State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry for the late post. Guess where I was?

I have this to say:

1) We either MAY have a smoking gun or we may have a flaming bag of dog poop on a front door while six kids hide in the bushes and giggle. And when I say six kids, I mean BOZ.

2) This could turn the tide and get the truth, but Houston, we have an issue.

3) Our problem is: We have told this jury several times that Cisco kept no records and had no way of knowing what could have/would have/should have been in BC's home on that evening. Now we are changing our tune REALLY late in the game. It sounds suspicious and kind of gives Kurtz some props inadvertently.

4) We are opening the door to GM. All kinds of things could go wrong there if he gets in on the router data.

5) I think you guys are misunderstanding where the defense is going with the "spoliage" idea. It's not to say: It didn't happen. It's to say: It's invalid and not to be used as evidence. (Boz is the one wanting "pristine" evidence with no highlighter, etc. But here's a router log and some FBI data with some poo on it.)

6) Has anyone realized that the use of the CTF Marshall/DPD guy is BECAUSE a) they didn't have the skills in the CPD and b) they had already screwed up other digital/technology based forensics?

Man, this just got fun! Go TEAM!!

johnfear - I really love your posts! They always make me smile. You have a way with words:). Thank you.
 
OH! Missed that explanation!! Makes sense they didn't call them!! :doh:

Defense lacked funds to pay these experts. BC is indigent, and I believe their request for additional money was denied. JW and GM are pro bono. GM is an expert in both computer forensics and in telephony in several ways.

Wonder if we will learn the secrets of the deleted watermark, or who accessed the disk when it was removed from the laptop, or if there are strange date/time progressions as were suggested.

Lots of these people are scared that their secrets might be revealed. I suspect a lot more sexual encounters in a variety of configurations: same, opposite, poly, who knows; probably drugs, thought I saw some tells, but all that can wait for another trial; who the politically connected bf is, are they in NC or FL, and did NC resume/continue contact with them; and what is going on with JA and the others.

Still no clue to why Cummins made the comment about DD.

In another week, I suppose we will know about everything we are going to know.

Might be easier to follow if we had a narrator like Desperate Housewives.
 
Also, Boz comes off as the representative for the CPD here and he is not as obnoxious when sitting in court, but he seems more like a _____________ in court too.

I think the jury's opinion (whatever it is) of the techno gobbledy gook and the CPD is directly related to how they feel about the sewage that spews when he gets flustered.

ETA: If one member of the jury has any idea of anything technical.....this is a not guilty case no matter what because Boz is the one who has obfuscated nearly everything technical in front of the judge and I think there is one juror who not only knows it but wants to throw his notebook at Boz.

I enjoy your insight into the jury. Thanks!

So you think there is at least one juror that understands the technical aspects? If I were a juror I think I would have a hard time not daydreaming during all that testimony.
 
So here's the deal: lots of routers have the capability to have FXO ports. However, it is extremely a rare case to actually have an FXO port configured in a router. There simply are not a lot of use cases for this. Most routers with telephone interfaces either have FXS ports (to plug a phone into) or T1 (to plug into a PBX or telephony switch).

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of this should be discoverable in either the switch or the PC.
 
Defense lacked funds to pay these experts. BC is indigent, and I believe their request for additional money was denied. JW and GM are pro bono. GM is an expert in both computer forensics and in telephony in several ways.

Wonder if we will learn the secrets of the deleted watermark, or who accessed the disk when it was removed from the laptop, or if there are strange date/time progressions as were suggested.

Lots of these people are scared that their secrets might be revealed. I suspect a lot more sexual encounters in a variety of configurations: same, opposite, poly, who knows; probably drugs, thought I saw some tells, but all that can wait for another trial; who the politically connected bf is, are they in NC or FL, and did NC resume/continue contact with them; and what is going on with JA and the others.

Still no clue to why Cummins made the comment about DD.

In another week, I suppose we will know about everything we are going to know.

Might be easier to follow if we had a narrator like Desperate
Housewives.

Come on, spill it!
 
Because it is only complicated if you don't know how to do it. I hope that makes sense without sounded snarky it isn't meant to be.

It should have been undetectable if he did it with his own router that is the strange part of this evidence.

You mean the one he is documented as having. Model number?
 
Sorry for the late post. Guess where I was?

I have this to say:

1) We either MAY have a smoking gun or we may have a flaming bag of dog poop on a front door while six kids hide in the bushes and giggle. And when I say six kids, I mean BOZ.

2) This could turn the tide and get the truth, but Houston, we have an issue.

3) Our problem is: We have told this jury several times that Cisco kept no records and had no way of knowing what could have/would have/should have been in BC's home on that evening. Now we are changing our tune REALLY late in the game. It sounds suspicious and kind of gives Kurtz some props inadvertently.

4) We are opening the door to GM. All kinds of things could go wrong there if he gets in on the router data.

5) I think you guys are misunderstanding where the defense is going with the "spoliage" idea. It's not to say: It didn't happen. It's to say: It's invalid and not to be used as evidence. (Boz is the one wanting "pristine" evidence with no highlighter, etc. But here's a router log and some FBI data with some poo on it.)

6) Has anyone realized that the use of the CTF Marshall/DPD guy is BECAUSE a) they didn't have the skills in the CPD and b) they had already screwed up other digital/technology based forensics?

Man, this just got fun! Go TEAM!!

#4 specifically - we've been told that Cisco has a really crappy (read: nonexistent) inventory control system for hardware in the labs. Probably more correctly - HAD, as I suspect they have fixed that by now.

So - as everyone was focused in tracking the HARDWARE in and out, someone figured out that the hardware would (maybe) handshake as part of the VPN process so then they started looking at the MAC address info in the VPN logs. Different way to locate the router - using software / logs instead of trying to track it via inventory tools.
 
Defense lacked funds to pay these experts. BC is indigent, and I believe their request for additional money was denied. JW and GM are pro bono. GM is an expert in both computer forensics and in telephony in several ways..
In another week, I suppose we will know about everything we are going to know.

Snipped with respect....

I recall clearly that Trenkle, would pay for something?..not sure which item tho..but the Judge DENIED NOTHING!!..He said "NO, I do not expect you to do that" and that is verbatum//maybe you could go back to some archived video ( May 28th,2011) to hear it..I recall it vividly..

:maddening:

Added comment..No judge would ever deny urgent and needed funds ..EVER otherwise they KNOW they are looking at overturning..!!!
 
I don't think I understand your asking about an alibi - if he said she was home - then how would her body have ended up on Fielding drive? he would have had to dump her in broad daylight after the HT runs. And - just saying she was "home" isn't an alibi - making it look like someone was home and using the phone isn't really an alibi either - but it's the red herring that moves the focus off of him, moves the crime scene outside the house and pushes the TOD to the AM waking hours.

Anyone with 1/2 a brain would know that time of death would be critical. Married women returning home from a party killed between midnight and 6 AM don't leave too many folks to add to the suspect list.....

Yeah, you didn't take away what I was trying to say in that post - my fault for not making it clearer.

I can simplify it to this: What if there was no 6:40 call? If you think BC is guilty and spoofed the call pretend for a moment there was no call at all from the home to BC's cell at 6:40. If you think NC did make the call to remind him to get juice, pretend she never made that call. That's it, just take that single event and all the testimony surrounding it out of the picture, keep everything else. Is the prosecution's case stronger? Not by much, if at all IMO...that's my point.
 
Also, Boz comes off as the representative for the CPD here and he is not as obnoxious when sitting in court, but he seems more like a _____________ in court too.

I think the jury's opinion (whatever it is) of the techno gobbledy gook and the CPD is directly related to how they feel about the sewage that spews when he gets flustered.

ETA: If one member of the jury has any idea of anything technical.....this is a not guilty case no matter what because Boz is the one who has obfuscated nearly everything technical in front of the judge and I think there is one juror who not only knows it but wants to throw his notebook at Boz.

And I think I know which one you're talking about. :)
 
Someone said earlier something to the effect of, "What if BC said he never saw NC return home after the cookout."
 
Someone said earlier something to the effect of, "What if BC said he never saw NC return home after the cookout."


IMO.That would open up another whole :worms:..as ALL Nancy's itens were at the home..like her cell phone, her computer, her neckalce, her green dress her car keys??..I somehow think he planned this for so long he just didnt figure out there may be another alternative..He had his computer stuff all set up to spoof..and manipulate "malware/hackings/supposedly" all sorts of things..He is his best "ADVISOR" to lead his defense on how to counteract things!! LOL.....So NO Maja..that would never be an option for Bradley..He had already set things ups..:banghead:..Not sure how resilient he is given his inabiity to adjust or communicate outside of his "Saftey Zone" of Expertise....

IF nothing else, Brad lacks a well rounded life skills..IMO:banghead:
 
I'm with some others on this. Let it all in. Let the defense put up their forensic expert from yesterday and let this rebuttal witness testify and let the chips fall where they may. If it's proven that there was a router in his house that night that could contain an FXO card, then the jury has to come back with guilty. If it's not clear or more smoke and mirrors (which quite honestly most of this trial has been) then any of the 3 choices for verdict could be had, probably odds leaning toward NG or Hung.

The state knows their case is thin. I think everyone knows that now. This is pretty much their last ditch effort to drive it home. If they swing and miss, well...
 
No, they are not, this is new evidence.

it has to do with the router that was brought in and shown during Jay's testimony and it has to do with the command prompts and such that Jay was talking about
 
BBM
For a moment, I thought you'd friended him on facebook. ;)

I did and the next day 'friending' was blocked. Can only 'like' now.
I was wondering if profile meant physical appearance or written word.
 
I'm with some others on this. Let it all in. Let the defense put up their forensic expert from yesterday and let this rebuttal witness testify and let the chips fall where they may. If it's proven that there was a router in his house that night that could contain an FXO card, then the jury has to come back with guilty. If it's not clear or more smoke and mirrors (which quite honestly most of this trial has been) then any of the 3 choices for verdict could be had, probably odds leaning toward NG or Hung.

The state knows their case is thin. I think everyone knows that now. This is pretty much their last ditch effort to drive it home. If they swing and miss, well...

I agree. How would you like to be on that jury and come to a verdict after all this time, only to find out that you didn't have all the information and your verdict would have been different?
 
And I think I know which one you're talking about. :)

When I inquired about this only last week I was berated by another poster. Glad to know there is somebody on the jury who may be following all of the tech. issues.
 
it has to do with the router that was brought in and shown during Jay's testimony and it has to do with the command prompts and such that Jay was talking about

LTNS fellow Canuk..thought you were To'd..Anyway..you are correct..Although the actual Router is missing, Cisco has in the 11th hour found the buried records of just what went thru that rounter..and voila!!

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

Someone may correct me IF I am wrong..but wasnt these records requestioned months (Feb) ago..prior to trial to Cisco?..thus made it admissible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
204
Guests online
1,903
Total visitors
2,107

Forum statistics

Threads
589,949
Messages
17,928,072
Members
228,011
Latest member
legalpyro74
Back
Top