View Full Version : State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 05:49 PM
The defense doesn't have to suggest someone framed him, just that the integrity of the evidence was compromised. Pretty simple.
Compromised by whom? Motive? Inquiring jurors will want to know.
Pretty simple concept.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 05:50 PM
But that is a double edged sword isnt it..IF a nosey neigh could do this..then why not Brad..as he was the one who would benefit from having an alibi by this same evidence..and how would the neighbour know that Brad even went to HT twice and what times in order to spoof activities on his computer..Dont think LE even knew about HT video as of July 16th..?? Let alone call logs of AT&T and other data info??? Kurtz better be careful just how he handles this expertise..IMO of course
The AT&T logs weren't provided until 7/22 or thereabouts, after subpoenas were issued.
LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 05:50 PM
Yes they did. Their were reports on here that weekend about the HT visits.
Interesting..as at that point Nancy was only missing..not found yet?..Do you have a link to that?..maybe it was the following weekend?? Not sure they would even be investigating Brad's activities at that point in time??? :waitasec:....or they would have seized his phone, computer back then??
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 05:52 PM
I don't think it's too far-fetched that CPD may have looked at Fielding DR relative to the Cooper's residence. Not to try to plant any evidence, but as part of the investigation. Then changed the date so no one would suspect they were using the computer during those 27 hours.
None of this would be happening right now if they hadn't left it up and running for 27 hours. Why would they do that?
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 05:55 PM
This what I mean about insulting the jurors intelligence.
The idea a neighbor somehow cracked into his Cisco computer to frame him is so far fetched, Kurtz may as well say it could have been some extraterrestrial being. :ufo:
:floorlaugh:
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 05:56 PM
I don't think it's too far-fetched that CPD may have looked at Fielding DR relative to the Cooper's residence. Not to try to plant any evidence, but as part of the investigation. Then changed the date so no one would suspect they were using the computer during those 27 hours.
None of this would be happening right now if they hadn't left it up and running for 27 hours. Why would they do that?
How would CPD log into his PW protected computer to do an innocent search of the dump area:waitasec:
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 05:57 PM
Compromised by whom? Motive? Inquiring jurors will want to know.
Pretty simple concept.
"Compromised" is an adjective too, and that's how I am using it. Defense doesn't need a who or a why, the jurors can come to their own conclusions. Remember, the defense only needs to create reaosnable doubt, they don;t have to prove anything. The fact that the laptop could have been accessed by someone other than BC greatly diminishes the integrity of that evidence.
NCEast
04-19-2011, 05:58 PM
But they haven't proven that it was compromised have they? Just that is could have been?
LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 06:00 PM
I don't think it's too far-fetched that CPD may have looked at Fielding DR relative to the Cooper's residence. Not to try to plant any evidence, but as part of the investigation. Then changed the date so no one would suspect they were using the computer during those 27 hours.
None of this would be happening right now if they hadn't left it up and running for 27 hours. Why would they do that?
Dont know SS..but I dont think LE actually knew exactly what Brad's expertise was let alone how the computer would become such an intregal part of their investigation..They were looking for physical evidence of a crime scene on July 16th, video taping the house and all its contents..long before collection of evidence...Heinsight is always 100%..Their case went from missing women, to a murdered women..ya think they thought computer collection was prioirty?? They knew it was something they would need to collect,,and the residence was secured evening of July 15th..so NO human person touched that computer..and IF hacker did..then they would have had to know a whole lot of guarded specifics prior to power down..:twocents:
cody100
04-19-2011, 06:01 PM
"Compromised" is an adjective too, and that's how I am using it. Defense doesn't need a who or a why, the jurors can come to their own conclusions. Remember, the defense only needs to create reaosnable doubt, they don;t have to prove anything. The fact that the laptop could have been accessed by someone other than BC greatly diminishes the integrity of that evidence.
Yes it does open up Pandora's box so to speak. Whether the hacking occured or not is not as important as the reasonable doubt that is planted regarding the computers. And in this field, the defense has an expert in regard to hacking into computers.
The trial seems to be coming down to phones and computers ... Brad's area of expertise. If he wasn't an expert in those areas, would police have looked all the ways to misconstrue phone and computer info?
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 06:04 PM
But they haven't proven that it was compromised have they? Just that is could have been?
No they have not gone that far down the line of questioning yet, but that's where it appears to be headed: evidence of an intrusion(s). Guess we'll find out tomorrow.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:04 PM
"Compromised" is an adjective too, and that's how I am using it. Defense doesn't need a who or a why, the jurors can come to their own conclusions. Remember, the defense only needs to create reaosnable doubt, they don;t have to prove anything. The fact that the laptop could have been accessed by someone other than BC greatly diminishes the integrity of that evidence.
Enough of the lectures please. I am fully aware the defense does not have to prove anything. "Reasonable" is the key word here.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 06:05 PM
I don't think it's too far-fetched that CPD may have looked at Fielding DR relative to the Cooper's residence. Not to try to plant any evidence, but as part of the investigation. Then changed the date so no one would suspect they were using the computer during those 27 hours.
None of this would be happening right now if they hadn't left it up and running for 27 hours. Why would they do that?
The house was sealed off as a crime scene on the 15th, BC refused to allow a consent search, so they didn't have a search warrant until the 16th. They couldn't have seized the computers before the 16th. And, as has been testified, you can't just power computers down before seizure. There are specialized procedures.
And as I recall from testimony, BC's laptop was password-protected.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:07 PM
The trial seems to be coming down to phones and computers ... Brad's area of expertise. If he wasn't an expert in those areas, would police have looked all the ways to misconstrue phone and computer info?
Computer forensics is now included in Murder Investigation 101.
A detective would indeed be inept if he did not look at the computers and phones of their suspect(s).
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 06:07 PM
The trial seems to be coming down to phones and computers ... Brad's area of expertise. If he wasn't an expert in those areas, would police have looked all the ways to misconstrue phone and computer info?
I think about that a lot, how he is penalized for being a VOIP engineer. No, I don't think they would have suggested the phone spoofing.
Isn't it interesting that JA and BA's affidavits both made mention of BC's VOIP knowledge? They steered the police right down that track too. They have driven the entire investigation from the 911 call to the laundry detergent(lie) to the paint plan story to the VOIP expertise. And let's not forget the ducks and sticks.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 06:10 PM
The house was sealed off as a crime scene on the 15th, BC refused to allow a consent search, so they didn't have a search warrant until the 16th. They couldn't have seized the computers before the 16th. And, as has been testified, you can't just power computers down before seizure. There are specialized procedures.
And as I recall from testimony, BC's laptop was password-protected.
No, I am sure CPD took over the house, BC left and they had access to the powered up computer for 27 hours. Don't know the exact dates but this has not been disputed.
I don't think they needed the password. The PC was up and running.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:12 PM
I think about that a lot, how he is penalized for being a VOIP engineer. No, I don't think they would have suggested the phone spoofing.
Isn't it interesting that JA and BA's affidavits both made mention of BC's VOIP knowledge? They steered the police right down that track too. They have driven the entire investigation from the 911 call to the laundry detergent(lie) to the paint plan story to the VOIP expertise. And let's not forget the ducks and sticks.
Penalized?
They found the smoking gun. Do you honestly think they would not then try to bust his phone alibi? It was said there were 10 ways to do this and most ways didn't require someone with much telecom expertise. The fact that Brad was an expert only made it easier for the cops to realize he would have no problem at all.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:13 PM
No, I am sure CPD took over the house, BC left and they had access to the powered up computer for 27 hours. Don't know the exact dates but this has not been disputed.
I don't think they needed the password. The PC was up and running.
Nope.
Per FBI, the computer required Ctrl Alt del - PW after 10 minutes of non-use.
Enough of the lectures please. I am fully aware the defense does not have to prove anything. "Reasonable" is the key word here.
Is it reasonable that any of the neighbors decided to mess with the computer ... one comes to mind right away. I don't know his name, but he's the guy that had quite the attitude on the stand, who I think swore a bit and who lived across the street. Is it reasonable that he, his wife and all her friends were convinced that Brad was guilty before the investigation started, and is it reasonable that this gang of neighbors matched their stories, covered for each other and gave police whatever they could to ensure that Brad was arrested? Is it then reasonable to wonder how far this gang of neighbors was willing to go to see their justice done?
After all the testimony we saw from the neighbors, I have no problem believing that they were willing to do whatever they thought necessary to have Brad convicted.
less0305
04-19-2011, 06:14 PM
I'm going to say again, all the RTP techies have shown up for this case because the dude worked at Cisco and they lived in Cary... so therefore, their interested in the technical aspect. My guess is, the jury, um, not so much. My guess is the jury more than likely is a little more like me... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah blah when it comes to all this technical testimony. They're going to look at this first and foremost:
Brad's marriage was horrible.
Brad had an affair with his wife's best friend, which in effect ended the marriage.
Brad admitted this and was going to allow his wife to take his two children and go back to Canada UNTIL
Brad started snooping and being nosey in Nancy's email account and saw the separation agreement.
Brad didn't like the $$$ cha-ching it was going to cost him to keep up his crummy wife and his two kids.
Brad set out to make a plan - and changed Nancy's plans.
Brad decided it would be cheaper to keep his kids and do away with his wife.
Brad was an expert in some technological field that gave him just enough knowledge and ability to create himself an alibi.
Brad looked at and zoomed in on a map right over the spot his wife's dead body was found - and did it the day before his wife mysteriously went missing.
Brad did not withdraw the allowance for Nancy that weekend.
Brad stated he was asleep and yet he was on the computer checking his wife's email - lying in wait in the dark for her to arrive home from a cook-out.
Brad made a couple unusual trips to HT on the very morning his wife disappears and took two completely different routes.
Brad's wife went running in two shoes for the same foot.
Brad's dead wife's running clothing was never found, except the sports bra that was rolled under as if it was being put on, not taken off.
Brad lost his shoes.
Brad lost items from the foyer.
Brad got down on his hands and knees and washed hardwood floors.
Brad cleaned out part of a garage he hadn't cleaned in 8 years.
Brad cleaned his trunk to an immaculate state.
Brad couldn't remember, couldn't find, finally found, and laundered the dress his dead wife had been wearing the night before that had what he and he only saw as a wine stain.
Brad did not report his wife missing.
Brad did not return a police officer's call even after he played the voicemail and knew it was a p.o.
Brad did not call his wife's family.
Brad showed no emotion other than being very tired.
Brad searched Air Canada and jobs in Canada while his wife was missing.
Brad ended up with a diamond necklace in the drawer of his dresser that his dead wife never took off.
Brad is a confirmed liar.
Brad had the opportunity and motive for his wife to suddenly be dead.
Brad had a $75,000 life insurance policy on his wife.
Brad Cooper was the only person to benefit from his wife's death, the only person who did not care that his wife was suddenly missing and dead, the last person to see his wife, the ONLY person to say she called him that morning on his way to the store, the person who never once inquired of the police how the investigation was going, what was going on, did you find the person yet. And Brad Cooper was the one person who did not look the police in the eye and say, "I did not kill my wife," that they would have liked to have heard it from the most.
And believe me... all this mumbo jumbo about hacking, white hat hackers, secure/non-secure, VOIP, FXO cards and the possibility that Brad is being framed by a neighbor is going to all be a huge waste of time.
Shadow722
04-19-2011, 06:17 PM
Compromised by whom? Motive? Inquiring jurors will want to know.
Pretty simple concept.
Compromised by whom? The defense will allege "The real murderer".....
Motive? To cover the crime, and frame BC.......
A stretch maybe, but the defense does not have to prove BC innocent, just show enough to establish reasonable doubt, to a) get an acquittal or
b) hang the jury.
And that dear lady is their job. Any trial is a Kabuki Dance, and we are only in the second act. It is going to be a long ride, and far from over.
Computer forensics is now included in Murder Investigation 101.
A detective would indeed be inept if he did not look at the computers and phones of their suspect(s).
I think this has gone far beyond looking at them. This is into the realm of looking at them in terms of "what you see is not the truth". The prosecution opened that can of worms by suggesting that phone records are not truthful. Now we have the defense saying that computers records are also not truthful. What these lawyers are doing is pretty much establishing that phone and computer evidence is not reliable.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:19 PM
~~~snipped
And believe me... all this mumbo jumbo about hacking, white hat hackers, secure/non-secure, VOIP, FXO cards and the possibility that Brad is being framed by a neighbor is going to all be a huge waste of time.
:thumb:
I think about that a lot, how he is penalized for being a VOIP engineer. No, I don't think they would have suggested the phone spoofing.
Isn't it interesting that JA and BA's affidavits both made mention of BC's VOIP knowledge? They steered the police right down that track too. They have driven the entire investigation from the 911 call to the laundry detergent(lie) to the paint plan story to the VOIP expertise. And let's not forget the ducks and sticks.
That is how this trial has appeared from the beginning. We have a bunch of neighbors convinced that they know more about Brad and his family than Brad does. They decided he was guilty of murder by noon on the day she disappeared, and I agree that the neighbors guided police to the evidence that has been presented. It is believable that if the neighbors thought the police needed a little help that they would work together to help them along.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 06:24 PM
That is how this trial has appeared from the beginning. We have a bunch of neighbors convinced that they know more about Brad and his family than Brad does. They decided he was guilty of murder by noon on the day she disappeared, and I agree that the neighbors guided police to the evidence that has been presented. It is believable that if the neighbors thought the police needed a little help that they would work together to help them along.
HP did for sure. She lied on the stand about those screw back earrings (and in her statement). Then she lied about requesting photos of NC only wearing the necklace. Those are two examples and we have lots of inconsistencies to their stories. But most everyone here brushed that off.
unc70
04-19-2011, 06:24 PM
Enough of the lectures please. I am fully aware the defense does not have to prove anything. "Reasonable" is the key word here.
I am beginning to think the defense might be going far beyond "reasonable doubt" and get to proving tampering by someone. Until today, I had thought the tampering argument was probably weak and had considered other ways a search of 27518 might have been more-or-less by accident (e.g. searching on a weather site that then used Google mapping to display radar data).
I am now at least considering the possibility that K will actually prove tampering as he stated in his openning. No wonder the pros. has been trying so hard to disqualify this witness's testimony. Makes me wonder if we are about to see a repeat of the Duke lacrosse case.
BTW None of you would be safe if Ward did a "white hat" intrusion attempt on your systems. You might not be safe if even I tried, and that is not my specialty.
Yes, all wireless systems are insecure; the "secure" ones just take longer using better tools. So are all wired systems, too. The only secured systems are not connected to anything else inside shielded facilities, better yet without power.
I will try to avoid one of my usual rants on this and related topics.
cody100
04-19-2011, 06:26 PM
I have to tell everyone that this discussion is a whole lot more entertaining than the courtroom today. Both sides have legitimate arguments. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
SleuthinNC
04-19-2011, 06:28 PM
I have noticed with so many witnesses in this trial, mostly 30ish, that they begin what they are going to say with "So".....and they continue with their sentence. It's not needed in the context of what they are saying. Is that a trendy thing in the RTP area? I don't hear it here.
It's a terrible habit. I catch myself doing it all the time.
cody100
04-19-2011, 06:29 PM
I am beginning to think the defense might be going far beyond "reasonable doubt" and get to proving tampering by someone. Until today, I had thought the tampering argument was probably weak and had considered other ways a search of 27518 might have been more-or-less by accident (e.g. searching on a weather site that then used Google mapping to display radar data).
I am now at least considering the possibility that K will actually prove tampering as he stated in his openning. No wonder the pros. has been trying so hard to disqualify this witness's testimony. Makes me wonder if we are about to see a repeat of the Duke lacrosse case.
BTW None of you would be safe if Ward did a "white hat" intrusion attempt on your systems. You might not be safe if even I tried, and that is not my specialty.
Yes, all wireless systems are insecure; the "secure" ones just take longer using better tools. So are all wired systems, too. The only secured systems are not connected to anything else inside shielded facilities, better yet without power.
I will try to avoid one of my usual rants on this and related topics.
Oh, don't stop now. Everyone else rants too so join the crowd. Just be courteous about it so we don't lose your expertise.
LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 06:33 PM
Im sorry, I would really love to continue this debate..but I am getting sensory overloaded now..and must take a breaky poo..Im with poster who made that long list of motive means and opportunity and this computer stuff defense is attempting to sway jurors in reasonable doubt that some stranger or nosey neighbour would spoof computer activities..is really really reaching??
So will catchup with ya all later gators.. Its been a pleasure..:seeya:
You guys are the greatest :grouphug::offtobed: Im off to get rejuvinated..
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 06:33 PM
No, I am sure CPD took over the house, BC left and they had access to the powered up computer for 27 hours. Don't know the exact dates but this has not been disputed.
I don't think they needed the password. The PC was up and running.
Nor am I disputing that there was a time delay between the house being sealed off and a search warrant being issued that would allow seizure of the computers. Until they were seized by specially trained officers, nothing could be done to power them down, because that could compromise evidence.
I don't know that we can make any assumptions about needing the password, but I do know that company-issued laptops typically lock down automatically (requiring a password) after a relatively short period of inactivity. And we don't know that BC didn't lock it himself before he left the house.
Once the crime scene was established, there would have been a log of everyone going into and out of the house. I would think all of the police officers there would be too busy doing their job to fool around with BC's computer. And they'd also risk other officers seeing them do so and calling suspicion on themselves. It is quite a stretch indeed.
SleuthinNC
04-19-2011, 06:36 PM
Hopefully prosecution can correct this error.
Google "cisco 1751 fxo" to see.
Cisco, and other large companies, would never use an FXO port internally, so it's an easy mistake to make for enterprise VoIP guys. You'd only buy one to use at a very small business (or home).
1751 EoL was Dec 2008. Internal ordering and use would have stopped well before that.
HP did for sure. She lied on the stand about those screw back earrings (and in her statement). Then she lied about requesting photos of NC only wearing the necklace. Those are two examples and we have lots of inconsistencies to their stories. But most everyone here brushed that off.
I think it's possible that all those negative (and sometimes questionable)character witnesses could have their negative views flipped right back on them with the big question being: we know this gang had it in for Brad, so how far were they willing to go to see him convicted?
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:38 PM
HP did for sure. She lied on the stand about those screw back earrings (and in her statement). Then she lied about requesting photos of NC only wearing the necklace. Those are two examples and we have lots of inconsistencies to their stories. But most everyone here brushed that off.
So with that, do you think it is reasonable for the jury to consider her a suspect over BC?
:smiliescale:
So with that, do you think it is reasonable for the jury to consider her a suspect over BC?
:smiliescale:
Defense doesn't have to present other suspects, only has to demonstrate that the neighborhood gang had it in for Brad, was willing to modify and compare notes before talking with police, was eager to point police in certain directions and now ... we have one piece of evidence (41 seconds of evidence with no prior research on this map) pointing straight at the computer nerd who should have been smart enough to make sure that didn't happen.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:46 PM
Defense doesn't have to present other suspects, only has to demonstrate that the neighborhood gang had it in for Brad, was willing to modify and compare notes before talking with police, was eager to point police in certain directions and now ... we have one piece of evidence (41 seconds of evidence with no prior research on this map) pointing straight at the computer nerd who should have been smart enough to make sure that didn't happen.
Oh, but Kurtz has indeed presented his suspects.
1- Hispanics
2- CD
3- JP
I'm sure he will suggest more.
SleuthinNC
04-19-2011, 06:47 PM
I agree re office vs home sec. difference -- but I just can't imagine someone working in a Cisco or similar business (like many of us who know the dangers of hacking) and not being just naturally security-conscious. He certainly wouldn't want his unfriendly neighbors having any teeny tiny chance of breaking into anything he had online, so surely, Shirley, he would have had it wrapped up in some decent kind of protocol, protection, etc., etc.
I have said this before and I don't think many believed me but I don't think BC's data networking skills are all that great.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 06:48 PM
Defense doesn't have to present other suspects, only has to demonstrate that the neighborhood gang had it in for Brad, was willing to modify and compare notes before talking with police, was eager to point police in certain directions and now ... we have one piece of evidence (41 seconds of evidence with no prior research on this map) pointing straight at the computer nerd who should have been smart enough to make sure that didn't happen.
I'm not sure they can demonstrate to a level that will make it believable. It doesn't matter how many of us look at this witness or any other and say, "Yeah, that COULD have happened". It really only matters what the jury of 12 are willing to accept as reasonable. MOO
lib's mom
04-19-2011, 06:49 PM
I just have to say, I don't think HP lied about the earrings or the pictures. She is not a jewelry manufacturer nor a jeweler. Nancy had a pair of earrings similar to hers and she assumed the backs would be the same. This makes her guilty of assuming things.
As far as the "pictures of Nancy wearing the necklace" thing goes, I interpreted that to mean "Don't send pictures of Nancy taken from the back" or "Don't send pictures of Nancy where she is wearing a winter jacket zipped up to her neck."
Mr. Kurtz had Nancy's earrings, showed them to her while she was on the stand and she admitted she was mistaken. Maybe I'm wrong.
Oh, but Kurtz has indeed presented his suspects.
1- Hispanics
2- CD
3- JP
I'm sure he will suggest more.
I wish I could sit back and say that Brad is most likely guilty so he'll be convicted, but I can't. The problem is that this is only about the lawyers and who has the better argument. Right now, Kurtz is doing well in demonstrating that electronic evidence is not sound ... and the prosecution is relying on electronic evidence being the key point in conviction. Since it's possible that all the electronic evidence is beyond the jury, they may come down to looking at bad marriage = murder.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 06:52 PM
I'm going to say again, all the RTP techies have shown up for this case because the dude worked at Cisco and they lived in Cary... so therefore, their interested in the technical aspect. My guess is, the jury, um, not so much.
~~~snipped
.
<<<:applause: >>>
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:02 PM
How would CPD log into his PW protected computer to do an innocent search of the dump area:waitasec:
It was up and running when they secured the house, all they had to do was move the mouse and it would not have been protected by the password as the screen saver would not have come on. They could have then turned the screensaver off and it would not be password protected.
raisincharlie
04-19-2011, 07:04 PM
So far, we've seen it is easy to get on a WEP network.
Next, the hacker will need to be lucky that:
1) the laptop is on
2) the laptop is connected to home network
Have the skill to:
1) defeat the cisco installed security software on the laptop.
2) know how to leave a TIF without a cookie without leaving a trace of unauthorized access
Bringing the popcorn for tomorrow.
Kurtz wants it both ways - CPD is too dumb to properly disconnect a computer and too busy framing Brad and totally inept at investigating a murder but smart enough to hack through that password and even know what the zipcode is to do a google search and then back date it so it looks like Brad did it right before lunch on the 11th. Figure that one out :D
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:04 PM
It was up and running when they secured the house, all they had to do was move the mouse and it would not have been protected by the password as the screen saver would not have come on. They could have then turned the screensaver off and it would not be password protected.
Guess you missed the FBI testimony?
I was there that day.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:07 PM
But they haven't proven that it was compromised have they? Just that is could have been?
It was actually compromised when they did not immediately secure it by turning it off as they were supposed to. THey could have looked at anything on it.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 07:11 PM
It was up and running when they secured the house, all they had to do was move the mouse and it would not have been protected by the password as the screen saver would not have come on. They could have then turned the screensaver off and it would not be password protected.
Even if that were possible, don't you think an "innocent" searcher might concerned about a forensic exam detecting their activity, even if they tried to cover their tracks by altering dates?
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:11 PM
It was actually compromised when they did not immediately secure it by turning it off as they were supposed to. THey could have looked at anything on it.
Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.
The computer was set to a 10 minute PW protected unlock.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:11 PM
Guess you missed the FBI testimony?
I was there that day.
Regardless of the testimony of it being passsword protected, you have no idea because my understanding is that this was not discussed, if since BC was logged in to it when the CPD secured the house that you don't know if they didn't move the mouse so that the screensaver did not come on and cause the password feature to not engage. The FBI Agent was also under the impression that the laptop had been properly secured by turning it off, and he was surprised later to learn it had been up and running for 27 hours. The excuse for that being they were afraid it would corrupt data, what made the 27 hours magic? Why couldn't it have been turned off at 24 hours, or 1 hours, or 5 hours, why did they have to wait 27 hours, and what changed that date could not be corrupted at 27 hours if you want us to believe no one touched it during that time?
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 07:12 PM
Even if that were possible, don't you think an "innocent" searcher might concerned about a forensic exam detecting their activity, even if they tried to cover their tracks by altering dates?
We will know more very shortly, hopefully tomorrow.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:13 PM
Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.
The computer was set to a 10 minute PW protected unlock.
And just because you keep saying that doesn't mean that the CPD did not touch and move the mouse which would cause the PW protection to not come on. The computer is not set up so that you have to re-enter your password every 10 minutes, it only comes on after NO activity in 10 minutes. If someone touched it before the 10 minutes occurred the password protection would not engage.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:14 PM
Regardless of the testimony of it being passsword protected, you have no idea because my understanding is that this was not discussed, if since BC was logged in to it when the CPD secured the house that you don't know if they didn't move the mouse so that the screensaver did not come on and cause the password feature to not engage. The FBI Agent was also under the impression that the laptop had been properly secured by turning it off, and he was surprised later to learn it had been up and running for 27 hours. The excuse for that being they were afraid it would corrupt data, what made the 27 hours magic? Why couldn't it have been turned off at 24 hours, or 1 hours, or 5 hours, why did they have to wait 27 hours, and what changed that date could not be corrupted at 27 hours if you want us to believe no one touched it during that time?
Sorry, but I do indeed have an idea.
The FBI said the computer automatically locked within 10 minutes of non-use. To unlock and use the system, it would require Ctl Alt Del + PW.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
less0305
04-19-2011, 07:14 PM
I wish I could sit back and say that Brad is most likely guilty so he'll be convicted, but I can't. The problem is that this is only about the lawyers and who has the better argument. Right now, Kurtz is doing well in demonstrating that electronic evidence is not sound ... and the prosecution is relying on electronic evidence being the key point in conviction. Since it's possible that all the electronic evidence is beyond the jury, they may come down to looking at bad marriage = murder.
Thank you - the circumstantial evidence will be what the jurors focus on, I think - and there's just so much of it along with the distinct probability that Brad spoofed the call and was the person who searched the dump site - and the distinct improbability that it would take an entire Village to set up Brad (starting with the entire CPD, the entire crime lab, a few rogue FBI, a large portion of the DA's office, all of Nancy's friends, a neighbor or two, and a corrupt judge). The jury knows the toilet needs a plunging and flushing.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:16 PM
And just because you keep saying that doesn't mean that the CPD did not touch and move the mouse which would cause the PW protection to not come on. The computer is not set up so that you have to re-enter your password every 10 minutes, it only comes on after NO activity in 10 minutes. If someone touched it before the 10 minutes occurred the password protection would not engage.
10 minutes .
Thanks, you just proved my point
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 07:19 PM
I'm not sure they can demonstrate to a level that will make it believable. It doesn't matter how many of us look at this witness or any other and say, "Yeah, that COULD have happened". It really only matters what the jury of 12 are willing to accept as reasonable. MOO
Exactly. And it's very similar (it seems at least so far) to trying to convince them that the call was spoofed with zero evidence. IMO, the computer hacking is just as believable (if not more so) than than the alleged phone call spoof. Especially when added to the other inconsistencies. This is a very interesting case.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:19 PM
Is it reasonable that any of the neighbors decided to mess with the computer ... one comes to mind right away. I don't know his name, but he's the guy that had quite the attitude on the stand, who I think swore a bit and who lived across the street. Is it reasonable that he, his wife and all her friends were convinced that Brad was guilty before the investigation started, and is it reasonable that this gang of neighbors matched their stories, covered for each other and gave police whatever they could to ensure that Brad was arrested? Is it then reasonable to wonder how far this gang of neighbors was willing to go to see their justice done?
After all the testimony we saw from the neighbors, I have no problem believing that they were willing to do whatever they thought necessary to have Brad convicted.
The guy that applauded when BC was arrested, I can't think of his name. His last name started with a D. He had hit on NC and grossed her out.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 07:20 PM
Regardless of the testimony of it being passsword protected, you have no idea because my understanding is that this was not discussed, if since BC was logged in to it when the CPD secured the house that you don't know if they didn't move the mouse so that the screensaver did not come on and cause the password feature to not engage. The FBI Agent was also under the impression that the laptop had been properly secured by turning it off, and he was surprised later to learn it had been up and running for 27 hours. The excuse for that being they were afraid it would corrupt data, what made the 27 hours magic? Why couldn't it have been turned off at 24 hours, or 1 hours, or 5 hours, why did they have to wait 27 hours, and what changed that date could not be corrupted at 27 hours if you want us to believe no one touched it during that time?
Again, there was a time lapse between the house being declared a crime scene and the CPD obtaining a search warrant. BC also refused a consent search. From the time the scene was sealed off to the time the computers were seized, nothing should have been done to them, including powering them off. Seems like the CPD can't win either way on this with some people. Turn computers off off right away (before a SW is issued) and violate BC's rights ... wait to turn them off until they can be properly seized, and be accused of tampering. :banghead:
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:20 PM
Even if that were possible, don't you think an "innocent" searcher might concerned about a forensic exam detecting their activity, even if they tried to cover their tracks by altering dates?
Who knows, I know a Blackberry was erased after a message came up saying if you do this again the device will be erased and they continued to do it again. As we now know the whole device was erased.
WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 07:22 PM
Again, there was a time lapse between the house being declared a crime scene and the CPD obtaining a search warrant. BC also refused a consent search. From the time the scene was sealed off to the time the computers were seized, nothing should have been done to them, including powering them off. Seems like the CPD can't win either way on this with some people. Turn computers off off right away (before a SW is issued) and violate BC's rights ... wait to turn them off until they can be properly seized, and be accused of tampering. :banghead:
According to testimony, the police showed up at his house and asked him to search at ~3:00 on the 15th. The police stayed in the house until BC left at 5:30. The house was then secured as a crime scene, with CPD continually on the scene. The search warrant was executed that night, and CPD was back in the house by 3:45am the next morning to perform the first search. They still waited until 8:30pm on the 16th to turn off the computers. What rights would have been violated by turning off the computer at 3:45am?
The guy that applauded when BC was arrested, I can't think of his name. His last name started with a D. He had hit on NC and grossed her out.
Yah, that guy ... he's a good candidate.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:25 PM
Originally Posted by Danielle59
And just because you keep saying that doesn't mean that the CPD did not touch and move the mouse which would cause the PW protection to not come on. The computer is not set up so that you have to re-enter your password every 10 minutes, it only comes on after NO activity in 10 minutes. If someone touched it before the 10 minutes occurred the password protection would not engage.
10 minutes .
Thanks, you just proved my point
I didn't prove your point, you are just disregarding what could have happened otherwise because it doesn't fit your scenario. There is nothing in evidence that the mouse was not moved which makes the 10 minutes PW protection irrelevant.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by Danielle59
Regardless of the testimony of it being passsword protected, you have no idea because my understanding is that this was not discussed, if since BC was logged in to it when the CPD secured the house that you don't know if they didn't move the mouse so that the screensaver did not come on and cause the password feature to not engage. The FBI Agent was also under the impression that the laptop had been properly secured by turning it off, and he was surprised later to learn it had been up and running for 27 hours. The excuse for that being they were afraid it would corrupt data, what made the 27 hours magic? Why couldn't it have been turned off at 24 hours, or 1 hours, or 5 hours, why did they have to wait 27 hours, and what changed that date could not be corrupted at 27 hours if you want us to believe no one touched it during that time?
Sorry, but I do indeed have an idea.
The FBI said the computer automatically locked within 10 minutes of non-use. To unlock and use the system, it would require Ctl Alt Del + PW.
What part of that is so hard to understand?
And I am sure the FBI was correct about the PW protection, that does not make my scenario not possible, if you move the mouse the PW protection does not engage. Are you saying that they discussed my scenario during testimony? If they didn't then I was accurate in all that I said above being possible. I know you just don't want to accept any alternatives, but your snarkiness does not make me wrong or you accurate.
Thank you - the circumstantial evidence will be what the jurors focus on, I think - and there's just so much of it along with the distinct probability that Brad spoofed the call and was the person who searched the dump site - and the distinct improbability that it would take an entire Village to set up Brad (starting with the entire CPD, the entire crime lab, a few rogue FBI, a large portion of the DA's office, all of Nancy's friends, a neighbor or two, and a corrupt judge). The jury knows the toilet needs a plunging and flushing.
I hope we're not in the realm of everyone connected with the case is corrupt. We have a gang of neighbors convinced that they solved the case before anyone knew there was a murder. Police admitted that they have no proof that a call was spoofed ... so that pretty much means it's non-evidence. The moon might fall from the sky tonight, but there's no proof ... equally irrelevant. We have to take the word of the FBI that the zip code image was zoomed. 41 seconds isn't long enough for someone to choose a place to put a body ... so where is the earlier search where he's picked the place?
Who knows, I know a Blackberry was erased after a message came up saying if you do this again the device will be erased and they continued to do it again. As we now know the whole device was erased.
That's a very good example of police tampering with electronic evidence.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 07:34 PM
I hope we're not in the realm of everyone connected with the case is corrupt. We have a gang of neighbors convinced that they solved the case before anyone knew there was a murder. Police admitted that they have no proof that a call was spoofed ... so that pretty much means it's non-evidence. The moon might fall from the sky tonight, but there's no proof ... equally irrelevant. We have to take the word of the FBI that the zip code image was zoomed. 41 seconds isn't long enough for someone to choose a place to put a body ... so where is the earlier search where he's picked the place?
Isn't it a possibility that he physically chose the site as in visited that area in person and then looked on the map because he wanted to see the aerial view?
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 07:34 PM
Interesting..as at that point Nancy was only missing..not found yet?..Do you have a link to that?..maybe it was the following weekend?? Not sure they would even be investigating Brad's activities at that point in time??? :waitasec:....or they would have seized his phone, computer back then??
I was 1 day off....it was posted in the very first thread in this forum at 6:10 am on 7/15 by momto3kids. She obviously had some information which was wrong (and there were banning galore for anyone that challenged her if I remember correctly), but it looks like the police did know about the trips and had the footage that weekend. You can find her post here.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67337&page=8
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 07:37 PM
According to testimony, the police showed up at his house and asked him to search at ~3:00 on the 15th. The police stayed in the house until BC left at 5:30. The house was then secured as a crime scene, with CPD continually on the scene. The search warrant was executed that night, and CPD was back in the house by 3:45am the next morning to perform the first search. They still waited until 8:30pm on the 16th to turn off the computers. What rights would have been violated by turning off the computer at 3:45am?
According to testimony, seized computers should not be powered off in the normal way, but by removing power sources/batteries and by a trained professional. Otherwise evidence could be compromised (if, say, the owner of the computer set the hard drive to wipe itself upon power-down/reboot). Why that took as much time as it did in this case, I don't know and haven't heard, but I'm sure even if this was done as early as 3:45am, there would be those who would still take issue with the 10-hour time lapse between the time the crime scene sealing and search warrant execution. I believe someone has already taken issue with a mere 10-minute lapse in the time this computer would take to automatically password lock due to inactivity.
Kurtz wants it both ways - CPD is too dumb to properly disconnect a computer and too busy framing Brad and totally inept at investigating a murder but smart enough to hack through that password and even know what the zipcode is to do a google search and then back date it so it looks like Brad did it right before lunch on the 11th. Figure that one out :D
Believe BC's work computer, at his office at Cisco, is where the history reflects he did a search of the area on (7.11.08) where NC's body was found on 7.14.08.
There was yet another computer at the home where someone (more likely BC) did searches for museums, plane tickets, and children's cartoon programs was done on 7.12.08.
Is this right?
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:38 PM
It's a terrible habit. I catch myself doing it all the time.
They say here "so." or "anyhow." I hate it too.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:43 PM
I agree re office vs home sec. difference -- but I just can't imagine someone working in a Cisco or similar business (like many of us who know the dangers of hacking) and not being just naturally security-conscious. He certainly wouldn't want his unfriendly neighbors having any teeny tiny chance of breaking into anything he had online, so surely, Shirley, he would have had it wrapped up in some decent kind of protocol, protection, etc., etc.
Unless his harddrive was encrypted he was vulnerable.
SleuthinNC
04-19-2011, 07:44 PM
Yah, that guy ... he's a good candidate.
A very good candidate.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:44 PM
I didn't prove your point, you are just disregarding what could have happened otherwise because it doesn't fit your scenario. There is nothing in evidence that the mouse was not moved which makes the 10 minutes PW protection irrelevant.
So Brad was logged on and within 10 minutes CPD jumped on and started to use his computer to perform a google map search with a bogus time stamp:waitasec:
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:44 PM
I just have to say, I don't think HP lied about the earrings or the pictures. She is not a jewelry manufacturer nor a jeweler. Nancy had a pair of earrings similar to hers and she assumed the backs would be the same. This makes her guilty of assuming things.
As far as the "pictures of Nancy wearing the necklace" thing goes, I interpreted that to mean "Don't send pictures of Nancy taken from the back" or "Don't send pictures of Nancy where she is wearing a winter jacket zipped up to her neck."
Mr. Kurtz had Nancy's earrings, showed them to her while she was on the stand and she admitted she was mistaken. Maybe I'm wrong.
She stated the issue about the screw back earrings as fact, if she was assuming she should not have stated it as fact, she lied.
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 07:45 PM
Believe BC's work computer, at his office at Cisco, is where the history reflects he did a search of the area on (7.11.08) where NC's body was found on 7.14.08.
There was yet another computer at the home where someone (more likely BC) did searches for museums, plane tickets, and children's cartoon programs was done on 7.12.08.
Is this right?
Not exactly. It was a laptop that he used at work and took home with him. And there were also home computers. But the laptop with the search was seized in the home.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:48 PM
I was 1 day off....it was posted in the very first thread in this forum at 6:10 am on 7/15 by momto3kids. She obviously had some information which was wrong (and there were banning galore for anyone that challenged her if I remember correctly), but it looks like the police did know about the trips and had the footage that weekend. You can find her post here.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67337&page=8
I heard she knew a bag boy at the store.
Isn't it a possibility that he physically chose the site as in visited that area in person and then looked on the map because he wanted to see the aerial view?
41 seconds just doesn't seem long enough. He's thinking about murdering his wife and presumably he's carefully checking possible areas to put a body. This should not be a quick, random thought during a premeditated murder. All we have connecting Brad to the location where Nancy was found is a 41 sec zip code map search that FBI say zoomed directly to the correct location where she was found and then end of search. I don't find that realistic.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:52 PM
Interesting..as at that point Nancy was only missing..not found yet?..Do you have a link to that?..maybe it was the following weekend?? Not sure they would even be investigating Brad's activities at that point in time??? :waitasec:....or they would have seized his phone, computer back then??
They had a secret "security detail" on him from the first day under the guise of protecting the family. They followed him everywhere, even told how many bags of groceries he carried into the house including a small melon and some flowers. Det. Young testified about it.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:52 PM
41 seconds just doesn't seem long enough. He's thinking about murdering his wife and presumably he's carefully checking possible areas to put a body. This should not be a quick, random thought during a premeditated murder. All we have connecting Brad to the location where Nancy was found is a 41 sec zip code map search that FBI say zoomed directly to the correct location where she was found and then end of search. I don't find that realistic.
How about the 32 sec 6:40AM 'call".
That seems way too long for a simple green juice order.
I don't find that realistic.
BTW, how would you know what is normal behavior for someone planning to kill their wife?
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:53 PM
They had a secret "security detail" on him from the first day under the guise of protecting the family. They followed him everywhere, even told how many bags of groceries he carried into the house including a small melon and some flowers. Det. Young testified about it.
Secret:waitasec:
kljohnson0458
04-19-2011, 07:57 PM
I know I post and seems noone listens but this is my thought process. It is totally believable that someone could use their wireless network if not protected. I don't think BC would do that. We have three computers on Suddenlink network and if we do anywhere with our laptops we can pick up anyone's network connection if it isn't secured. I do NOT believe given BC's IT experience he would have that at his home. Noone sat outside his house and did a search of Fielding Drive or suicide by strangling. Kurtz is totally digging for what he can and I think the jurors know that. If I take my lap top to a campground or a hotel it picks up networks available for connection and most usually you have to have a password given to you by where you are staying to get the "best" connection. JMO
Seems to me that is trackable and the CPD sure wouldn't be googling Fiedling drive. They hadn't found her yet. I am so going to just read and not post my aggravated posts but this Jay guy seems he knows all this stuff but Brad Cooper has access he wouldn't.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:57 PM
The guy that applauded when BC was arrested, I can't think of his name. His last name started with a D. He had hit on NC and grossed her out.
CD?
Good for him.
If I was nearby when CPD charged him with murder, I would have applauded too.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 07:57 PM
Secret:waitasec:
They didn't tell him about it so it was "secret"
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 07:59 PM
You are making stuff up now because you think you have all the answers and refuse to consider any other scenarios. I told you what could have happened.
YOU told me what could have happened, so I am supposed to believe YOU.
:nevermind:
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 08:01 PM
They didn't tell him about it so it was "secret"
There was a CPD car obviously trailing his every move, but since they didn't tell hm, it was a secret.
:doh:
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 08:15 PM
Lots of pot calling the kettle black going on here today. Seems to me there are some people that refuse to see the logic(?) in this or even consider anything outside of what they have determined to be the truth.
less0305
04-19-2011, 08:16 PM
I hope we're not in the realm of everyone connected with the case is corrupt. We have a gang of neighbors convinced that they solved the case before anyone knew there was a murder. Police admitted that they have no proof that a call was spoofed ... so that pretty much means it's non-evidence. The moon might fall from the sky tonight, but there's no proof ... equally irrelevant. We have to take the word of the FBI that the zip code image was zoomed. 41 seconds isn't long enough for someone to choose a place to put a body ... so where is the earlier search where he's picked the place?
He had a week to drive around and scope out a place while Nancy was gone. The search could have just been firming up in his mind the street names of the place he liked the best or just to sit and salivate for 41 seconds what he was going to do and it would all be over with soon.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 08:20 PM
Who knows, I know a Blackberry was erased after a message came up saying if you do this again the device will be erased and they continued to do it again. As we now know the whole device was erased.
Yes, but we know what actually happened with the Blackberry. It came out in testimony, initially on direct examination by the State. With regard to the computer, the FBI forensics experts have testified that they checked the files that did change up until the time the computer was powered down, that all of these changes were due to system or security updates, and that there was no evidence of tampering. I take them at their word.
WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 08:22 PM
Yes, but we know what actually happened with the Blackberry. It came out in testimony, initially on direct examination by the State. With regard to the computer, the FBI forensics experts have testified that they checked the files that did change up until the time the computer was powered down, that all of these changes were due to system or security updates, and that there was no evidence of tampering. I take them at their word.
Do you still believe that when the defense pointed out specific files on cross, and the FBI Agent couldn't answer why the SAM file was modified after it was out of the custody of the defendant, or internet history files?
Tink56
04-19-2011, 08:23 PM
He had a week to drive around and scope out a place while Nancy was gone. The search could have just been firming up in his mind the street names of the place he liked the best or just to sit and salivate for 41 seconds what he was going to do and it would all be over with soon.
I also think that the low bank balance, Nancy insisting on her "allowance," and the stress of the living arrangements may have finally been too much for BC. BC went into work late. We know he bought a "painting drop cloth." He didn't arrive at work for almost another 1-1.5 hours. You think he might have been driving around contemplating what to do? How he might do it? I think he had plenty of time to drive down Fielding before he went to work Friday morning.
Then, just a quick check on his computer before lunch while NC continued to call and ask for the money....I'm sure he was mentally killing her. It probably wasn't a big leap to the actual deed. And, he saw that good spot in the morning...maybe somewhere that NC could/would jog past... :twocents:
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 08:23 PM
There was a CPD car obviously trailing his every move, but since they didn't tell hm, it was a secret.
:doh:
Throughout this trial I have not alluded to which side I am on....but I would like to say I love your take on this and appreciate your insights...and I agree with 99.99999% of your posts...and to those that don't -- I appreciate your insights and respect your opinions.
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 08:24 PM
Yes, but we know what actually happened with the Blackberry. It came out in testimony, initially on direct examination by the State. With regard to the computer, the FBI forensics experts have testified that they checked the files that did change up until the time the computer was powered down, that all of these changes were due to system or security updates, and that there was no evidence of tampering. I take them at their word.
Yes, we know the Blackberry issue, and that they hid it from Defense for 10 months. The FBI didn't know that the computer was left powered up for 27 hours until he was asked on the stand.
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 08:25 PM
Have we chased the two attorneys away? I enjoyed their take on this.
Tink56
04-19-2011, 08:26 PM
They had a secret "security detail" on him from the first day under the guise of protecting the family. They followed him everywhere, even told how many bags of groceries he carried into the house including a small melon and some flowers. Det. Young testified about it.
I don't think I heard the detective say it was "secret." I think Brad spoke with/saw the detectives.
In the Kyron Horman disappearance, LE also stayed with the family/followed them the first few days because LE didn't know what was going on...kidnapping, kidnapping for ransom, a larger plot endangering the rest of the family. IMO this is SOP.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 08:29 PM
The list is mostly speculation, inaccuracies and opinion with no facts whatsoever. Its neither convincing nor supported.
It requires you to have a preordained view of the case and a 'guilty' interpretation of all the CE.
My guess is that the jury already sees through the flimsiness of the pros case and is waiting for the defense to give them a small dose of reasonable doubt to seal the deal.
I'm going to say again, all the RTP techies have shown up for this case because the dude worked at Cisco and they lived in Cary... so therefore, their interested in the technical aspect. My guess is, the jury, um, not so much. My guess is the jury more than likely is a little more like me... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah blah when it comes to all this technical testimony. They're going to look at this first and foremost:
Brad's marriage was horrible. (due to the actions of both of them)
Brad had an affair with his wife's best friend, which in effect ended the marriage. (would have ended with or without this IMO)
Brad admitted this and was going to allow his wife to take his two children and go back to Canada UNTIL
Brad started snooping and being nosey in Nancy's email account and saw the separation agreement.(speculation)
Brad didn't like the $$$ cha-ching it was going to cost him to keep up his crummy wife and his two kids. (speculation)
Brad set out to make a plan - and changed Nancy's plans. (your opinion)
Brad decided it would be cheaper to keep his kids and do away with his wife. (your opinion)
Brad was an expert in some technological field that gave him just enough knowledge and ability to create himself an alibi. (anyone with a fax machine can program a call, would be easier to do it that way then complicate things)
Brad looked at and zoomed in on a map right over the spot his wife's dead body was found - and did it the day before his wife mysteriously went missing. (according to evidence which cannot be validated objectively or tested for authenticity)
Brad did not withdraw the allowance for Nancy that weekend. (means nothing, he could have been planning to do it Saturday)
Brad stated he was asleep and yet he was on the computer checking his wife's email (probably) lying in wait in the dark for her to arrive home from a cook-out (speculation).
Brad made a couple unusual trips to HT on the very morning his wife disappears and took two completely different routes. (has this ever happened before? you don't know)
Brad's wife went running in two shoes for the same foot. (no she didn't - one pair is missing, plus CPD says matching shoes for same foot 'not considered missing')
Brad's dead wife's running clothing was never found, except the sports bra that was rolled under as if it was being put on, not taken off. (too many ways to explain this)
Brad lost his shoes. (no, the CPD didn't remove them from the house when executing the SW- who said he lost them?)
Brad lost items from the foyer. (we have no idea why items may have been missing from the foyer, or what items were there)
Brad got down on his hands and knees and washed hardwood floors. (could be for any number of non-suspicious reasons)
Brad cleaned out part of a garage he hadn't cleaned in 8 years. (following exterminator visit, NC asked him to as one of her friends testified)
Brad cleaned his trunk to an immaculate state. (there was no forensic evidence found in the trunk, so he must have according to CPD)
Brad couldn't remember, couldn't find, finally found, and laundered the dress his dead wife had been wearing the night before that had what he and he only saw as a wine stain. (same dress the CPD walked right by several times after having it descibed to them)
Brad did not report his wife missing. (because he wasn't sure she was?)
Brad did not return a police officer's call even after he played the voicemail and knew it was a p.o. (so?)
Brad did not call his wife's family. (he asked someone to do it)
Brad showed no emotion other than being very tired. (so? maybe that's his personality)
Brad searched Air Canada and jobs in Canada while his wife was missing. (or BC pull up NC history out of curiousity)
Brad ended up with a diamond necklace in the drawer of his dresser that his dead wife never took off. (there was a concerted effort to promote the idea she never removed it - of course she did. Funny that if he's guilty he never took the time to get rid of it or hide it)
Brad is a confirmed liar. (as are quite a few witnesses in this case, its up to the jury to make their assessment of each)
Brad had the opportunity and motive for his wife to suddenly be dead. (that's speculation not fact)
Brad had a $75,000 life insurance policy on his wife. (they did these together, he never attempted to collect)
Brad Cooper was the only person to benefit from his wife's death (possibly, if he wanted her dead - but you don't know that),
the only person who did not care that his wife was suddenly missing and dead (and you know this how?),
the last person to see his wife (and you know this how?),
the ONLY person to say she called him that morning on his way to the store (and who else would say it?) ,
the person who never once inquired of the police how the investigation was going (why should he when he was a suspect from day 1?), what was going on, did you find the person yet.
And Brad Cooper was the one person who did not look the police in the eye and say, "I did not kill my wife," that they would have liked to have heard it from the most. (or he was rightly cautious with the police after being the only suspect from day 1)
.
How about the 32 sec 6:40AM 'call".
That seems way too long for a simple green juice order.
I don't find that realistic.
BTW, how would you know what is normal behavior for someone planning to kill their wife?
Common sense. If I was going to hide something, and premeditated this, I would look at a number of possibilities before making a decision. Brad strikes me as the sort of person that thinks things through, so I'm guessing that Brad - during his premeditated murder - took more than 41 seconds to pick the spot.
He had a week to drive around and scope out a place while Nancy was gone. The search could have just been firming up in his mind the street names of the place he liked the best or just to sit and salivate for 41 seconds what he was going to do and it would all be over with soon.
Quite true. So he first scouted the location by driving around, and then confirmed the route by checking the map on the 11th.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 08:35 PM
Do you still believe that when the defense pointed out specific files on cross, and the FBI Agent couldn't answer why the SAM file was modified after it was out of the custody of the defendant, or internet history files?
I haven't seen any testimony to that effect, nor any mention of that in this forum. (Possible I could have missed it, as I don't have time to read every single post to these threads.) Is there a news account of this, or can someone who was there that day shed more light?
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 08:36 PM
But we don't know Brad's mind...what was going on in there...how long he had this planned...the preparations he made or did not make before the alleged event..
WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 08:37 PM
I haven't seen any testimony to that effect, nor any mention of that in this forum. (Possible I could have missed it, as I don't have time to read every single post to these threads.) Is there a news account of this, or can someone who was there that day shed more light?
I was there, and I am telling you this verbatim. The defense pulled up the list of files, and went through line by line. They dismissed tons by automatic updates (which everyone agreed were not caused by CPD, or any method of tampering), but there were several the the FBI could not explain away.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 08:37 PM
I haven't seen any testimony to that effect, nor any mention of that in this forum. (Possible I could have missed it, as I don't have time to read every single post to these threads.) Is there a news account of this, or can someone who was there that day shed more light?
Yes 650+ files modified after CPD took possession, pros witness says they were all auto-updates, we ahve not heard from the defense about it yet.
less0305
04-19-2011, 08:40 PM
CD?
Good for him.
If I was nearby when CPD charged him with murder, I would have applauded too.
And had I been Nancy's friend and knew what all she lived with, and then suddenly she's missing from her children for several hours (not to mention a prompt and conscientious person for keeping appointments) I would have called the police also. Her husband sure didn't. They all used their guts and instincts about Brad. Even the friend who didn't want to go searching in the woods alone with Brad - wow, that tells you something right there.
But we don't know Brad's mind...what was going on in there...how long he had this planned...the preparations he made or did not make before the alleged event..
I think the 41 second zip code map search is supposed to suggest that this was premeditated hours before the murder. That suggests to me that Brad supposedly planned all of this well in advance.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 08:43 PM
I was there, and I am telling you this verbatim. The defense pulled up the list of files, and went through line by line. They dismissed tons by automatic updates (which everyone agreed were not caused by CPD, or any method of tampering), but there were several the the FBI could not explain away.
Ok. What did the FBI say about those several files in question?
WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 08:44 PM
Ok. What did the FBI say about those several files in question?
Exactly what I said on the last page. They didn't know why they were updated, and they could not remember how they were ruled out as signs of tampering.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 08:45 PM
Yes 650+ files modified after CPD took possession, pros witness says they were all auto-updates, we ahve not heard from the defense about it yet.
I'm not sure how much more on that we will hear, given that their key witness is not allowed to testify re: computer forensics. I would like to know more about Spec Agent Johnson's being re-called to the stand by the defense today.
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 08:46 PM
Ok I am coming out of the closet so to speak....I believe Brad had this planned well in advance...He may not have known the exact date his plan would be carried out..but he knew it would happen.....the 41 second trip down Fielding Dr was on a whim while he was deep in thought because Nancy kept calling wanting her $$$...He scouted out that site while she was on vacation...JMO...
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 08:47 PM
So with that, do you think it is reasonable for the jury to consider her a suspect over BC?
:waitasec: Not everyone who lies is then considered a suspect, this is not how the courts/police conduct things. I think the point here is that a lying pros witness diminishes the credibility of the state's case against the defendent.
The jury will not be asked to identify another suspect, they will be asked only if the defendent is G or NG.
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 08:47 PM
But...if the defense has something viable to change my mind...bring it on...I'll be happy to consider it....
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 08:47 PM
Exactly what I said on the last page. They didn't know why they were updated, and they could not remember how they were ruled out as signs of tampering.
Ok. Interesting. Did anything further come out of that on re-cross?
gritguy
04-19-2011, 08:47 PM
He had a week to drive around and scope out a place while Nancy was gone. The search could have just been firming up in his mind the street names of the place he liked the best or just to sit and salivate for 41 seconds what he was going to do and it would all be over with soon.
Talked to the guy who was my riding partner back in 08. Told him the theory BC didn't know about fielding drive. We both had a good laugh at that one; nice stress relief from the storm recovery. Of course he saw it and the sign saying it was being developed. Like most riders I'm sure he knew it was not nearly as busy as lochmere gets. It makes sense he would check it out before using it, but he wouldn't need to study it.
Before I rode through the other day I took a quick look at it online to get the lay of the land and make sure I'd make the correct turns in the subdivision.
But brad who was training probably 100 miles a week on his bike didn't know about the new subdivision that was on the local riding route?? I don't buy that.
less0305
04-19-2011, 08:49 PM
Quite true. So he first scouted the location by driving around, and then confirmed the route by checking the map on the 11th.
Like I said, maybe in the midst of Nancy calling him and blasting for no money he pulled up the site and salivated over what he was going to do the next day. Or checked street names, or wanted to be sure he could find it in the middle of the night versus his trip scouting in the daytime. But 41 seconds isn't that short of a time frame when you had a week alone prior to figure out just where you would likely put her body. I sat here and clocked 41 seconds. I could study a map pretty good in 41 seconds.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 08:52 PM
Common sense. If I was going to hide something, and premeditated this, I would look at a number of possibilities before making a decision. Brad strikes me as the sort of person that thinks things through, so I'm guessing that Brad - during his premeditated murder - took more than 41 seconds to pick the spot.
As many have said, he very well could have driven over there in the days before the murder. CPD thinks so, as they presented different shoes with the white mica.
WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 08:52 PM
Ok. Interesting. Did anything further come out of that on re-cross?
I think that was the extent of it? If someone else was there, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think on cross they isolated maybe a dozen or so files that couldn't be explained by the FBI agent. Then on re-direct the prosecution got the witness to say that even though he didn't know what they were, or why they were changed, it was his expert opinion that they weren't indicative of tampering. He just couldn't point to why.
I really hope the defense brings this out--but I'm afraid we won't hear as much from their expert, because of the court's ruling today.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 08:53 PM
It's not a big thing but I did feel that the witness this afternoon mischaracterized the ease of getting into a WEP encrypted wireless network. It is definitely more than akin to having a screen door to keep someone out of your house. It still requires a tool to get past the encryption. It would be more like using a credit card to open a door with a flimsy lock. MOO
unc70
04-19-2011, 08:55 PM
41 seconds just doesn't seem long enough. He's thinking about murdering his wife and presumably he's carefully checking possible areas to put a body. This should not be a quick, random thought during a premeditated murder. All we have connecting Brad to the location where Nancy was found is a 41 sec zip code map search that FBI say zoomed directly to the correct location where she was found and then end of search. I don't find that realistic.
Would seem particularly quick if everyone is gathering around getting ready to leave for lunch at any second.
As many have said, he very well could have driven over there in the days before the murder. CPD thinks so, as they presented different shoes with the white mica.
I suppose I have to throw out my theory that there should have been additional computer searches of the area. If he had already selected the area, 41 seconds was long enough to confirm the area and surrounding route.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 08:56 PM
But brad who was training probably 100 miles a week on his bike
not since June 2007, and as far as I know no one has disputed that.
less0305
04-19-2011, 08:56 PM
It's not a big thing but I did feel that the witness this afternoon mischaracterized the ease of getting into a WEP encrypted wireless network. It is definitely more than akin to having a screen door to keep someone out of your house. It still requires a tool to get past the encryption. It would be more like using a credit card to open a door with a flimsy lock. MOO
Of course he did. He's being paid to.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 08:57 PM
:waitasec: Not everyone who lies is then considered a suspect, this is not how the courts/police conduct things. I think the point here is that a lying pros witness diminishes the credibility of the state's case against the defendent.
The jury will not be asked to identify another suspect, they will be asked only if the defendent is G or NG.
Again jrb0124, please lay off your preaching of the obvious.
I have not heard any Pros witness being caught in an intentional lie...have you?
gritguy
04-19-2011, 08:59 PM
As many have said, he very well could have driven over there in the days before the murder. CPD thinks so, as they presented different shoes with the white mica.
And he picked a great place. Took only moments to get to yet provided a reasonable amount of time for discovery which certainly diminished the evidence.
Not surprising, he had been riding the local roads for years by foot, certainly planning routes for that etc. He picked the nearest best place. Perhaps only a bit of nervousness caused him to have a last look that day. Lilly atkins though somewhat secluded is a cut through so is subject to traffic at any time and people do live on it. Holly springs a no go too much chance of being spotted while your car is stopped. Regency park back behind the pond had potential but it would have extended the trip.
If BC went Cary parkway to holly springs, he could cut right to fielding if the cost was clear or turn left to tryon if the situation seemed sketchy (car coming or whatever).
calgary123
04-19-2011, 09:00 PM
I'm looking forward to hearing where this expert goes. I expect it will be much about nothing, but you never know. Its one thing for Brad's neighbors to have the ability to break into his wifi, but its quite another to demonstrate it happened. Breaking in and planting evidence would be a criminal offense. Also, the prosecution can call the neighbors in rebuttal and ask if they know how to, or have ever, broken into Brad's wifi. The neighbors who testified earlier weren't even asked by Kurtz about this though, so I think their theory is different than that.
I remember with the Peterson trial, I was part of the "he didn't do it" group. This was primarily because I watched a news magazine style TV show where one of the intended witnesses, a sweet old lady, was interviewed and showed the cameras the window in her home she looked out where she saw Laci walking by that morning, and commented on the "pretty girl with the beautiful dog" and that said she saw her often. This was compelling to me at the time.
Even after the prosecution rested, I still thought guilt wasn't proven. Then the defense made the situation worse for their client with awful witnesses. And then I find out that lady passed away before the trial started.
Once the defense closed, I re-evaluated. I came to the conclusion it was obvious he was guilty and I put too much emphasis on testimony from an eye witness who was well intentioned but mistaken (and who did not testify in any event).
My point here is, the defense needs to be very careful. They could do a lot damage to their chances if they bring out a lot of garbage witnesses. I'd go as far to say that they have to be more careful about this than the prosecution. For the prosecution, they had to be thorough and were accused of a bad investigation, so they had a lot to prove. For the defense, the same does not apply. They just need to shake some of the evidence and show reasonable doubt. Kurtz made a lot of promises in his opening and I think, for example, calling the CPD corrupt was a big mistake. He set the bar high in terms of what he said will prove, and is going to likely fall very short. He doesn't have to prove anything, but it sure would help his client if he does.
I'm all for a fair trial. I don't have a lot of faith in Kurtz though, he's had some great moments in cross examination, but he more than often has fallen flat in the videos I've watched. A lot of his objections were awful. Calling the judge out today took a lot of courage, I'll give him that, and he's giving it all, which you have to respect him for. I just think he's spending energy in the wrong areas a lot of the time.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:01 PM
I think that was the extent of it? If someone else was there, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think on cross they isolated maybe a dozen or so files that couldn't be explained by the FBI agent. Then on re-direct the prosecution got the witness to say that even though he didn't know what they were, or why they were changed, it was his expert opinion that they weren't indicative of tampering. He just couldn't point to why.
I really hope the defense brings this out--but I'm afraid we won't hear as much from their expert, because of the court's ruling today.
Yes, because he is not an expert.
Kurtz had >2 years to find someone with expert credentials. I suppose the $$$ was not enough to buy someone on the witness stand to lie for Brad Cooper
gritguy
04-19-2011, 09:01 PM
not since June 2007, and as far as I know no one has disputed that.
Didn't know he had quit riding or at least quit most of it by then. I will still believe based on my experience that he knew about fielding.
less0305
04-19-2011, 09:01 PM
Again jrb0124, please lay off your preaching of the obvious.
I have not heard any Pros witness being caught in an intentional lie...have you?
Don't worry - the jury will see this as a BFO (Blinding Flash of the Obvious) - the neighbors had no reason to murder Nancy and then cover it up, nor do they have a reason to risk perjury charges to frame up Brad, no do they profit or gain from a conspiracy - and last I checked, most of them were stay-at-home moms who I'm sure don't have the technical skills to pull off a hacking, a murder, and a conspiracy without leaving some trace to their own computer.
unc70
04-19-2011, 09:01 PM
I know I post and seems noone listens but this is my thought process. It is totally believable that someone could use their wireless network if not protected. I don't think BC would do that. We have three computers on Suddenlink network and if we do anywhere with our laptops we can pick up anyone's network connection if it isn't secured. I do NOT believe given BC's IT experience he would have that at his home. Noone sat outside his house and did a search of Fielding Drive or suicide by strangling. Kurtz is totally digging for what he can and I think the jurors know that. If I take my lap top to a campground or a hotel it picks up networks available for connection and most usually you have to have a password given to you by where you are staying to get the "best" connection. JMO
Seems to me that is trackable and the CPD sure wouldn't be googling Fiedling drive. They hadn't found her yet. I am so going to just read and not post my aggravated posts but this Jay guy seems he knows all this stuff but Brad Cooper has access he wouldn't.
You should realize that the Cooper WEP wireless network would appear to you as "Protected". You really need to watch the last 3/4 hour of today's testimony and then tune in tomorrow.
The more-secure you think your systems, the less secure they probably are.
TXredhead178
04-19-2011, 09:02 PM
I think that was the extent of it? If someone else was there, please correct me if I'm wrong. I think on cross they isolated maybe a dozen or so files that couldn't be explained by the FBI agent. Then on re-direct the prosecution got the witness to say that even though he didn't know what they were, or why they were changed, it was his expert opinion that they weren't indicative of tampering. He just couldn't point to why.
I really hope the defense brings this out--but I'm afraid we won't hear as much from their expert, because of the court's ruling today.
Thank you, that is helpful to know. I am trying to get as accurate a picture of all of this as I can, and it's difficult when testimony is blacked out. I have to believe he had some reason to say that changes to those several files weren't indicative of tampering, though I do put less stock in it if he was unable to state why. Would have been helpful to have another expert to expand on this, I agree.
Do I have it right that it was testified to that there was no tampering found re: the files associated with the searches on Fielding Drive on 7/11?
Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 09:02 PM
The tool that Ward guy showed runs on Unix. How many casual computer users use Unix as their O.S. of choice? I personally don't know any. The ones I know who use Unix are the serious gearheads.
less0305
04-19-2011, 09:03 PM
Didn't know he had quit riding or at least quit most of it by then. I will still believe based on my experience that he knew about fielding.
And it was only 3 miles away from his own home. Not like he drove to S.C. somewhere to throw her out like trash.
gorealtors
04-19-2011, 09:04 PM
As many have said, he very well could have driven over there in the days before the murder. CPD thinks so, as they presented different shoes with the white mica.
Agreed, JTF. My goodness he was all by his lonesome from June 28-July5 2008. I am betting he used his time wisely and scoped out some dump sites!:rolleyes:
WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 09:04 PM
Thank you, that is helpful to know. I am trying to get as accurate a picture of all of this as I can, and it's difficult when testimony is blacked out. I have to believe he had some reason to say that changes to those several files weren't indicative of tampering, though I do put less stock in it if he was unable to state why. Would have been helpful to have another expert to expand on this, I agree.
Do I have it right that it was testified to that there was no tampering found re: the files associated with the searches on Fielding Drive on 7/11?
No problem! Glad I could help. He testified that all 100% of the files showed Invalid Timestamps, but that did not change his opinion that they were not tampered with.
Originally posted by Madeleine74:The tool that Ward guy showed runs on Unix. How many casual computer users use Unix as their O.S. of choice? I personally don't know any. The ones I know who use Unix are the serious gearheads.
It's a free download from the internet, and can be used as a bootable disk. I know quite a few people who aren't experts of any kind that are fully capable of running bootable disks. Same as you would to crack an admin password, or anything like that.
unc70
04-19-2011, 09:05 PM
YOU told me what could have happened, so I am supposed to believe YOU.
:nevermind:
They said you were gullible, and you believed them.
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 09:06 PM
Ah hah!! The neighbors did it because they were tired of NC and her stories......yeah right!!
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:07 PM
Ok I am coming out of the closet so to speak....I believe Brad had this planned well in advance...He may not have known the exact date his plan would be carried out..but he knew it would happen.....the 41 second trip down Fielding Dr was on a whim while he was deep in thought because Nancy kept calling wanting her $$$...He scouted out that site while she was on vacation...JMO...
You were always "out of the closet" here.
Overly-Curious
04-19-2011, 09:08 PM
:sick:or maybe Peyton Place....the Cary Edition was getting out of hand....the possibilities are endless...but not reality...ok I'm done now....
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:09 PM
How about the 32 sec 6:40AM 'call".
That seems way too long for a simple green juice order.
I don't find that realistic.
BTW, how would you know what is normal behavior for someone planning to kill their wife?
Probably the same way you seem to know what normal behavior is for someone that just killed their wife.
NCEast
04-19-2011, 09:09 PM
:sick:or maybe Peyton Place....the Cary Edition was getting out of hand....the possibilities are endless...but not reality...ok I'm done now....
I am as well. A lot of logic seems to have flown out the window since the trial ended today.
Tomorrow is another day and we'll see what it brings.
gritguy
04-19-2011, 09:12 PM
And it was only 3 miles away from his own home. Not like he drove to S.C. somewhere to throw her out like trash.
Agreed. Pretty much the best place to do it under the circumstances.
So if he didn't do it, then:
1. Van of strangers with sock fetish get her and later neighbors retroactively introduce a 41 second search of the dump site to frame brad? That is bold hoping LEO will discover that. And if they go that far why not hack in a search to an actual site about strangling people and cleaning evidence and then they have him good. Why do all that hacking for such a chancy set up?
2. Neighbor killed her, stole her socks, then bet everthing on hacking Brad's computer and putting in the retro dated search but nothing more clearly linking him to the crime on that PC?
I don't buy those!
Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 09:12 PM
Who would want to frame Brad Cooper and why? And how would that person have known on 7-16-08 that there wouldn't already be incriminating physical evidence tying Cooper to his wife's murder, or better yet physical evidence tying someone else to her murder?
And then, how would that person have known how to hack into both the network and Cooper's work laptop, get past his security software and password protection, create a google search and then change the timestamp?
And why would anyone go to this much trouble to frame an innocent man? But they only put some obscure file change timestamp? They don't bother really tying him to the dump site? They don't do anything else? Just change a file's time?
And you all seriously believe this?
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 09:12 PM
I am as well. A lot of logic seems to have flown out the window since the trial ended today.
Tomorrow is another day and we'll see what it brings.
I know this morning the witness was sounding pretty impressive while Kurtz was questioning him. I thought sure he was going to be qualified as an expert. Then Zellinger started asking questions and the impression changed. MOO
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:13 PM
Probably the same way you seem to know what normal behavior is for someone that just killed their wife.
Huh?
I have no idea about such a thing.
Unlike you and others, I wear a white hat and side with the victim and her family....all of which BTW, believe Brad Cooper murdered their loved one.
41 seconds just doesn't seem long enough. He's thinking about murdering his wife and presumably he's carefully checking possible areas to put a body. This should not be a quick, random thought during a premeditated murder. All we have connecting Brad to the location where Nancy was found is a 41 sec zip code map search that FBI say zoomed directly to the correct location where she was found and then end of search. I don't find that realistic.
If you already know the location from driving to it and want to get an overview to see it from another angle, ya might just take 41 secs. I tried it. Went to google earth and put the search in then looked at my computer clock for 41 secs. Actually 41 secs is longer than I thought it would be.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:16 PM
I suppose the $$$ was not enough to buy someone on the witness stand to lie for Brad Cooper
What did the witness (JW) lie about today?
Are you suggesting that if there was (hypothetically) a computer forensics expert testifying for the defense that the timestamps were off that person would be lying?
What if 5 got up there and said it? would they all be lying - just because they are defense witnesses?
There have been cases (specifically in NC) where the state has has been wrong about evidence. I can provide you with some links if you are interested.
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:16 PM
It's not a big thing but I did feel that the witness this afternoon mischaracterized the ease of getting into a WEP encrypted wireless network. It is definitely more than akin to having a screen door to keep someone out of your house. It still requires a tool to get past the encryption. It would be more like using a credit card to open a door with a flimsy lock. MOO
Not really. Just watch any of the youtube videos I posted showing this could be done in under 4 minutes with free tools.
gritguy
04-19-2011, 09:16 PM
Who would want to frame Brad Cooper and why? And how would that person have known on 7-16-08 that there wouldn't already be incriminating physical evidence tying Cooper to his wife's murder, or better yet physical evidence tying someone else to her murder?
And then, how would that person have known how to hack into both the network and Cooper's work laptop, get past his security software and password protection, create a google search and then change the timestamp?
And why would anyone go to this much trouble to frame an innocent man? But they only put some obscure file change timestamp? They don't bother really tying him to the dump site? They don't do anything else? Just change a file's time?
And you all seriously believe this?
It's that or aliens hovering over his house with technology so advanced they could hack his PC do a closed palm search, update their facebook status and play Call of Duty all at the same time! :crazy:
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:17 PM
I suppose I have to throw out my theory that there should have been additional computer searches of the area. If he had already selected the area, 41 seconds was long enough to confirm the area and surrounding route.
If the search is legit, that is exactly what he did. It's the only thing that makes sense.
The tool that Ward guy showed runs on Unix. How many casual computer users use Unix as their O.S. of choice? I personally don't know any. The ones I know who use Unix are the serious gearheads.
Did any of the computers in question at the Cooper home run unix?
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 09:19 PM
Not really. Just watch any of the youtube videos I posted showing this could be done in under 4 minutes with free tools.
That's what I said. You still need some tool, like a person might need to pull out a credit card to jimmy open a lock. WEP is still a lock. It's just not a good one and can easily be bypassed if someone wants to take the time. Having no encryption would be the screen door. That would be an unsecure network that anyone can jump on if they are close enough to the rounter/access point. MOO
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:19 PM
Agreed. Pretty much the best place to do it under the circumstances.
So if he didn't do it, then:
1. Van of strangers with sock fetish get her and later neighbors retroactively introduce a 41 second search of the dump site to frame brad? That is bold hoping LEO will discover that. And if they go that far why not hack in a search to an actual site about strangling people and cleaning evidence and then they have him good. Why do all that hacking for such a chancy set up?
2. Neighbor killed her, stole her socks, then bet everthing on hacking Brad's computer and putting in the retro dated search but nothing more clearly linking him to the crime on that PC?
I don't buy those!
There are quite a few alt theories which make sense - none of which you descibe above. Are you truly interested in hearing them?
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:19 PM
What did the witness (JW) lie about today?
Are you suggesting that if there was (hypothetically) a computer forensics expert testifying for the defense that the timestamps were off that person would be lying?
What if 5 got up there and said it? would they all be lying - just because they are defense witnesses?
There have been cases (specifically in NC) where the state has has been wrong about evidence. I can provide you with some links if you are interested.
Where are those witnesses?
Kurtz had 2 years to find a suitable one to say just that.
The fact that he is left with a unqualified, self-taught hack is his fault.
Perhaps Cooper can win a new trial on appeal based on incompetent counsel?
SleuthinNC
04-19-2011, 09:20 PM
The tool that Ward guy showed runs on Unix. How many casual computer users use Unix as their O.S. of choice? I personally don't know any. The ones I know who use Unix are the serious gearheads.
So just a random listing off the top of my head of people who know BC and know Unix...
CD, DD, BA, SH and probably more
Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 09:22 PM
Did any of the computers in question at the Cooper home run unix?
His work computer, the IBM ThinkPad, that all this attention is focused on as that's where the incriminating search was found, ran Windows. Don't know which version of Win it was--whatever was the Cisco standard at the time.
The Mac computer ran Mac OS. But that's not the computer that the defense is claiming someone hacked into.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:24 PM
His work computer, the IBM ThinkPad, that all this attention is focused on as that's where the incriminating search was found, ran Windows. Don't know which version of Win it was--whatever was the Cisco standard at the time.
The Mac computer ran Mac OS. But that's not the computer that the defense is claiming someone hacked into.
I think it was Windows Vista
Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 09:24 PM
So just a random listing off the top of my head of people who know BC and know Unix...
CD, DD, BA, SH and probably more
Where is the proof of their knowledge of Unix?
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:25 PM
ncsu95, please address posters by their correct nic.
gritguy
04-19-2011, 09:25 PM
There are quite a few alt theories which make sense - none of which you descibe above. Are you truly interested in hearing them?
Actually yes. I read the alternate theory thread but in doing it I came away more convinced the state has the correct theory.
I appreciate the intellectual exercise of developing the possibilities. Once those are in mind, I filtered them through the known evidence and find only one, IMO, that has substantial evidence behind it. That is the states theory. To me it by far has the most evidence making it by far the most likely to be correct.
What mostly matters is the alternate theory if any the defense chooses to present. Clearly tampering or poor control of the computer is one. Eyewitness jogging witness is a likely other. Im not close minded to what kurtz brings now that he has the case, I just am convinced currently that BC killed his wife.
eta: for example i spent some time considering the possibility that a secret lover or a jealous spouse or jealous lover of BC killed NC. But while theoretically possible, I did not see them supported by evidence, the deleted phone notwithstanding.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:25 PM
So just a random listing off the top of my head of people who know BC and know Unix...
CD, DD, BA, SH and probably more
And you know this how?
calgary123
04-19-2011, 09:25 PM
Who would want to frame Brad Cooper and why? And how would that person have known on 7-16-08 that there wouldn't already be incriminating physical evidence tying Cooper to his wife's murder, or better yet physical evidence tying someone else to her murder?
And then, how would that person have known how to hack into both the network and Cooper's work laptop, get past his security software and password protection, create a google search and then change the timestamp?
And why would anyone go to this much trouble to frame an innocent man? But they only put some obscure file change timestamp? They don't bother really tying him to the dump site? They don't do anything else? Just change a file's time?
And you all seriously believe this?
These are excellent points. I think the defense's best chance is to argue a random killer did it (Chandra Levy anyone? I'll bet most of you thought Condit was involved at first).
But the defense is in a position they have to counter some damning evidence, both on the computer and otherwise. So now they have to make the jury believe at least one of two things:
1. The authorities, be it CPD or FBI, might have planted evidence to make a circumstantial case stronger
2. Someone who hates Brad might have planted evidence because they hate him and think he did it, and think by planting evidence they were helping the prosecution.
I suppose there is a third alternative, but it will never fly. That is, the actual killer pre-planned this and planted the info to frame Brad. This is so far from possibly true when you look at all of the circumstantial evidence, I don't really think the defense will even try. If they do, they will help the prosecution.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 09:25 PM
The guy that applauded when BC was arrested, I can't think of his name. His last name started with a D. He had hit on NC and grossed her out.
It was CD, who showed up to court in a t-shirt and threw the "f-bomb" so many times I was beyond embarassed. I think the defense will be calling him back. This guy is not credible.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:26 PM
Perhaps Cooper can win a new trial on appeal based on incompetent counsel?
If he's convicted, he'll get an appeal - and probably a new trial without a problem. It will have nothing to do with ineffective counsel though. There are a few other ways to win an appeal/new trail and there are piling up.
But you didn't answer my question: if BC had sufficient $$$ to bring in a top shelf computer forensics expert, and that expert claimed the timestamps were off, would you dismiss the expert as lying simply because he/she was testifying for the defense and doing it only for the $$$? That's the way your comment comes across - go reread it.
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:27 PM
Huh?
I have no idea about such a thing.
Unlike you and others, I wear a white hat and side with the victim and her family....all of which BTW, believe Brad Cooper murdered their loved one.
I don't side with anybody. I have watched this trial trying to look at the evidence with an open mind. At this point, I believe he is guilty. My opinion could change before it is over. It has changed at least once already.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:27 PM
It was CD, who showed up to court in a t-shirt and threw the "f-bomb" so many times I was beyond embarassed. I think the defense will be calling him back. This guy is not credible.
Not credible because he wore a t-shirt?
You were embarrassed or embarrassed for him?
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:28 PM
That's what I said. You still need some tool, like a person might need to pull out a credit card to jimmy open a lock. WEP is still a lock. It's just not a good one and can easily be bypassed if someone wants to take the time. Having no encryption would be the screen door. That would be an unsecure network that anyone can jump on if they are close enough to the rounter/access point. MOO
But tool here means free software. Takes about a minute or less to find.
unc70
04-19-2011, 09:28 PM
Yes, because he is not an expert.
Kurtz had >2 years to find someone with expert credentials. I suppose the $$$ was not enough to buy someone on the witness stand to lie for Brad Cooper
Whatever one may think of his claims, Jay Ward will not lie on the stand for anyone. I don't personally know him, but whatever he claims will be backed up with enough for us geeks to know whether it rings true.
It seems to me that those most likely still on the fence are those with the most technical background, particularly those who are also familiar with the long list of police, SBI, FBI, and other errors involving cases in NC.
Geeks like Ward are not going to lie for anyone. Get's us in a lot of trouble sometimes with authority figures, bosses, etc. We suffer fools poorly, if at all. When your identity is wrapped up completely in your professional skills and reputation, you don't shill for anyone and you are not easily bullied by those lacking a clue.
kljohnson0458
04-19-2011, 09:29 PM
You should realize that the Cooper WEP wireless network would appear to you as "Protected". You really need to watch the last 3/4 hour of today's testimony and then tune in tomorrow.
The more-secure you think your systems, the less secure they probably are.
Dang work gets in the way but i'll try. I personally don't like this witness JMO not because he can put a snag in the State but his total know everything attitude. I noticed him turning to the jury and to me it meant nothing. JMO
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:29 PM
I don't side with anybody. I have watched this trial trying to look at the evidence with an open mind. At this point, I believe he is guilty. My opinion could change before it is over. It has changed at least once already.
I'm glad to see you admitting you believe he is guilty.
Judging from your posts, that certainly never crossed my mind.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:30 PM
It was CD, who showed up to court in a t-shirt and threw the "f-bomb" so many times I was beyond embarassed. I think the defense will be calling him back. This guy is not credible.
Another witness the pros wishes would...just...go...away
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:31 PM
I'm glad to see you admitting you believe he is guilty.
Judging from your posts, that certainly never crossed my mind.
I guess you haven't read my posts. I have said it dozens of times since the "smoking gun" dropped last week.
ETA: But it doesn't mean I'm not going to look at what is being presented with a skeptical viewpoint (from both sides). I will still argue the evidence based on my understanding and experience. And I'm still open minded enough to change my opinion if evidence shows the search wasn't legit. But until they show that, I'm on the guilty side. And just to add...I don't believe anyone hacked into his system. My arguing today is more about the capability than if someone did. And I still think Gessner is as biased as they come.
SleuthinNC
04-19-2011, 09:32 PM
Where is the proof of their knowledge of Unix?
Just like the other details of this trial, everything that needs to be found exists on Google.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 09:32 PM
But tool here means free software. Takes about a minute or less to find.
It takes less than that to pull out a credit card to jimmy a door. It is still more than pushing open a screen door. I'm just saying that his analogy was an exaggeration. I also imagine the prosecution will point out that you actually have to be in range of the wireless router/access point in order to accomplish this hacking. It's not like you can sit in your living room and hack somebody 3 blocks over.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:33 PM
Does anyone know when exactly the FBI pulled the data from BC's laptop? I'm just curious because if it occurred after the interrogation/custody deposition, what did they possibly use to convince the GJ to indict? It seems like they already knew about the Fielding Drive search. Otherwise, there wasn't any other evidence aside from the gossipy "friends" running the investigation and pointing out the "evidence" to them.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:34 PM
Whatever one may think of his claims, Jay Ward will not lie on the stand for anyone. I don't personally know him, but whatever he claims will be backed up with enough for us geeks to know whether it rings true.
It seems to me that those most likely still on the fence are those with the most technical background, particularly those who are also familiar with the long list of police, SBI, FBI, and other errors involving cases in NC.
Geeks like Ward are not going to lie for anyone. Get's us in a lot of trouble sometimes with authority figures, bosses, etc. We suffer fools poorly, if at all. When your identity is wrapped up completely in your professional skills and reputation, you don't shill for anyone and you are not easily bullied by those lacking a clue.
You don't know him, yet are certain he would never lie on the stand for $ or perhaps fame:waitasec:
Don't think for a second that is true. Look no further than the "highly respected" Henry Lee. In his case, it is both fame and $$$
DogWood
04-19-2011, 09:35 PM
I'm late to the party - but was able to check Twitter today while I was gone.
Starting from the last page and reading backwards is probably not a good idea today - and I'm sure this has been brought up but...
Officer Hayes(?) testified that he was there to make sure nothing was removed from the home before the SW was secured. He said Brad took a shower and then he heard him in his office on the computer. Brad then asked him to go downstairs and wait in the entryway? I guess it's hard for me to believe that Brad didn't lock that computer before he left that room (let alone what he may have been trying to delete) and left it unsecure/unlocked. My 2 pennies.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 09:36 PM
Whatever one may think of his claims, Jay Ward will not lie on the stand for anyone. I don't personally know him, but whatever he claims will be backed up with enough for us geeks to know whether it rings true.
It seems to me that those most likely still on the fence are those with the most technical background, particularly those who are also familiar with the long list of police, SBI, FBI, and other errors involving cases in NC.
Geeks like Ward are not going to lie for anyone. Get's us in a lot of trouble sometimes with authority figures, bosses, etc. We suffer fools poorly, if at all. When your identity is wrapped up completely in your professional skills and reputation, you don't shill for anyone and you are not easily bullied by those lacking a clue.
I agree with that. He has been honest on a couple of points already that definitely did not help the defense. One was in pointing out how skilled Brad is and the other I can't remember now but when he gave his answer, I know I said, "That's not what Kurtz wanted you to say." However, I think that he could give results that are not accurate not because he is dishonest but because he didn't run something correctly. MOO
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:36 PM
Does anyone know when exactly the FBI pulled the data from BC's laptop? I'm just curious because if it occurred after the interrogation/custody deposition, what did they possibly use to convince the GJ to indict? It seems like they already knew about the Fielding Drive search. Otherwise, there wasn't any other evidence aside from the gossipy "friends" running the investigation and pointing out the "evidence" to them.
They found the Fielding drive data in late 2009, so that was not used for the indictment - though it was probably not needed. Indictments are pretty easy come by in a case like this.
SleuthSayer
04-19-2011, 09:38 PM
It seems to me that those most likely still on the fence are those with the most technical background, particularly those who are also familiar with the long list of police, SBI, FBI, and other errors involving cases in NC.
Yes, I agree with this point. Engineers don't deal well with uncertainty. :-) I wouldn't say that I'm on the fence. I have assumed that he probably did it since the day she went missing (and posted such back in 2008). But, I do like details and certainty. There seems to be practically none of that in this case.
Shadow722
04-19-2011, 09:38 PM
Who would want to frame Brad Cooper and why? And how would that person have known on 7-16-08 that there wouldn't already be incriminating physical evidence tying Cooper to his wife's murder, or better yet physical evidence tying someone else to her murder?
And then, how would that person have known how to hack into both the network and Cooper's work laptop, get past his security software and password protection, create a google search and then change the timestamp?
And why would anyone go to this much trouble to frame an innocent man?
And you all seriously believe this?
Madeleine,
It depends on your hypothesis. If you are inclined to the side that no matter what BC did it, then no, an alternate hypothesis carries little weight.
On the other hand, if your inclined to be unsure at this moment that BC did it, then you add up stuff on that (BC may not be guilty) side of the ledger:
Crime committed, but no crime scene could be determined or found in the house.
No forensic evidence BC transported a body.
ME conclusions weak as to TOD. Could be hours before 7 am or after 7 AM.
Forensic Bug Guy left the window open as equally before or after 7 AM.
6:40 AM phone call: spoofed by BC, or made by unknown third party, or made by NC herself is inconclusive.
So if not BC then who??? Yes, I know it could be BC, it should be BC because he's a slimeball, and most folks here want it to be BC.
But for just a moment, think: what if it's not BC, and postulate for the briefest time that he is maybe being framed by a killer.
Does that mean he did not do it. No, it just means keep your mind open, explore all possibilities, and after all evidence is heard, explored and trashed over, the jury will speak, affirmatively one way or the other.
Then we will all know......
unc70
04-19-2011, 09:40 PM
That's what I said. You still need some tool, like a person might need to pull out a credit card to jimmy open a lock. WEP is still a lock. It's just not a good one and can easily be bypassed if someone wants to take the time. Having no encryption would be the screen door. That would be an unsecure network that anyone can jump on if they are close enough to the rounter/access point. MOO
WEP is barely a screen door. WPA is closer to a screen door. WPA2 is a bit better. WEP was considered a joke before 2008. Today, the automated hacking is quickly overcoming the higher levels of security. What is being discussed at the trial requires almost no technical skills, only the ability of Google search slightly more complicated than "27518".
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:41 PM
They found the Fielding drive data in late 2009, so that was not used for the indictment - though it was probably not needed. Indictments are pretty easy come by in a case like this.
Thanks. I find it interesting they would lock him up for 2 1/2 years on pre-Fielding drive search evidence, but they did. And that probably explains why they were still trying to "find" evidence in '10 (mica). It's really scary if you think about it.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 09:41 PM
Not credible because he wore a t-shirt?
You were embarrassed or embarrassed for him?
I was embarassed for him
Not credible because he was not in the least bit professional on the stand. Not credible because it is a known fact in this little circle of Lochmere friends that he hit on NC repeatidly.
Not credible because he threw the f-bomb in court that day numerous time. And yes - not credible because he wore a t-shirt and sounded like a disgruntled, jealous, wanna-be boyfriend on the stand.
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:42 PM
It takes less than that to pull out a credit card to jimmy a door. It is still more than pushing open a screen door. I'm just saying that his analogy was an exaggeration. I also imagine the prosecution will point out that you actually have to be in range of the wireless router/access point in order to accomplish this hacking. It's not like you can sit in your living room and hack somebody 3 blocks over.
Fair enough. I thought you were saying not everyone has access to the tools. It does take an effort and intention to do it.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:42 PM
They found the Fielding drive data in late 2009, so that was not used for the indictment - though it was probably not needed. Indictments are pretty easy come by in a case like this.
Wow, you make this claim as fact:banghead:
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:44 PM
Madeleine,
It depends on your hypothesis. If you are inclined to the side that no matter what BC did it, then no, an alternate hypothesis carries little weight.
On the other hand, if your inclined to be unsure at this moment that BC did it, then you add up stuff on that (BC may not be guilty) side of the ledger:
Crime committed, but no crime scene could be determined or found in the house.
No forensic evidence BC transported a body.
ME conclusions weak as to TOD. Could be hours before 7 am or after 7 AM.
Forensic Bug Guy left the window open as equally before or after 7 AM.
6:40 AM phone call: spoofed by BC, or made by unknown third party, or made by NC herself is inconclusive.
So if not BC then who??? Yes, I know it could be BC, it should be BC because he's a slimeball, and most folks here want it to be BC.
But for just a moment, think: what if it's not BC, and postulate for the briefest time that he is maybe being framed by a killer.
Does that mean he did not do it. No, it just means keep your mind open, explore all possibilities, and after all evidence is heard, explored and trashed over, the jury will speak, affirmatively one way or the other.
Then we will all know......
I wonder if we will ever really know. If, by chance BC is found "not guilty" would police reopen the case? I would hope so.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 09:44 PM
I guess you haven't read my posts. I have said it dozens of times since the "smoking gun" dropped last week.
ETA: But it doesn't mean I'm not going to look at what is being presented with a skeptical viewpoint (from both sides). I will still argue the evidence based on my understanding and experience. And I'm still open minded enough to change my opinion if evidence shows the search wasn't legit. But until they show that, I'm on the guilty side. And just to add...I don't believe anyone hacked into his system. My arguing today is more about the capability than if someone did. And I still think Gessner is as biased as they come.
I read on wral.com that Kurtz asked for a mistrial and for Gessner to recuse himself. This judge has been as biased as they come. He has made a mockery of this case in his rulings. It would only be fair for him to recuse himself - of course - something he would not do.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:44 PM
Thanks. I find it interesting they would lock him up for 2 1/2 years on pre-Fielding drive search evidence.
Maybe they thought stopping the daily flood of angry phone calls to CPD was a good enough reason?
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 09:45 PM
WEP is barely a screen door. WPA is closer to a screen door. WPA2 is a bit better. WEP was considered a joke before 2008. Today, the automated hacking is quickly overcoming the higher levels of security. What is being discussed at the trial requires almost no technical skills, only the ability of Google search slightly more complicated than "27518".
It still requires a person with a wireless device with the tool installed in close proximity to the wireless router to hack into the network and thereby the computer. It is definitely not as easy as pushing open a screen door. It might be for computer geeks/hackers but not for the normal, every day person. The most they are able to do is get onto someone's unsecured network. MOO
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 09:45 PM
Yes, I agree with this point. Engineers don't deal well with uncertainty. :-) I wouldn't say that I'm on the fence. I have assumed that he probably did it since the day she went missing (and posted such back in 2008). But, I do like details and certainty. There seems to be practically none of that in this case.
I agree too. That's why I hated classes like Philosophy but loved classes like Calculus (all 4 levels). With math, there is a right or a wrong answer that isn't subject to someones interpretation. I knew in English that I was going to get a B no matter how much effort I put into a paper.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:46 PM
I was embarassed for him
Not credible because he was not in the least bit professional on the stand. Not credible because it is a known fact in this little circle of Lochmere friends that he hit on NC repeatidly.
Not credible because he threw the f-bomb in court that day numerous time. And yes - not credible because he wore a t-shirt and sounded like a disgruntled, jealous, wanna-be boyfriend on the stand.
Who says that a reluctant witness must be 'professional' to be credible?
That is obviously your opinion and you are so entitled.
Personally, I considered him quite credible with absolutely no pretense.
Yes, he should have worn a nice shirt to court, but that certainly did not subtract from his testimony.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:47 PM
I find it *very* interesting that posters on this forum knew about the Fielding Drive "zoom-in" evidence even before the FBI. Amazing.
SleuthSayer
04-19-2011, 09:48 PM
I wonder if we will ever really know. If, by chance BC is found "not guilty" would police reopen the case? I would hope so.
Uh, no. Did the LAPD go looking for the "real killers" after OJ was found not guilty?
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:48 PM
I agree too. That's why I hated classes like Philosophy but loved classes like Calculus (all 4 levels). With math, there is a right or a wrong answer that isn't subject to someones interpretation. I knew in English that I was going to get a B no matter how much effort I put into a paper.
Amen.
gritguy
04-19-2011, 09:48 PM
in looking at an alternate theory (not just hey the state didn't prove its case) i would say to produce a reasonable doubt it would have to be reasonable not just possible that the theory was true, and to be reasonable it would have to have some evidence behind it. In the totality of the picture, a mere possibility of another killer with nothing else to show for it but the intellectual argument that it is not impossible isn't much for me. If you think the state's case is too weak as it is, then I can see an alternate theory being a bigger deal.
but for me, the state has shown their theory has evidence behind it. to dislodge that theory with another theory, it should be shown by evidence that the competing theory reasonably could have happened.
If Kurtz wants/intends to do that, here comes his chance.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:49 PM
I agree too. That's why I hated classes like Philosophy but loved classes like Calculus (all 4 levels). With math, there is a right or a wrong answer that isn't subject to someones interpretation. I knew in English that I was going to get a B no matter how much effort I put into a paper.
Me too. Calculus was my favorite, even as a chemistry major. And I have always questioned things that don't "fit" and so many things about this case do not.
calgary123
04-19-2011, 09:50 PM
I find it *very* interesting that posters on this forum knew about the Fielding Drive "zoom-in" evidence even before the FBI. Amazing.
Who knew? Can you link the post?
Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 09:50 PM
I want the real killer of Nancy brought to justice. If that is not Brad then it must be someone else. If someone framed Brad Cooper then that person must be the real killer, yes? If the real killer didn't frame Brad Cooper then the person who did frame him must know who the real killer is (and that it is not Brad Cooper).
And I want to know why this framer chose to go the route of changing a computer file as their method to this frame job. That's pretty specific. I want to know how they knew there wasn't other evidence to lead to the killer.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:50 PM
I read on wral.com that Kurtz asked for a mistrial and for Gessner to recuse himself. This judge has been as biased as they come. He has made a mockery of this case in his rulings. It would only be fair for him to recuse himself - of course - something he would not do.
Mockery of the case?
And you get most of the trial news from WRAL?
unc70
04-19-2011, 09:51 PM
Never really though Condit did it. After all, he was in "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes".
Movie trivia for tonight.
Coming soon: Who connects JonBenet, Elian, and Rielle?
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 09:51 PM
Who says that a reluctant witness must be 'professional' to be credible?
That is obviously your opinion and you are so entitled.
Personally, I considered him quite credible with absolutely no pretense.
Yes, he should have worn a nice shirt to court, but that certainly did not subtract from his testimony.
Okay - you are reading way way way too into things that people post. Can you read into the overall comment rather than picking every word apart one by one?
I know CD personally. He is NOT credible, so I think I have a leg up on you on this one. Wait until Kurtz calls him back up on the stand. I have no doubt you will find his testimony a bit "less credible".
By the way - I don't think I ever said anything about him being a "reluctant" witness, did I? I think those are your words.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:53 PM
Uh, no. Did the LAPD go looking for the "real killers" after OJ was found not guilty?
Apples to oranges.
It was CD, who showed up to court in a t-shirt and threw the "f-bomb" so many times I was beyond embarassed. I think the defense will be calling him back. This guy is not credible.
What day did he testify? Is he DD's husband by chance?
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 09:54 PM
Mockery of the case?
And you get most of the trial news from WRAL?
It is apparent that this judge is completely biased on the side of the prosecution. You would be lying in denying that.
Where do you get your trial news from, may I ask? Are you in the courtroom every day? Just curious
less0305
04-19-2011, 09:55 PM
I find it *very* interesting that posters on this forum knew about the Fielding Drive "zoom-in" evidence even before the FBI. Amazing.
It was pretty easy to guess that BC would have something on his computer that would be incriminating - since he's such a geek. So we're adding WS posters to the list of framers, conspirators, and hackers now?
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 09:55 PM
It is apparent that this judge is completely biased on the side of the prosecution. You would be lying in denying that.
Where do you get your trial news from, may I ask? Are you in the courtroom every day? Just curious
If you had been able to watch this afternoon, you might have a different perspective. MOO
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:56 PM
I find it *very* interesting that posters on this forum knew about the Fielding Drive "zoom-in" evidence even before the FBI. Amazing.
The SW for the IBM thinkpad was executed 7-25-08.
The FBI was told to prioritize that computer 1st and they did...finding the smoking gun to seal the indictment.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 09:56 PM
I want the real killer of Nancy brought to justice. If that is not Brad then it must be someone else. If someone framed Brad Cooper then that person must be the real killer, yes? If the real killer didn't frame Brad Cooper then the person who did frame him must know who the real killer is (and that it is not Brad Cooper).
And I want to know why this framer chose to go the route of changing a computer file as their method to this frame job. That's pretty specific. I want to know how they knew there wasn't other evidence to lead to the killer.
You have to admit, the "friends" were working *very* closely with police, guiding them every step of the way. IF one of the "friends" knew something or was somehow involved, then of course they would know there would be no evidence on BC.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 09:56 PM
What day did he testify? Is he DD's husband by chance?
Ex-husband. Soon after NC was murdered most couple in that neighborhood and circle of friends suddenly got divorced. Very coincidental
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 09:58 PM
If you had been able to watch this afternoon, you might have a different perspective. MOO
Agree he was pretty fair this afternoon...but only after Kurtz formally requested a mistrial and recusal due to boas. Its hard not to make that connection.
Albert
04-19-2011, 09:58 PM
Theoretically, a neighbor could have done this to gain access to the network after the 11th, hacked into the PC, changed the date on the PC, performed the search, then changed the date back.
So, I am just catching up on the posts for the evening. So, I am trying to understand the probability of such actions and am wondering if this list is complete. So, I don't have a windoze to test with but wouldn't one of the event viewer logs indicate a system clock change has been made. So, if so, then the hacker must also have deleted entries from the event viewer. So, I am wondering is a friendly windoze user could test to verify that event viewer log would indicate a time change, I am thinking the system event viewer log.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 09:59 PM
It is apparent that this judge is completely biased on the side of the prosecution. You would be lying in denying that.
Where do you get your trial news from, may I ask? Are you in the courtroom every day? Just curious
I am denying that....please don't call me a liar.
I have been in court 2 days, including the undisclosed FBI testimony.
The other days I have either watched live stream or seen the full video.
SleuthSayer
04-19-2011, 09:59 PM
Apples to oranges.
Not really. If the CPD and DA have decided who did this. The fact that a jury decides that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him doesn't mean that they are going to change their opinion. They would look pretty silly a couple of years from now dragging someone else up on the stand and telling a jury "this time, we are sure we got the right guy".
less0305
04-19-2011, 10:00 PM
Wow, I don't want to be close when the long arm of Karma jumps out and does a slap down.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 10:01 PM
I am denying that....please don't call me a liar.
I have been in court 2 days, including the undisclosed FBI testimony.
The other days I have either watched live or seen the full video.
Yes, but if your view is slanted towards the pros from day one you wouldn't necessarily detect a bias. Its human nature though, and if I felt as strongly as you I may not see it either.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 10:01 PM
Ex-husband. Soon after NC was murdered most couple in that neighborhood and circle of friends suddenly got divorced. Very coincidental
"Most"....Sounds like pure gossip to me.
:nono:
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:01 PM
Agree he was pretty fair this afternoon...but only after Kurtz formally requested a mistrial and recusal due to boas. Its hard not to make that connection.
I apologize. I meant before Kurtz requested a mistrial today. Prior to that it was so obvious that he was completely biased. Just wish Kurtz would have asked for this weeks ago. Afterall, Gessner has shown his loyalty towards the prosecution from week 1.
Hopefully he will be a fair throughout the defense's case.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 10:02 PM
Agree he was pretty fair this afternoon...but only after Kurtz formally requested a mistrial and recusal due to boas. Its hard not to make that connection.
I made a different connection. During the state side of the case, the judge overruled most of the defense objections and sustained most of the few objections made by the prosecution. Now that the defense is up, he seems to be overruling the majority of the prosecution objections. We'll see if the same pattern continues when the prosecution gets up to cross. I think the judge errs on the side of the presenting team. MOO
gritguy
04-19-2011, 10:02 PM
Ex-husband. Soon after NC was murdered most couple in that neighborhood and circle of friends suddenly got divorced. Very coincidental
do you mean this?
i had heard about cd and dd, but not a great and sudden rash of divorces.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 10:03 PM
Yes, but if your view is slanted towards the pros from day one you wouldn't necessarily detect a bias. Its human nature though, and if I felt as strongly as you I may not see it either.
It is obvious he personally dislikes Kurtz...who wouldn't?
However, I have not seen any bias in his rulings.
IMO, he has been very fair.
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 10:04 PM
do you mean this?
i had heard about cd and dd, but not a great and sudden rash of divorces.
That is the only one and they are not on bad terms.
Drama, drama , drama.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:04 PM
"Most"....Sounds like pure gossip to me.
:nono:
Well - you can do your "research" and check it out if you would like. But, since I personally know of these people (friends of friends), I know it is not gossip.
You seem to know everything. I am amazed. Are you in the Lochmere "circle of friends". You are constantly casting doubt on anyone's comments if they do not fall in line with your own.
Albert
04-19-2011, 10:05 PM
I was just about to ask the same thing. That would be important with respect to anybody actually having the wherewithal to do it.
Unfortunately I was not able to catch JW testimony this afternoon, I will have to watch it later. But it is my understanding that JW showed how easy it is to hack into a WEP network to learn the network password. Did JW also show how easy it is to hack into computers connected to that same network? It is quite a different story on how to hack into a computer.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:05 PM
That is the only one and they are not on bad terms.
Drama, drama , drama.
And you know this how???????
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 10:06 PM
I made a different connection. During the state side of the case, the judge overruled most of the defense objections and sustained most of the few objections made by the prosecution. Now that the defense is up, he seems to be overruling the majority of the prosecution objections. We'll see if the same pattern continues when the prosecution gets up to cross. I think the judge errs on the side of the presenting team. MOO
You are correct, but the biggest decision was denial of admission of JW as an expert witness for the purpose of computer forensics (only let him in as a networking expert).
The problem with this, is that JW as it turns out was actually more experienced than the pros witness, just didn't have the same paper crdentials.
The pros objections today which were sustained occurred when Kurtz drifted towards files with the witness.
Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 10:06 PM
So who is the killer and who planted the evidence? Wonder if the same person who planted evidence is also the killer.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 10:06 PM
Not really. If the CPD and DA have decided who did this. The fact that a jury decides that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him doesn't mean that they are going to change their opinion. They would look pretty silly a couple of years from now dragging someone else up on the stand and telling a jury "this time, we are sure we got the right guy".
So in order to "save face" they would let the real killer get away with it. I don't believe even CPD thinks he did it, otherwise the detectives would not have been so evasive/forgetful in questioning. They certainly do not seem confident they got the right guy (to me, anyhow).
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:07 PM
I am denying that....please don't call me a liar.
I have been in court 2 days, including the undisclosed FBI testimony.
The other days I have either watched live stream or seen the full video.
Sorry - I work full time so I was not able to sit in court. But, I have been able to see the live streams at times as well as the videos. So - to answer your previous questions - NO - I do not get all of my news from WRAL. Satisfied??
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 10:08 PM
Well - you can do your "research" and check it out if you would like. But, since I personally know of these people (friends of friends), I know it is not gossip.
You seem to know everything. I am amazed. Are you in the Lochmere "circle of friends". You are constantly casting doubt on anyone's comments if they do not fall in line with your own.
No NJ, I don't pretend to know these people...they are not "friends of friends":biggrin:
I cast doubt on your comments because....sorry.
less0305
04-19-2011, 10:08 PM
do you mean this?
i had heard about cd and dd, but not a great and sudden rash of divorces.
Isn't the rate of divorce over 50% nationwide. That would just seem normal then, wouldn't it? Well, to *most* people it would seem normal. But, of course, that neighborhood is held to a different standard than the rest of the country.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 10:10 PM
So who is the killer and who planted the evidence? Wonder if the same person who planted evidence is also the killer.
I don't even know yet that anyone "planted" evidence. It could still be a time stamp error and maybe BC himself did the Fielding Drive search but the time was inaccurate. I don't know yet but there are definitely "friends" who are very suspicious and they were not true friends of NC if some of the alternate theories are true.
jrb0124
04-19-2011, 10:10 PM
It is obvious he personally dislikes Kurtz...who wouldn't?
However, I have not seen any bias in his rulings.
IMO, he has been very fair.
You can start with the testimony from pros he has allowed and work your way towards the testimony/or cross from the defense (thus far) that he has disallowed.
Setting the playing field in a courtroom can have significant impact on the proceedings.
unc70
04-19-2011, 10:10 PM
You don't know him, yet are certain he would never lie on the stand for $ or perhaps fame:waitasec:
Don't think for a second that is true. Look no further than the "highly respected" Henry Lee. In his case, it is both fame and $$$
Lie, never. Be proven incorrect, possibly but not likely. Certainly not at this stage in his career and in his own backyard. Too much riding on it.
BTW my own track record is rather good in these matters. Quite willing to put it up against yours or that of the prosecution. Forty plus years in this mess.
Without completely decloaking, check out my postings at wral, salon, democraticunderground, theregister.co.uk and similar sites. I am not the unc70 posting in Chatham County, nor posting at other sites not mentioned.
I have posted occassionally in error. For example, it took me over six months to realize that Obama lived most of his first year in Seattle while his mother was enrolled at UWash.
LyndyLoo
04-19-2011, 10:10 PM
Ex-husband. Soon after NC was murdered most couple in that neighborhood and circle of friends suddenly got divorced. Very coincidental
Indeed Cary from NJ..and I happen to thinklike most communities couples end up in divorce court and thankfully not in a Murder trial..But Be that as it may..I have to wonder just how anyone could equate hatred or dislike of Brad to tampering and hacking his computer to indicate culpability in Nancy;s murder??..I ask that because it is Brad not these neighbours or friends who happen to have that expertise..and not so sure traces to their IP addresses wouldnt have been found out..
Anyway..I really wish to point out items that the jury will be considering and that is the AT&T phone logs and associations to whom..May be helpful to write them down ( as I did)
Phone# ending in~~~
House Landline ~~ # 1511
Brad's Cell~~ #1196
Cisco ~~#2723
V/M (voice mail) #1236
These numbers are going to be most important when the jury gets into deliberations..and I rather doubt neighbours or friends would even know these numbers..JMO in case some believe for some reason nosey neighbours or friend spoofed computer activities...
I am really looking foreward to cross and listening to this witness,,He really does know alot of computers however never never thought of getting prepared for voir dire...and being accepted as forensic expert..Dont blame him so much as Kurtz and Co..THEY should have known..IMO
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:10 PM
No NJ, I don't pretend to know these people...they are not "friends of friends":biggrin:
I cast doubt on your comments because....sorry.
Because.........???????You didn't finish. Keep going. You clearly have not had a problem keeping your opinions to yourself with everyone else in the past. Why start now???
SleuthSayer
04-19-2011, 10:11 PM
Me too. Calculus was my favorite, even as a chemistry major. And I have always questioned things that don't "fit" and so many things about this case do not.
To me, it's not really a matter of the pieces not fitting. It's more like the pieces are made of jello, so you can make them fit pretty much any way you like. There is no right fit because there really isn't a wrong one.
It's kind of like a game of Mad Libs. We know:
she was alive when she left the party the night of 7/11
she had not been alive for quite a bit of time when she was found on 7/14
there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that BC killed her
there is physical evidence that it was premeditated murder by BC
Given those 4 pieces of info, you can make up pretty much any story that you like and it could be right (when he killed her, where he killed her, surprise attach or fight, when he dumped the body, how he got the body there, if/how he spoofed the call, etc).
Danielle59
04-19-2011, 10:12 PM
And he picked a great place. Took only moments to get to yet provided a reasonable amount of time for discovery which certainly diminished the evidence.
Not surprising, he had been riding the local roads for years by foot, certainly planning routes for that etc. He picked the nearest best place. Perhaps only a bit of nervousness caused him to have a last look that day. Lilly atkins though somewhat secluded is a cut through so is subject to traffic at any time and people do live on it. Holly springs a no go too much chance of being spotted while your car is stopped. Regency park back behind the pond had potential but it would have extended the trip.
If BC went Cary parkway to holly springs, he could cut right to fielding if the cost was clear or turn left to tryon if the situation seemed sketchy (car coming or whatever).
You don't even know that BC rode on Holly Springs Rd.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 10:12 PM
You are correct, but the biggest decision was denial of admission of JW as an expert witness for the purpose of computer forensics (only let him in as a networking expert).
The problem with this, is that JW as it turns out was actually more experienced than the pros witness, just didn't have the same paper crdentials.
The pros objections today which were sustained occurred when Kurtz drifted towards files with the witness.
I disagree that JW is more experienced than the pros witness. JW didn't have the tools or the set up to properly do a forensic exam on a harddrive. The pros witness had a lot more backing him up in terms of doing a proper exam. I think the ruling was accurate. JW is an expert in network security and that includes detecting intrusions on a computer. That is not the same as a total forensic exam on a computer. MOO
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:15 PM
Indeed Cary from NJ..and I happen to thinklike most communities couples end up in divorce court and thankfully not in a Murder trial..But Be that as it may..I have to wonder just how anyone could equate hatred or dislike of Brad to tampering and hacking his computer to indicate culpability in Nancy;s murder??..I ask that because it is Brad not these neighbours or friends who happen to have that expertise..and not so sure traces to their IP addresses wouldnt have been found out..
Anyway..I really wish to point out items that the jury will be considering and that is the AT&T phone logs and associations to whom..May be helpful to write them down ( as I did)
Phone# ending in~~~
House Landline ~~ # 1511
Brad's Cell~~ #1196
Cisco ~~#2723
V/M (voice mail) #1236
These numbers are going to be most important when the jury gets into deliberations..and I rather doubt neighbours or friends would even know these numbers..JMO in case some believe for some reason nosey neighbours or friend spoofed computer activities...
I am really looking foreward to cross and listening to this witness,,He really does know alot of computers however never never thought of getting prepared for voir dire...and being accepted as forensic expert..Dont blame him so much as Kurtz and Co..THEY should have known..IMO
I have never suggested that someone planted anything to place BC in the position he is in now. I do not think anyone in that neighborhood nor in their cirlce of friends has anything at all to do with NC's murder. I truly believe they were just great friends who looked out for one another. We should all be so lucky to have friends like that. But I also know there is a tendency to exaggerate whem amongs friends. I think things were bad between BC and NC, but maybe not as bad as her friends claimed them to be.
That being said, I don't know who killed NC. I still don't know if it was BC or someone else? I am curious to hear the remainder of the trial before I make up my mind
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:17 PM
Ok, so now you know CD personally:woohoo:
As a matter of fact - YES - our children used to play together up until last year when he still lived in Lochmere.
Let me guess - do you want proof? You seem to be big on that.
WolfpackWoman
04-19-2011, 10:17 PM
I disagree that JW is more experienced than the pros witness. JW didn't have the tools or the set up to properly do a forensic exam on a harddrive. The pros witness had a lot more backing him up in terms of doing a proper exam. I think the ruling was accurate. JW is an expert in network security and that includes detecting intrusions on a computer. That is not the same as a total forensic exam on a computer. MOO
I think my concern is that there's no real line drawn in the sand as to what this means. I agree that Mr. Ward is not a "forensic expert" and I think he stated that. But I don't think you have to know forensics to detect intrusion on a computer and tampering. And if the court is not going to allow him to testify as to obvious signs of intrusion (which is something Mr. Ward testified he has been doing for 18 years), then I have a problem with that. If they're simply not allowing him to testify as to the proper procedures for a forensic exam, then that's fine.
I think it's telling that his results matched up with the FBI--so, apparently the tools and methods he used didn't really matter that much.
But if he wants to say "this file should never be modified without manual use" then I don't see how one would specifically need to be forensically qualified as a computer expert, when that's just plain intrusion detection.
cody100
04-19-2011, 10:18 PM
It is obvious he personally dislikes Kurtz...who wouldn't?
However, I have not seen any bias in his rulings.
IMO, he has been very fair.
I like Kurtz. Granted his voice is strange and grating at first, but it doesn't bother me. And, he fights hard for his client. So, I have to disagree with you on who wouldn't. But you are correct that Judge G doesn't hide his total dislike for him. As for rulings, you are entitled as always to your opinion.
SleuthSayer
04-19-2011, 10:18 PM
So in order to "save face" they would let the real killer get away with it. I don't believe even CPD thinks he did it, otherwise the detectives would not have been so evasive/forgetful in questioning. They certainly do not seem confident they got the right guy (to me, anyhow).
I'm not talking about saving face. I'm saying that I think it is going to be awful hard to convince a jury that the prosecution knows what they are doing and that there is not reasonable doubt that someone else did it when in 2011, they tried to convince a jury that they were sure that BC did it.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:19 PM
You don't even know that BC rode on Holly Springs Rd.
If he drove down Lochmere to Lily Atkins, he would have only been on Holly Springs for about a mile or so before turning on Fielding Drive
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 10:19 PM
Lie, never. Be proven incorrect, possibly but not likely. Certainly not at this stage in his career and in his own backyard. Too much riding on it.
BTW my own track record is rather good in these matters. Quite willing to put it up against yours or that of the prosecution. Forty plus years in this mess.
Without completely decloaking, check out my postings at wral, salon, democraticunderground, theregister.co.uk and similar sites. I am not the unc70 posting in Chatham County, nor posting at other sites not mentioned.
I have posted occassionally in error. For example, it took me over six months to realize that Obama lived most of his first year in Seattle while his mother was enrolled at UWash.
:tmi:
LOL, i'm quite sure you know more about computers than me.
gritguy
04-19-2011, 10:20 PM
You don't even know that BC rode on Holly Springs Rd.
He and I did several of the same events and trained in the same area. I didn't know him but I also don't know anyone who didn't ride that road. That and Kildaire provided the elevation. He was doing distance cycling but didn't ride the circuit around his house? He was training for rides over 100 miles and didn't leave his neighborhood?
Ok, I've never asked him and I don't know him so I don't know that he did the practical, reasonable, almost impossible to avoid thing. But I believe he would have, to accomplish the events he chose to participate in. And he would have seen the Fielding Dr. sign.
Granted if one is wedded to believing in innocence at all costs, one could think he was sequestered in his home (despite training for long distance triathlons) without knowledge of nearby roads and yet also had his computer hacked, all to support his not knowing about the street his wife was dumped on.
CaryFrom NJ
04-19-2011, 10:20 PM
I like Kurtz. Granted his voice is strange and grating at first, but it doesn't bother me. And, he fights hard for his client. So, I have to disagree with you on who wouldn't. But you are correct that Judge G doesn't hide his total dislike for him. As for rulings, you are entitled as always to your opinion.
I think Kurtz is a phenomenal attorney. Direct, quick, thorough and as you said fights hard for his client. While his voice is a bit irritating it is much more tolerable that the prosecutor. He puts me to sleep.
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 10:22 PM
What day did he testify? Is he DD's husband by chance?
Ex-husband. But they were married at the time of the murder.
Cheyenne130
04-19-2011, 10:22 PM
I think my concern is that there's no real line drawn in the sand as to what this means. I agree that Mr. Ward is not a "forensic expert" and I think he stated that. But I don't think you have to know forensics to detect intrusion on a computer and tampering. And if the court is not going to allow him to testify as to obvious signs of intrusion (which is something Mr. Ward testified he has been doing for 18 years), then I have a problem with that. If they're simply not allowing him to testify as to the proper procedures for a forensic exam, then that's fine.
I think it's telling that his results matched up with the FBI--so, apparently the tools and methods he used didn't really matter that much.
But if he wants to say "this file should never be modified without manual use" then I don't see how one would specifically need to be forensically qualified as a computer expert, when that's just plain intrusion detection.
I personally don't think intrusion detection is that plain. I would venture to say that every single one of us have "intrusions" on our computers. I don't care how good your anti-virus, spyware detection is. There are files deposited on all computers. Does that mean that it compromised the integrity of the examination done by the FBI? I really don't think so. But I do think that the defense can spin that simple fact to bamboozle the jury with BS. MOO
calgary123
04-19-2011, 10:22 PM
This trial again hits the front page of the Calgary Herald:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Missile+codes+Anna+Nicole+Smith+biased+judge+Canad ian+murder+trial+full/4643689/story.html
ncsu95
04-19-2011, 10:23 PM
If you had been able to watch this afternoon, you might have a different perspective. MOO
He was definitely a different judge after Kurtz accused him of bias. I was quite surprised.
sunshine05
04-19-2011, 10:23 PM
I'm not talking about saving face. I'm saying that I think it is going to be awful hard to convince a jury that the prosecution knows what they are doing and that there is not reasonable doubt that someone else did it when in 2011, they tried to convince a jury that they were sure that BC did it.
But they wouldn't need to convince a jury of anything to re-open the case. I thought it was interesting when DD said the case was still "ongoing" and then when Kurtz asked about it later he said "oh. I just mean because we're still going to court over this case, etc.". I think they know they don't have their guy but it is way too late to admit it. I want the killer to be caught (if it's not BC) so I hope they keep an open mind if he is found not guilty.
Madeleine74
04-19-2011, 10:24 PM
Let's say CD is not credible. What do we do with his testimony and has CD now implicated himself in this murder?
Just the Fax
04-19-2011, 10:25 PM
As a matter of fact - YES - our children used to play together up until last year when he still lived in Lochmere.
Let me guess - do you want proof? You seem to be big on that.
Watch out, he is a possible murder suspect according to some.
I hear he reads here and could possibly pick out a lady from NJ whose kids played together.:cool:
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0