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

Discussion in 'Nancy Cooper' started by christine2448, Aug 11, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. christine2448

    christine2448 Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    10,385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.....

    [​IMG]

    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. Loading...


  3. SleuthSayer

    SleuthSayer New Member

    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ok, thanks. I knew bits and pieces of the info below. Thanks for recapping.

    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.

    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.
     
  4. RaleighNC

    RaleighNC New Member

    Messages:
    596
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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......
     
  5. jumpstreet

    jumpstreet New Member

    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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... ]
     
  6. fran

    fran Former Member

    Messages:
    32,578
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!:rolleyes:

    :)
    fran
     
  7. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is there a way he could monitor her calls from his computer at work?
     
  8. momto3kids

    momto3kids New Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  10. momto3kids

    momto3kids New Member

    Messages:
    1,678
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    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
     
  11. CARYISHOME

    CARYISHOME New Member

    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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...
     
  12. raisincharlie

    raisincharlie Racing Doesn't Lie

    Messages:
    16,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree - I think the KISS principle most likely applies.
     
  13. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. jumpstreet

    jumpstreet New Member

    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  15. CARYISHOME

    CARYISHOME New Member

    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.....
     
  16. raisincharlie

    raisincharlie Racing Doesn't Lie

    Messages:
    16,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Fairy1

    Fairy1 Divided We Fall

    Messages:
    9,867
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    38
    This is why they have expert witnesses at trial! I do feel that IF BC killed Nancy, it was a crime of passion and not premeditated. However, depending on when it occurred, he could have had a few hours to devise a plan of explanation (after the fact) and to carry it out. If he is an expert in this computer/phone discipline, he would likely have used it to his advantage.
     
  18. jumpstreet

    jumpstreet New Member

    Messages:
    703
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right. Here's how I have it:

    If the landline records show that the home phone called his mobile, then it would seem to prove nothing definitively (either he's telling the truth, and she did call, OR... it was faked (as others have said, faking is (relatively) easy).

    If her mobile records show that her mobile phone called his mobile, then it also would seem to prove nothing definitively (either he's telling the truth (he could say his affidavit statement meant she was @ home, not necessarily using the landline), OR,... it was faked (not so sure how easy it is to fake the mobile-to-mobile, given tower triangulation, etc, but perhaps it's possible too...)

    In any case, if the premise is that BC isn't telling the truth, that implies that he took the time and effort to fake one form of the calls (whichever one is in the records).

    My thought is that this would seem a real stretch in a crime-of-passion scenario, given the overhead. It just doesn't pass the "bang for the buck" test. [ It would seem almost ridiculous to assume that BC would waste his time working on something that he would surely know wouldn't prove anything anyway... ]

    The other option of course is that neither the mobile phone records, or the landline records show that any calls were made. That would seem unlikely, given BC's attorneys are subpoenaing the information, and given that would directly contradict the statements in his affidavit. If this is the scenario, then nothing was "faked", and he just (irrationally) made up the story in his sworn affidavit as a measure of desperation. (Seems unlikely, but who knows).
     
  19. EntreNous

    EntreNous New Member

    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't familiar with this either until I read about it here. I didn't mean to imply that anyone isn't intelligent if they're not familiar with it.

    What I meant was that many times people can be presented something they perceive to be confusing or too technical for them to decipher. Rather than trying to understand it and rely on expert testimony they will wave it off as a lot of fancy nonsense. KWIM?
     
  20. CARYISHOME

    CARYISHOME New Member

    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sure, I know what you mean. I don't think it's nonsense at all and I suppose if he had the time to get everything else together he might do the technical stuff, too.

    I just think other more basic things were being taken care of...could be wrong, though.
     
  21. raisincharlie

    raisincharlie Racing Doesn't Lie

    Messages:
    16,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    Well, if you read Brad's affidavit - he does spend a lot of time and words trying to prove what he cannot prove. For instance, the whole conversation about giving Nancy $300 a week - he claims he can prove it because his records will show a regular withdrawal of that amount. In previous lines he admits to giving Nancy cash - so how does he prove that those regular withdrawals were actually given to Nancy ? Unless someone witnessed it or he had her email someone with verification, or sign for it - he can't prove anything he claims except he took out money. So in the affidavit at least, he is attempting to prove something he cannot prove. Seems to be a pattern there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice