State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunshine05 said:
Would it still appear on the phone records as a normal call if he did that though?
Click to expand...

I don't know of any way to detect the difference. I probably would just dial using the AT protocol and put enough commas at the end for an adequate delay on hanging up. Maybe use a Linux boot CD and not leave any logs on the Vista system. Do it in a shell script that waits until time to call.

A fax can be sent at a specified time. Probably nearly everyone in Lochmere knows how to do at least one of these ways.
 
Palomine said:
not to quote the pros but they said the defense had forensic experts but did not call them because they wouldn't say what the defense wanted them to say
Click to expand...

OH! Missed that explanation!! Makes sense they didn't call them!! :doh:
 
sunshine05 said:
But it isn't just a matter of the defense getting it together over the weekend. How are they supposed to find a witness to rebut this on such short notice? And if a new witness is allowed, why didn't the judge allow M to be added for the defense before they rested(that would have been worth the time, money and resources). This doesn't sit well with me at all.

Defense's rebuttal witness probably will be banned because he's not a forensic expert. It just really bothers me that all of a sudden the rules have changed and we are allowed to have non-forensic experts on to talk about the computer logs. If they had allowed it in the first place, JW could have talked in length about all of the logs from the computers and routers.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sit well with me, either. But I'm glad they do at least have the weekend to prepare to "re-rebut." And notice I said "as long as JG allows them to have a witness who can get the job done." I would like to see Mr. M be allowed to do that. I doubt it would happen that way, but we'll see...

I do believe that Boz has used obfuscation and deceit to take advantage of Gessner's complete lack of computer knowledge. That, along with a general uneven playing field, have bothered me all along. That said, I do want to see some real evidence if the State has it.
 
Danielle59 said:
The Defense said it was funding, then the Judge said this was not the place to discuss it. It was extremely inappropriate for Boz to say. And, MAN does he have a scary profile.
Click to expand...
BBM
For a moment, I thought you'd friended him on facebook. ;)
 
I figure the defense has the advantage, here. They have the guy with all the answers sitting right there with them! Just spend the week-end with some ex-spurt and let Bradley coach him on what to say. Easy peasy. ( I doubt he'll tell where he dumped the router) but, I bet he'll come up with some clever reason it disappeared. Like maybe one of the kids broke it by dunking it in the toilet....or, clutzy Nancy spilled paint on it.....or one of the hated friends stole it...if the police didn't....:popcorn:
 
Palomine said:
not to quote the pros but they said the defense had forensic experts but did not call them because they wouldn't say what the defense wanted them to say
Click to expand...

Recall something being said about money. Trenkle said he would pay if he had to and the judge told him it wasn't necessary. Anybody catch it?
 
unc70 said:
Why would BC have used such a complicated setup to fake a call when he could do it with fax or PC with a modem and not leave any trail anywhere for anyone?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Amster said:
Oh my! Soul sister! I think the 1st old CTV trial for me was Betty Broderick. Or, those 2 brothers in Ca. who killed their parents?? Soooo great how CTV did it back then. No commercials!! No talking heads except during breaks and lunch....and the cherry on top....replayed at night!! :woohoo:

I've seen the ones you mentioned and OJ and Robert Blake and Scott and Michael Peterson.....etc.,etc. And Westerfield...

This trial is NOT extraordinary. Defense ALWAYS claims rush to judgement and corrupt or sloppy police work..and SODDI or gal or an owl! :floorlaugh:

Way O/T...sorry :angel:
Click to expand...

Menendez Bros. wonder how Leslie Abramson is doing? Yup, SODDI, the 'bushy haired stranger.' :crazy:
 
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!!
 
Danielle59 said:
But the ping in question was from January, and we already knew he had a router shortly after that, he admitted it in the depo tape. We don't even know if he accessed this newly found router while it was at his home or if it was it in the office?
Click to expand...

It did sound as though Boz said at 10 something pm the night of the 11th BC accessed a 3825 router at the office. Maybe he misspoke or maybe this is going to be a reverse duck finding scenario. We didn't actually find a router AT the house just that he used one.
 
I have been reading, yet have begged off from posting..awaiting if this new revelations are allowed or not...I say in the interest of justice//Let this newbie Forensic Expert testify for defense..and allow this new stuff in too.. IF all else fails..declare a mistrial and start over and forget about missing duckies, forget about suspicions by friends, forget about whether Nancy wore her necklace ALL the time..Just bring in this computer forensics/router logs/phone logs, and point to Bradley basically stalking his wife etc....

KISS would be much more efficient..and in the interest of expedience..leave all the gossip, and cr@pp0ll@ out of it..and not embarrass people.... YES keep in AS and parents and Krista..to give background but forget about all the garbage of who's turned lesbian or who's smitten with whom...Couch trists, closet encouters..There is plenty of other indications to show the directions of their relationship....(I pray those kids are Happy!!)

I have to believe all posters here want justice...so why not get to the bottom on what Brad DID or DIDNT DO, given his expertise, who could have buried things sooooo deep..it took many many minds to dig thru all the cra@pp0ll@ to get to the truth of the matter..IF there is NOTHING there..then OKay..

I am just getting frustrated with all the menusia!!! Sorry :banghead:

Hope everyone had a wonderful, safe day!!
 
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.
 
Maja said:
Recall something being said about money. Trenkle said he would pay if he had to and the judge told him it wasn't necessary. Anybody catch it?
Click to expand...

Trenkle said he would go into the financial explanation and Judge said not the place for this kind of discussion.
 
jrb0124 said:
As I posted previously - if in fact there was a 3825 (even one FXO capable) at the BC residence that connected to Cisco on 7/11...this is not a smoking gun.

By October, which is when the SW for routers, modems and phones was issued, BC already knew that NC friends were directing CPD to look into the possibility that he spoofed calls - it reasons that he (innocent or guilty) would not cooperate in the discovery of self-incriminating evidence.

More importantly, why would he use that behemoth piece of equipment to connect to Cisco on 7/11 and then spoof a call the next day when he didn't need it to connect to work, and could have spoofed a call in a really "low tech" way?

If BC is guilty, why would he even need to create an alibi to 'prove' NC was alive at 6:40? How would BC know at that time that pinpointing NC death to earlier in the evening would be crucial to the prosecution? Even if he did, he could have just as easily said, "I was back and forth to HT for groceries and NC was home with the kids. I wouldn't leave them home alone."
Click to expand...

IMO it is a smoking gun. The reason BC wouldn't do the "low tech" way is because the high tech way is the way he knows. He knows more about that than MANY people and he would believe that his intelligence in manipulating the very systems for which he was certified would make the proving almost impossible. He was comfortable with the high tech way.

He needs to paint a picture that she survived the night - not the classic definition of an alibi. He likely could have done some research to know that time of death isn't an exact science. But he had to have a plan to point to a crime scene that wasn't the house, and a timeframe what wasn't right after she walked across the street at midnight.

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.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 83 more.
Total: 3,782 (members: 84, guests: 3,698)

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
3,698
Total visitors
3,782
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,661
Messages
17,957,201
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top