful Post:
  #498  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:40 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by SleuthinNC View Post
I think it was me and I was saying the same thing about connecting the PC to the router using a console cable. I may have worded it poorly.
Thanks for clarifying. So it would still potentially leave a trail on the PC then, right? You have to use some program (telnet, putty, whatever) to access it?
  #499  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:41 PM
cityslick cityslick is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
I think this case is showcasing the future of what law enforcement might have to deal with - and highlights the limited capacity of detectives to deal with this kind of data, as well as the limited success in which attorney and experts can paint that picture I spoke of a couple months ago.

Regardless of the verdict - attorneys and PD's all over the country are going to be talking about, and learning from, this case.

LyndyLoo was spot on in her post. The focus on the "evidence" that the CPD was comfortable with - ducks, statements from friends, weird behavior, security tapes from stores, buying habits - all ultimately yielded nothing and perhaps just served to pi$$ off the jury when they realized it was much ado about nothing.

I still believe the jury will deliver NG. Just too much static clouding the case.
I agree, it feels like we are at a similar point in time as to when DNA evidence first started being used (which coincided with the OJ case). Things like this is no new, stuff like forensic computer exams, cell phone forensics, etc. Things are not as quite understood yet (or so it feels). This in turn can only confuse the jury.

I don't really blame the state, they are pretty much trying to work with the hand dealt to them. This case has proven that sometimes what looks so apparent may not be so when you dig really deep down into the details.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:
  #500  
Old 04-29-2011, 08:42 PM
LyndyLoo's Avatar
LyndyLoo LyndyLoo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North of 49th Parallel
Posts: 2,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palomine View Post
as I understood it Cisco wouldn't give it up without a court order...
But from my IIRC that court order went to them (CISCO) pre-trial..Who knows Bud, maybe they didnt even start to look until that court order?? which voila turned up this knew evidence?? I think that the realy reason it is being accepted..not just for rebuttal of JW..but to get to the bottom of just WHO DID WHEN and WHERE....

and the "Long Lost ROuter" which is mysteriously missing??? Amazing, eh?
The Following User Says Thank You to LyndyLoo For This Useful Post:
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

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


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 PM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!