April 22 weekend of Sleuthiness

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not relevant to the FXO port either. The FXO port was needed to allow BC to use his own UCM to connect to TWC. Again nothing at all to do with either Cisco production or Alpha networks.

Fair enough, you and I went down this rat hole because I must have misunderstood your comment:

"#9 is not really accurate. He never said he was testing FXO ports, he was testing the wireless handset by using it as their home phone. FXO ports would absolutely be in the list of equipment used in test scenarios for Cisco VoIP. UCM with SRST is a standard branch application. "
 
Fair enough, you and I went down this rat hole because I must have misunderstood your comment:

"#9 is not really accurate. He never said he was testing FXO ports, he was testing the wireless handset by using it as their home phone. FXO ports would absolutely be in the list of equipment used in test scenarios for Cisco VoIP. UCM with SRST is a standard branch application. "

Ahh 2 thoughts combined. In terms of the trial this is the relevant part:

He never said he was testing FXO ports, he was testing the wireless handset by using it as their home phone.

The FXO just facilitated this, FXO was not the part being tested.
 
(Snipped for space)

Yes, we see things differently. None of what you mentioned above is proof of anything. It is all rather flimsy. Probably the biggest thing is the clean trunk, but I still feel they would have found some DNA. CPD can't even say which room the murder occurred in so the ducks and sticks is irrelevant. Wolfpackmom provided information about the shoes recently (I missed that testimony). I believe the mismatched shoes weren't even NC's size. The rest of what you listed really is proof of nothing. I don't even consider one item on the list to be CE.

Interesting that you and others continue to refuse to comment on the phone calls other than that say that NC made the 6:40am call. For as much as you believe that the CPD is corrupt you seem to have zero doubt about the legitimacy of those early morning calls.

Yet, you and others, claim to want to know all the facts before considering guilt. At the same time there seems to be no doubt in yours and others mind that there is absolute guilt of tampering and corruption in the police dept.
 
I think that the information that all 6 of them are the same is incorrect. I am attaching the best I could do with getting a screen capture from the WRAL video showing all of the dates. They are very hard to make out. I attached two files, the second one, I played around with the contrast a little to try to make it easier to read.

It appears to me that the time on the open hand file is 17:14:53 and on the open hand file is 17:15:11 (maybe, not sure about the seconds). But, the times are definitely different.

Feel free to try capturing from the video and refining it as much as you can.

I made a mistake (a timestamp too far). I should have gone back and checked before posting that but got in too much of a hurry. Not posting while drunk, just dealing with a phone call. I have not been able to do a search where all the times on open hand are identical to each other. Have you?
 
Ahh 2 thoughts combined. In terms of the trial this is the relevant part:

He never said he was testing FXO ports, he was testing the wireless handset by using it as their home phone.

The FXO just facilitated this, FXO was not the part being tested.

Great, so this makes me wonder why 2 people thanked your post. Perhaps they are just looking for anything that possibly discounts CE? Perhaps they are not as open minded as they want others to believe? Perhaps they put themselves on a self proclaimed righteous platform in the name of justice but are unwilling themselves to be willing to look at the case in its entirety. Instead, in the name of justice, they will claim police corruption since this happens every day.
 
Interesting that you and others continue to refuse to comment on the phone calls other than that say that NC made the 6:40am call. For as much as you believe that the CPD is corrupt you seem to have zero doubt about the legitimacy of those early morning calls.

Yet, you and others, claim to want to know all the facts before considering guilt. At the same time there seems to be no doubt in yours and others mind that there is absolute guilt of tampering and corruption in the police dept.

There has been absolutely no evidence to show he spoofed that 6:40 call. So I believe the call was not spoofed and was made by a person. There has been testimony that puts the google search in doubt as of right now. I'm still waiting for a valid explanation as to why there are invalid timestamps on all of the files during the 41 seconds that include the google search, and a valid explanation why all 6 timestamps for the open handed cursor are the same, and why all 6 timestamps for the closed handed cursor file are all the same. If the prosecution can give a reasonable explanation for these, the google search would be back in play for me. Until then, I'm not sure what to think about it. But I do know that the state's expert said he did not know why those files were like that (unlike the other files that were associated with a system update).

That is why I believe the 6:40 call and am not sure about the google search. If I'm incorrect about any of the statements above are incorrect, please correct them.
 
There has been absolutely no evidence to show he spoofed that 6:40 call. So I believe the call was not spoofed and was made by a person. There has been testimony that puts the google search in doubt as of right now. I'm still waiting for a valid explanation as to why there are invalid timestamps on all of the files during the 41 seconds that include the google search, and a valid explanation why all 6 timestamps for the open handed cursor are the same, and why all 6 timestamps for the closed handed cursor file are all the same. If the prosecution can give a reasonable explanation for these, the google search would be back in play for me. Until then, I'm not sure what to think about it. But I do know that the state's expert said he did not know why those files were like that (unlike the other files that were associated with a system update).

That is why I believe the 6:40 call and am not sure about the google search. If I'm incorrect about any of the statements above are incorrect, please correct them.

Since the state has already rested then how can they provide a reasonable explanation other than in closing argument.

Do you believe the FXO port was ever in use at BC's house? If so then you must also understand the size and type of router that was needed. Is it reasonable to believe that the equipment was still in BC's house on 7/12? If so, is is reasonable to assume the gear was disposed of on 7/12?
 
Since the state has already rested then how can they provide a reasonable explanation other than in closing argument.

Do you believe the FXO port was ever in use at BC's house? If so then you must also understand the size and type of router that was needed. Is it reasonable to believe that the equipment was still in BC's house on 7/12? If so, is is reasonable to assume the gear was disposed of on 7/12?

Yes, I believe he had an fxo card in use at his house earlier in the year. I do understand the size and type of router needed. The equipment was not found in his house on the 12th. And beyond that, the State has not:

1. Provided any testimony that they checked with Cisco to see if the equipment he purchased back in January of 2008 was accounted for within Cisco (or not).
2. Provided any computer forensic testimony showing he spoofed the call using some other program (such as a fax or autodialer program). Nor have they shown ssh logs to show he accessed a router from his PC to program the call manager to do the call. I realize that he could have used kvm access into the router, but there has been no evidence to suggest he did this either.

So I have to go on what has been shown with regards to the 6:40 call, and that is there is no evidence that it was spoofed. The lead detective said this during cross examination. So the only way you believe that it was a spoofed call is if you need it to be to support your theory that BC is guilty. But unlike the 6:40 am call, there is evidence that something isn't right with the files associated with the "smoking gun" google search. I'm still waiting for you or someone else to provide some reasonable explanation for the files being the way they are with regards to timestamps and the fact that the timestamps are invalid. I'm not married to my current opinion of guilt/innocence and have gone back and forth between the 2 more than once.
 
I'm not sure if you were watching this case in the beginning. But it was common knowledge that BC WANTED NC to move back to Canada and take the kids with her (IIRCC, he NEVER WANTED TO SEE THEM AGAIN!) However, that was BEFORE he saw the pre-divorce type thing from NC's attorney. AFTER he saw that, he decided they would,................ehhhh.................'work it out.'

That is why there was the SUDDEN change of plans. The pre-divorce papers. :(

JMHO
fran

Ignoring the unacceptable draft by AS, wouldn't BC get a better divorce settlement with NC and children in Canada rather than in North Carolina. For lots of reasons, health care, alimony, etc. If she moved, she could not file for divorce in NC, only he could, etc. Custody of the children has all sorts of issues in each direction.

Could Nancy have realized that she would be financially disadvantaged if she move back to Canada before the divorce and that a divorce in NC required her to live separately for a year? She would now have the extra resentment of being kept in North Carolina another year.
 
Yes, I believe he had an fxo card in use at his house earlier in the year. I do understand the size and type of router needed. The equipment was not found in his house on the 12th. And beyond that, the State has not:

1. Provided any testimony that they checked with Cisco to see if the equipment he purchased back in January of 2008 was accounted for within Cisco (or not).
2. Provided any computer forensic testimony showing he spoofed the call using some other program (such as a fax or autodialer program). Nor have they shown ssh logs to show he accessed a router from his PC to program the call manager to do the call. I realize that he could have used kvm access into the router, but there has been no evidence to suggest he did this either.

So I have to go on what has been shown with regards to the 6:40 call, and that is there is no evidence that it was spoofed. The lead detective said this during cross examination. So the only way you believe that it was a spoofed call is if you need it to be to support your theory that BC is guilty. But unlike the 6:40 am call, there is evidence that something isn't right with the files associated with the "smoking gun" google search. I'm still waiting for you or someone else to provide some reasonable explanation for the files being the way they are with regards to timestamps and the fact that the timestamps are invalid. I'm not married to my current opinion of guilt/innocence and have gone back and forth between the 2 more than once.

So you think Brad was just 'really lucky' that it happened to be his wife, 'ms hate mode', the one who called and left a message for the realtor, 'needing to find someplace to live ASAP', that just happened to get herself killed by a random stranger/s? There is all kinds of differences of opinions on each and every piece of supposed *evidence*. Eventually the judge will instruct the jurors to 'use your common sense', and the definition of 'reasonable doubt'. Not 'beyond a shadow of doubt, but *reasonable* doubt.' Now I don't know about you, NCSU, but I do know that in my life, once in awhile I had a bit of *luck*. But never struck the jackpot like Brad cooper that saturday in July. But for those pesky friends of Nancy, he really hit the jackpot. All his problems disappeared. No more allowance, no more need for a divorce lawyer, no more 'hate brad' days. BINGO, it's like closing your eyes, making a wish, and it disappears. My grandsons might believe in magic, but they believe in santa claus and the tooth fairy too. Circumstantial evidence has been used for centuries. Long before DNA, long before video cameras on the outsides of buildings. People had to use their own intelligence, put together what their life experiences tells them makes the most sense, IMO
 
I appreciate RC's research on strangulation. Thanks for engaging in discussion and siting references. I'm going to watch a movie now......before I try to go to sleep.
Take care and looking forward to further sleuthing!

Sorry, I couldn't answer your question about the point of my posting the article earlier. Kids and 3 month old puppy demanded my immediate attention.

Now that I've read this stuff, I see how easily this scenario could have taken place:

Brad strangles NC in the foyer using the carotid artery hold. She doesn't fight because she loses consciousness within 10 seconds. He is stronger than she is because he is a male who is in top physical (Iron Man) condition. He continues this hold for 4-5 minutes, which results in her death. Meanwhile, she vomited and lost control of her bowels and bladder. These substances got on the sticks, and maybe on the ducks. Or maybe when he released his hold on her, her body fell and landed knocked over and broke the sticks and ducks or left some of the substances on them. Or maybe he knocked them over into the substances when he was moving her body. There were no visible marks on her from this and the only indication she had been strangled was the fractured hyoid bone, which would be consistant with BC using the carotid artery hold.

Now he has to put different clothing on her body, get rid of her body, the sticks, the ducks, the 4 shoes (including the ones he wore to the dump site), do the laundry, and clean up the mess in the foyer. However he transported her body, it had to be wrapped in something and he got rid of it along with the other items. He probably had a step-by-step plan to deal with this, but since he hadn't strangled anyone before, it is unlikely that everything had been accounted for.

Unless he is subhuman, he also had to get his emotions under control because he had to take care of the kids, be sure to eliminate all physical evidence, look forward to dealing with the police, family and friends, and all on no sleep. I don't know how a person would feel after doing something like that, but I imagine it would be something along the lines of panic-stricken (racing against time to do all that + fear of being caught + kids waking up), and horrified.

Premeditation can take place in seconds, and since strangulation takes 4-5 minutes, there it is.

It doesn't matter if he killed NC when she came home or later -- unless it had to be when she came home so she could vomit on the ducks and sticks. I doubt she was in bed asleep, though, or he would have had a mattress problem and no need to clean the foyer floor.

I suppose anyone who wanted to kill NC, a "friend" or a stranger who was with her that morning, could have killed her the same way, in another location. That seems unlikely, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I will be surprised if he is not convicted.
 
I found a lot of things interesting in this article. Here they are:

Focusing on the visible signs of strangulation, we found that police officers reported no visible injuries in 62 percent of the cases. Minor visible injuries, such as redness or scratch marks, were reported in 22 percent of the cases, but often injuries were too minor to photograph.

Manual strangulation (throttling) is usually done with the hands, but notable variants include using the forearms (as when police officers use the carotid restraint) to standing or kneeling on the victim’s throat.3

[I can cut and paste the discussion of neck anatomy if you are interested.]

The general clinical sequence of a victim who is being strangled is one of severe pain, followed by unconsciousness, followed by brain death. The victim will lose consciousness by any one or all of the following: blocking of the carotid arteries (depriving the brain of oxygen), blocking of the jugular veins (preventing deoxygenated blood from exiting the brain), and closing off the airway, causing the victim to be unable to breathe.

Only eleven pounds of pressure placed on both carotid arteries for ten seconds is necessary to cause unconsciousness.4 However, if pressure is released immediately, consciousness will be regained within ten seconds. To completely close off the trachea, three times as much pressure (33 lbs.) is required. Brain death will occur in 4 to 5 minutes, if strangulation persists.


Objective signs noted in strangulation victims include involuntary urination and defecation.

Lung damage may be due to vomit inhaled by the victim during strangulation.17 [This is in reference to victims of strangulation who survive. It seems to me that those who die may also inhale vomit (which NC did not) since the difference between the living and the dead is a matter of minutes or seconds -- and by the same token, expel it through their mouths.]

We started by using the word “strangle” as opposed to the word “choke.” “Strangle” means to obstruct seriously or fatally the normal breathing of a person. “Choke” means having the windpipe blocked entirely or partly by some foreign object like food.

If BC had done all the research on techniques on killing, he would also have known about the problems possible from bodily fluids. So rather than just the entrance hall, police would search the bath and its drains. But he would have already known that the police would know to look there. And on and on.

It is like Vizzini and the Man in Black in the Princess Bride.

A dizzying intellect.

INCONCEIVABLE


ETA: My late father-in-law wrote the U.S. Army manual on Dirty Fighting, hand-to-hand combat, for WWII. I need to check my copy and see what he taught. I learned many of the chokes when I took judo.
 
If BC had done all the research on techniques on killing, he would also have known about the problems possible from bodily fluids.

A dizzying intellect.

INCONCEIVABLE.

It isn't inconceivable to me, obviously. I've heard of the carotid artery hold more than a few times over the years. It came up in casual conversation. I never researched before so I was not sure it was a true way to kill someone.

If I were planning to kill a person, I'd look it up. So it is conceivable to me that if I, an ordinary, nonviolent, middle class, middle-aged woman, had heard of this, practically anyone could have.

I'd also look up convicted spouse killers and learn from their mistakes. I'd look up suspected spouse killers who hadn't been arrested, too -- what did they do to avoid that?

I'd become an expert on the physical evidence of murder, and I would be sure I didn't leave any behind. Right off the top of my head, I'd avoid bloodshed, provable use of bleach, contaminated mattresses, woodchippers, potential witnesses, and murder weapons.

Sure, this would take a lot of time, planning to get away with murder. But if I didn't want to get caught, and knowing there is no statute of limitations on murder, I'd invest that time.

Anyway, I don't know if BC killed his wife. I wasn't there. I don't like circumstantial cases like this one because I think that sometimes a factually innocent defendant is convicted. I don't want that to happen to BC. OTOH, if he did kill NC, I don't want him to get away with it.
 
If she was killed in the foyer upon arriving home and it was messy enough to warrant disposal of sticks and ducks as well as extensive floor cleaning, why were the shoes she wore to the party right there by the table in the foyer? Wouldn't there have been evidence on the shoes?
 
That is an interesting scenario. But I still see a few holes in it plus it doesn't eliminate that there is no evidence that he spoofed a call later in the morning, that it wasn't N calling him. The jurors have to consider everything.
 
Zen, I don't want to be rude and I am sure you mean well, but just about everything you have provided in your posts is an incorrect statement of North Carolina divorce law.

While we're on the topic, I think it would be prudent to point out that any discussion of "divorce" law needs to be broken down into two parts. The dissolution of the marriage and the disposition of the other aspects that are a result of the marriage -- custody, child support, alimony, equitable distrubtion, etc.

As to the dissolution of the marriage, the parties must live separate and apart for one year prior to the filing of a petition for absolute divorce. That is, either party can file for "divorce" no sooner than one year and one day from when they first began living separate and apart and the party filing the petition must have been a residence for at least the 6 months preceding the filing.

As to the other aspects of the marriage, again the parties must have separated prior to any filing for custody, support or equitable distribution (there are rare circumstances where such actions can be filed while the parties are still cohabiting if they are tied to an action for divorce from bed and board).

Custody: North Carolina determines child custody looking solely at the best interests of the child. While the statistics may show that mothers are granted primary custody more than fathers, the statistics also show that mothers are still overwhelmingly the primary caregivers in the family. However, I have never been involved in a situation where the court gave primary custody to the mother simply because she was the mother. (I will agree, however, that the custody order in this case was complete and utter abomination at the time, but that had more to do with politics than anything else.)

Child Support: North Carolina uses an incomes-shared model to determine a base child support amount. That is, the mother's and father's incomes are factored into the determination. It is not a discretionary number. There is a formula that it used to determine child support and from what I've seen the amount suggested in the proposed separation agreement is probably pretty close to what it should have been. Child support should be one of the easiest things to determine.

Alimony: Upon determining that there is a supporting spouse and a dependent spouse, the court in it's discretion can award alimony and the amount is discretionary taking into account a wide number of factors, not the least of which is the ability to pay. As for adultery (illicit sexual behavior), if the supporting spouse alone is found to have committed such, the judge must order alimony. If the dependent spouse alone is found to have committed such he/she is barred from receiving alimony. If both are found to have engaged in such, the court may in its discretion award alimony. You must know, however that North Carolina has condonation and recrimination. That is, if the other spouse either condoned the behavior or upon discovering it forgave the behavior and went on with the marriage, then those acts may not be used to bar/award alimony. ZEN mentioned post separation adultery and I have no idea what that is. The closest thing is that acts of post-separation sexual contact may be used to prove pre-separation acts of sexual conduct, but since the parties were not separated this is a non-starter.

ED: Equal is presumed equitable. There are factors to be considered for an unequal split of property, but in my experience it is very rare to do anything other than 50/50.

Sorry that was long. I could go on further but I need to watch House on my DVR now. I can answer questions if you have them...

Thank you! I had forgotten about the condoning/forgiving the behavior. I also understood the child support issue was done by formula as testified by AS. Alimony has stipulations in my decree as well, I would have to dig it out but IIRC remarriage, cohabitation, change in circumstances, the court could rule to discontinue.

I wonder if BC researched the laws. As to the question of whether one party can 'stop' or keep the divorce from happening, that can not happen can it? Since they are considered two different matters?
 
I'm not sure if you were watching this case in the beginning. But it was common knowledge that BC WANTED NC to move back to Canada and take the kids with her (IIRCC, he NEVER WANTED TO SEE THEM AGAIN!) However, that was BEFORE he saw the pre-divorce type thing from NC's attorney. AFTER he saw that, he decided they would,................ehhhh.................'work it out.'

That is why there was the SUDDEN change of plans. The pre-divorce papers. :(

JMHO
fran

I don't think it was ever testified (or proven) he said he never wanted to see them again? My opinion was it was NC's over the top story telling to her friends/family.
 
Thank you! I had forgotten about the condoning/forgiving the behavior. I also understood the child support issue was done by formula as testified by AS. Alimony has stipulations in my decree as well, I would have to dig it out but IIRC remarriage, cohabitation, change in circumstances, the court could rule to discontinue.

I wonder if BC researched the laws. As to the question of whether one party can 'stop' or keep the divorce from happening, that can not happen can it? Since they are considered two different matters?

So long as all of the jurisdictional requirements are met prior to filing the divorce action, there is nothing the opposing party can do to stop it. They can delay it at the outset by avoiding process, but ultimately they cannot stop it from happening.
 
Thank you! I had forgotten about the condoning/forgiving the behavior. I also understood the child support issue was done by formula as testified by AS. Alimony has stipulations in my decree as well, I would have to dig it out but IIRC remarriage, cohabitation, change in circumstances, the court could rule to discontinue.

I wonder if BC researched the laws. As to the question of whether one party can 'stop' or keep the divorce from happening, that can not happen can it? Since they are considered two different matters?

One thing though that hasn't been addressed (from what we've seen) is the law's stand on what happens to the divorcing spouse when they are no longer legal to stay in the US? I don't think was discussed when AS was on the stand. Sure, their divorce goes thru the NC courts, and NC's divorce laws, but there has to be something addressed to the fact NC isn't legally able to stay in the US anymore. So the court can certainly say custody is 50/50 but that wouldn't be reality in the BC/NC case. My understanding is she wasn't legally able to stay in the US after the divorce was final since she was here as a spouse on BC's visa? So even though courts will say 1 parent cannot move the kids from the other parent, something would have to give in the BC/NC scenario. Did AS have international/immigration experience as well, or someone in her law firm?
 
I have 2 dear friends that have just gone through divorce. My female friend got custody of the kids, with her ex-husband getting partial custody (weekends, etc). She wanted to move out of state to be closer to her family. She could not do that since the children's father would not let that happen. She is forced to stay where she is so the kids are near their father.

For the record, I dodn't say it NEVER happened. And secondly, your friend is not forced to do anything, she can move away, she just has to leave the kids with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
227
Guests online
977
Total visitors
1,204

Forum statistics

Threads
596,592
Messages
18,050,399
Members
230,034
Latest member
mishelita9306
Back
Top