State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
macd said:
Anyone want to talk on a hypothetical?
Let's say that the log on the laptop indicates that a Cisco 3825 was in BC's house on July 11 at 10:30pm. Remembering that a 3825 would support an FXO port that could be used to spoof a call.
Would this move anyone to the G side of the fence?
Click to expand...

BC has lied from the very beggining about almost everything, remember he couldn't even tell the truth about his ex's last name... I do not think busting him in yet another lie is going to sway anyone.
 
FullDisclosure said:
Is Greg M "suspiciously thirsty guy?" If so, the court will need a brief recess to bring in extra water.
Click to expand...

Not sure if Greg M is this guy or not...
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1324.PNG
    IMG_1324.PNG
    183.2 KB · Views: 14
  • IMG_1325.PNG
    IMG_1325.PNG
    185 KB · Views: 9
RaleighNative said:
Has the prosecution released information as to exactly what date they requested this information from Cisco?

That would determine which side was dragging their feet.
Click to expand...

I thought when they originally brought the issue up, BZ said it was resulting from a 2/28 court order.
 
macd said:
Anyone want to talk on a hypothetical?
Let's say that the log on the laptop indicates that a Cisco 3825 was in BC's house on July 11 at 10:30pm. Remembering that a 3825 would support an FXO port that could be used to spoof a call.
Would this move anyone to the G side of the fence?
Click to expand...

Hypothetical, but no, that would not move me to the guilty side of the fence. I would need information that the call WAS spoofed, not "could be used to spoof a call".

I can still change my mind and hop over the fence. But that would not be enough for me. JMO
 
gracielee said:
I'm just a layperson when it comes to computer technology, but by that same token, so are probably many of the jurors. My understanding is, Cisco is just now releasing this to the prosecution. This fault lies in Cisco dragging their feet, what has taken them this long to cough up this stuff?
Click to expand...

The State didn't request the info until Feb 2011.
 
Anyone here from Cisco? I'm curious how this is affecting internal operations there.
 
RaleighNative said:
Hypothetical, but no, that would not move me to the guilty side of the fence. I would need information that the call WAS spoofed, not "could be used to spoof a call".

I can still change my mind and hop over the fence. But that would not be enough for me. JMO
Click to expand...

What would your explanation be for where the router went, and was nowhere to be found in the house?
 
When were the pictures taken of the home office, in which there is no 3825 router to be seen? How long after July 11?
 
gracielee said:
I'm just a layperson when it comes to computer technology, but by that same token, so are probably many of the jurors. My understanding is, Cisco is just now releasing this to the prosecution. This fault lies in Cisco dragging their feet, what has taken them this long to cough up this stuff?
Click to expand...

I don't think CISCO really wanted to get involved in this matter. Kinda like stuck in the middle of a really bad situation. Not sure was requested from any search warrant etc.

Once this trial started and defense team started making it out like not only was LE but CISCO inept, I think someone over at CISCO (possibly after employee's testified) decided to do more checking into what lil ole Bradley had been up to back in the day.

JMO of course.
 
RaleighNative said:
Question - if the judge had granted that motion, would the state be able to retry BC later, or would it have meant acquittal?
Click to expand...

If the defense motion to dismiss based on lack of evidence by prosecution were granted, the defendant could not be tried, as I understand it, as it would be double jeopardy.
 
I feel that if this comes in then the Defense should be able to have their expert. We won't know if it is coming in until next week. In the interim, I think that if this Judge is ever going to do another case with any computer technology then he needs to have a course on at least some basics, not be an expert, but not even knowing about facebook was ridiculous.

I also think that Boz needs to be called out on his constant lying and taking advantage of the Judge's ignorance. When the Judge asked him today if the information from JF was from the IBM laptop, Boz lied, it is not from the laptop, it is information from a Cisco server and I feel confident that Boz knew that. He also has to stop the lies about they have all the information on the hard drive while refusing to acknowledge that only certain LEO's have the technology to extract the information he wants to put into evidence.
 
RaleighNative said:
Hypothetical, but no, that would not move me to the guilty side of the fence. I would need information that the call WAS spoofed, not "could be used to spoof a call".

I can still change my mind and hop over the fence. But that would not be enough for me. JMO
Click to expand...

A 3825 is big(4"x18"x15"), heavy(23lbs), loud(50dBA), and hot(8A). Nobody would want one in a living area of a house. If it was in the house, it was there for a short time for a specific purpose.

If a 3825 is proven to be in the house on the night of the murder, to me this is akin to finding the smoking murder weapon.
 
RaleighNative said:
Hypothetical, but no, that would not move me to the guilty side of the fence. I would need information that the call WAS spoofed, not "could be used to spoof a call".

I can still change my mind and hop over the fence. But that would not be enough for me. JMO
Click to expand...

I think it would be enough to sway the jury.

This has been the weakest part of the state's case IMO - all so hypothetical. BC had the knowledge how to do this which is fact, he USED TO have the right hardware in the house (since he had installed the VoIP network previously) so that's another fact. And that's where it falls apart. Everything else about the call faking is speculation. And then - when no equipment was found in the house that even COULD support the call faking - I think you lost a lot of folks to NG, or at least not beyond RD.

Now - if you prove that an FXO supportable router was in fact in USE less than 12 hours prior to Nancy's death and then it was not found in the home when the home was secured or even in pictures taken on 7/12 - it makes me think that in addition to all this cleaning, that BC also redid his home network conveniently the day of his wife's death. Not just redid, mind you but disposed of Cisco property in the process (so the folks that say he was just a dedicated employee working on the weekend can't use that if he tossed out hardware Cisco paid for...) Really? Who DOES this?

Answer - someone with something to hide.
 
macd said:
Anyone want to talk on a hypothetical?
Let's say that the log on the laptop indicates that a Cisco 3825 was in BC's house on July 11 at 10:30pm. Remembering that a 3825 would support an FXO port that could be used to spoof a call.
Would this move anyone to the G side of the fence?
Click to expand...

BC could have have 10 routers that support an FXO card in the house. But nobody has shown how it is possible to spoof an automated call that last 32 seconds. 22 seconds yes, 32 seconds no...

Have we been shown proof by the Pros witnesses on how to make a automated call last 32 seconds?????
 
gracielee said:
My laymans interpretation of the defense expert, was that he was basing much of his *opinions* on the work product of JWard. JW, IMO, was discredited as an expert, and his work product was derived by means not determined to be accurate. Had this new expert been hired and given the material right from the start, I wouldn't have a problem hearing from him. As a lay person, I don't trust the work product of JWard, and in his posting here at WS, he himself stated 'he told the defense he wasn't an expert in forensic examination of computers.' IMO, that tells me the defense should have politiely thanked him and moved along to find an expert who was tenured as such. MOO Attempting to bring in the new expert, who is basing much of his opinions on the work product of someone who admitted to NOT being a forensic computer expert, rubs me the wrong way and IMO open's up a whole new can of worms. MOO
Click to expand...

If you listened to the Offer of Proof, M testified he got forensically sound copy of disk (from FBI?), made another copy to test against, and did the forensic analysis on that copy. His results corresponded with JW's results, though GM found even more files missed by the FBI than JW had.

GM has done over 400 cases, over 500 forensic examinations. He is not going to risk his reputation by taking any shortcuts. He is doing it by the book, just the way he teaches the FBI an PD to do it.
 
Okay. So if it was proven that the router was there on July 11 and missing as of July 12 - that wouldn't give anyone pause??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 85 more.
Total: 3,511 (members: 86, guests: 3,425)

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
3,425
Total visitors
3,511
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,285
Messages
17,966,687
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top