State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011 - Page 14

otto · #**326** 04-29-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullDisclosure

They are gone til 9:30 am Monday.

Was there a voir dire for this guy, or will that happen next week?

SleuthinNC · #**327** 04-29-2011, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrb0124

I heard this piece of Q & A...

Judge: so these logs are what? business records or something?

BZ: yes, that is my understanding.

Lie, err I mean he must have misunderstood.

otto · #**328** 04-29-2011, 02:30 PM

So Boz is trying to pull one over on the judge. He's trying to slide in new evidence by misleading the judge into believing that it is old evidence, but unless the defense has all that info, which it doesn't, it shouldn't be admitted.

Am I understanding correctly?

jrb0124 · #**329** 04-29-2011, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow722

Maybe the 3825 was in the same box with the ducks?????? After all the CPD in throughly examining the contents of the Cupper house pursuant to a SW missed the damn duckies, makes you wonder what else they missed......

here is the relevent part of the seizure invontory from the October 2008 SW (not all of which was displayed in court):

SleuthinNC · #**330** 04-29-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto

So Boz is trying to pull one over on the judge. He's trying to slide in new evidence by misleading the judge into believing that it is old evidence, but unless the defense has all that info, which it doesn't, it shouldn't be admitted.

Am I understanding correctly?

You are correct.

FullDisclosure · #**331** 04-29-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrb0124

here is the relevent part of the seizure invontory from the October 2008 SW (not all of which was displayed in court):

Search of the home or Cisco office? TIA

macd · #**332** 04-29-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleuthinNC

Lie, err I mean he must have misunderstood.

Boz has repeatedly offered to have the technical witnesses take the stand for the judge to ask and hear first hand for the technical questions. Judge finally took him up on it.

SleuthinNC · #**333** 04-29-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macd

Boz has repeatedly offered to have the technical witnesses take the stand for the judge to ask and hear first hand for the technical questions. Judge finally took him up on it.

Maybe the judge has finally realized that he has been repeatedly scammed.

jrb0124 · #**334** 04-29-2011, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FullDisclosure

Search of the home or Cisco office? TIA

from the residence

SleuthinNC · #**335** 04-29-2011, 02:42 PM

This whole router, call spoofing fiasco is becoming more annoying than anything. If they would just ask the right people for the right information this should really not be that hard to prove or disprove.

ncsu95 · #**336** 04-29-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto

Do we know when we'll hear if this witness is allowed to testify again?

Hopefully when a poster from here gets home (hopefully there is a ws poster in the court room).

ncsu95 · #**337** 04-29-2011, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macd

Do we know it was a VPN log?
I'm hearing the log is on the laptop, which means the log should be about a connection from the laptop to the 3825, maybe via telnet or ssh.
Not sure how a VPN connection between the 3825 and Cisco would be logged on the laptop.
I really want more information about that log.

I do too. Until then, we are just speculating.

otto · #**338** 04-29-2011, 02:46 PM

I guess we were allowed to hear yesteday's voir dire because it was for appelate purposes, but we are not allowed to hear this voir dire because it may be new State's evidence?

SleuthinNC · #**339** 04-29-2011, 02:47 PM

Boz is really trying to play both sides of the fence with this router information.

On one hand he saying the defense has had access to this data all along because it is on the hard drive. If that is the case the prosecution has had it all along as well along with access to the same Cisco people who they want to bring back to talk about it. They should have had this done prior to trial.

On the other hand Boz says, we are just getting this information from Cisco so we couldn't have brought it during our case in chief. Ok so then it is new evidence and should not be admitted.

I can't see any reason why this new evidence should be allowed.

ncsu95 · #**340** 04-29-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto

So Boz is trying to pull one over on the judge. He's trying to slide in new evidence by misleading the judge into believing that it is old evidence, but unless the defense has all that info, which it doesn't, it shouldn't be admitted.

Am I understanding correctly?

That's what I get from it. I personally would like to see it entered. But objectively, I can't see how the judge would allow it. It most definitely is not rebuttal testimony like BZ is trying to claim. Again, the only thing I can think he would be allowed to rebut is the size of the router (to show a smaller one is possible, even though the defense showed the router that the prosecution witness said would be needed), or something to do specifically with the csa log. We know this isn't part of the csa log, it's a system event (apparently). So it's completely new evidence.

ncsu95 · #**341** 04-29-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleuthinNC

This whole router, call spoofing fiasco is becoming more annoying than anything. If they would just ask the right people for the right information this should really not be that hard to prove or disprove.

I can't believe they didn't think to check this earlier. It's why I asked earlier this week if the mac address of the routers he purchased could be found on Cisco's network. They've had 2.5+ years to search for this stuff.

otto · #**342** 04-29-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

I do too. Until then, we are just speculating.

My guess is that the information they are trying to have admitted by the court is new information that was held in the logs of the router. The router was connected to the computer, but the computer would have less information in the logs than the router. My guess is that this is new evidence, and that if this new evidence is admitted, then the defense is being blindsided in the sense that they cannot rebut this evidence. If this is the case, I think we can expect another mistrial request from the defense. The problem with that, though, is that in a retrial his evidence (if it is significant) might sink their client.

ncsu95 · #**343** 04-29-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto

I guess we were allowed to hear yesteday's voir dire because it was for appelate purposes, but we are not allowed to hear this voir dire because it may be new State's evidence?

I think it is because it's a motion to suppress. They have shut the camera off at other times in the trial when discussing other motions to suppress (specifically, the google search).

ncsu95 · #**344** 04-29-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleuthinNC

Boz is really trying to play both sides of the fence with this router information.

On one hand he saying the defense has had access to this data all along because it is on the hard drive. If that is the case the prosecution has had it all along as well along with access to the same Cisco people who they want to bring back to talk about it. They should have had this done prior to trial.

On the other hand Boz says, we are just getting this information from Cisco so we couldn't have brought it during our case in chief. Ok so then it is new evidence and should not be admitted.

I can't see any reason why this new evidence should be allowed.

I was surprised Trenkle didn't say the same thing. I was thinking it at the time as well.

ncsu95 · #**345** 04-29-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto

My guess is that the information they are trying to have admitted by the court is new information that was held in the logs of the router. The router was connected to the computer, but the computer would have less information in the logs than the router. My guess is that this is new evidence, and that if this new evidence is admitted, then the defense is being blindsided in the sense that they cannot rebut this evidence. If this is the case, I think we can expect another mistrial request from the defense. The problem with that, though, is that in a retrial his evidence (if it is significant) might sink their client.

Yes, it does sound like they located one of the routers. But if it is a log in that router, it means that router was at Cisco on the 11th. We know he only accessed that building once before his badge was turned off, and that was on the 17th. That would have meant he had to hide a router somewhere and also somehow avoid the security cameras at the office to return it.

jrb0124 · #**346** 04-29-2011, 02:58 PM

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."

unc70 · #**347** 04-29-2011, 02:58 PM

I am all comfy here on the wall, finally brought a cushion and a cooler. Think it best to stay where I am for the moment, commune with nature, watch the ducks, start the weekend early. Anyone want a beer or some wine?

SleuthinNC · #**348** 04-29-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

I was surprised Trenkle didn't say the same thing. I was thinking it at the time as well.

LOl well hopefully they are all still monitoring web sleuths so they can add that statement during this motion to supress hearing.

FullDisclosure · #**349** 04-29-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unc70

I am all comfy here on the wall, finally brought a cushion and a cooler. Think it best to stay where I am for the moment, commune with nature, watch the ducks, start the weekend early. Anyone want a beer or some wine?

I'm in! Red wine for me, please!

yeknomaras · #**350** 04-29-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unc70

I am all comfy here on the wall, finally brought a cushion and a cooler. Think it best to stay where I am for the moment, commune with nature, watch the ducks, start the weekend early. Anyone want a beer or some wine?

I'll take a Newcastle if you've got one.