State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[SleuthinNC]

OT post/ I am just reflecting on how wonderful life is. Southdide Johnny, grilling food on the grill, sweet Josie beer and time spent with family. No matter how bad things get we always have our memories and thoughts of tomorrow to keep us going. We all make mistakes and we all find ourselves facing hard times. We must always remember that we can always walk and don't look back. Regardless how this ends we should remember that there woo always be better days!!!

Yum Sweet Josie! I used to work with the Lonerider Brewers.

 

[kljohnson0458]

Wait, Boz told the Judge this was info from the IBM laptop, so it shouldn't have had to come from Cisco.

It would based on the dates he took it from Cisco to his home. I believe BC had this all planned out and am starting to again lean to G on the fence.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Thanks for clarifying. So it would still potentially leave a trail on the PC then, right? You have to use some program (telnet, putty, whatever) to access it?

Correct.

 

[ncsu95]

It would based on the dates he took it from Cisco to his home. I believe BC had this all planned out and am starting to again lean to G on the fence.

Does this describe your week? :rollercoaster::rollercoaster::rollercoaster:

 

[3doglady]

I know very little about computers so help me out. I thought when this first came up BZ said that Cisco had found one router and one was still missing. Today he said that the laptop event log has codes and Cisco has just verified that one of the laptop codes corresponds to a router that BC used. So have they found the actual router or do they just know that it was accessed by the laptop?

 

[Palomine]

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.

this witness testified this afternoon (closed) that Brad had checked out 2 routers and only returned one

 

[LyndyLoo]

I know very little about computers so help me out. I thought when this first came up BZ said that Cisco had found one router and one was still missing. Today he said that the laptop event log has codes and Cisco has just verified that one of the laptop codes corresponds to a router that BC used. So have they found the actual router or do they just know that it was accessed by the laptop?

I do not think they found that router in question...however, I do think they found the logs from that router (must of had some ID)..which can be identified as the one he ordered and received..and had use of..So until testimony comes forth in the courtroom..who knows?? But I am surprised it took them so long to find the specifics they needed to correlate the records..i.e. Phone/sites/ login/access/utilizing//

From my understanding, the router is useless unless configured and accesses via ethernet..whether it was home networking or Cisco networking will sort that out I guess..Maybe Cyber Peeps can clearify that part??:waitasec:

 

[CrimeAddict]

I know the jurors can go either way but those depositions will can really get him in the end. Why would he lie if he was innocent? Keeping it simple peeps!

 

[oenophile]

this witness testified this afternoon (closed) that Brad had checked out 2 routers and only returned one

There's no such thing as "checking out" routers at Cisco. Routers are shared among people. What is more relevant is what routers are actually logged on the various equipment on site. Remember, routers are part of a network. It's completely feasible to configure a router outside of a network, but that would leave an electronic trail on the PC that configured the router, or the network that the router was attached to.

A more accurate description would be that BC had purchased (internally) two routers, but only one has been accounted for. The question would then be, what happened to the second router, and how was it configured.

 

[Palomine]

There's no such thing as "checking out" routers at Cisco. Routers are shared among people. What is more relevant is what routers are actually logged on the various equipment on site. Remember, routers are part of a network. It's completely feasible to configure a router outside of a network, but that would leave an electronic trail on the PC that configured the router, or the network that the router was attached to.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/29/1164010/coopers-defense-rests-but-more.html

After the jurors went home for the weekend, the judge agreed to let a Cisco security investigator return to the stand in the prosecutor's rebuttal case to talk about a router the defendant checked out from the company.

Chris Fry testified outside the presence of the jury that his examination of computer evidence the prosecution gave him as part of their effort to challenge testimony about the computers introduced by the defense. During that examination, Fry hit on information showing that Brad Cooper had used a router on July 11, 2008.

Prosecutors have argued that Brad Cooper used a router to send a phone call from his home phone to his cell to make it look like Nancy Cooper was alive shortly before 7 a.m. on the day investigators say she was killed.

Investigators never found that router.

Fry said he found evidence that Cooper had checked out two routers from Cisco and only one had been returned.

 

[3doglady]

There's no such thing as "checking out" routers at Cisco. Routers are shared among people. What is more relevant is what routers are actually logged on the various equipment on site. Remember, routers are part of a network. It's completely feasible to configure a router outside of a network, but that would leave an electronic trail on the PC that configured the router, or the network that the router was attached to.

A more accurate description would be that BC had purchased (internally) two routers, but only one has been accounted for. The question would then be, what happened to the second router, and how was it configured.

Would an electronic trail on the laptop just give the router number and date it was used or would it include more info?

 

[macd]

Thanks for clarifying. So it would still potentially leave a trail on the PC then, right? You have to use some program (telnet, putty, whatever) to access it?

Right. Depending on the program and how it is configured, it could leave a log somewhere on the computer and on the router. That log could easily be erased afterward though. The specific router has not been entered into evidence, so we don't know what logs are or were on it.

I don't have a clear picture of what is the log entry from the laptop. Perhaps when that testimony is given we will find that it is some indication of the laptop connecting to the 3825 to configure it to spoof the call.

 

[Palomine]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/29/1164010/coopers-defense-rests-but-more.html

After the jurors went home for the weekend, the judge agreed to let a Cisco security investigator return to the stand in the prosecutor's rebuttal case to talk about a router the defendant checked out from the company.

Chris Fry testified outside the presence of the jury that his examination of computer evidence the prosecution gave him as part of their effort to challenge testimony about the computers introduced by the defense. During that examination, Fry hit on information showing that Brad Cooper had used a router on July 11, 2008.

Prosecutors have argued that Brad Cooper used a router to send a phone call from his home phone to his cell to make it look like Nancy Cooper was alive shortly before 7 a.m. on the day investigators say she was killed.

Investigators never found that router.

Fry said he found evidence that Cooper had checked out two routers from Cisco and only one had been returned.

we will have to wait for Monday

 

[Albert]

Yum Sweet Josie! I used to work with the Lonerider Brewers.

LMAO, how can anyone "used" to work for a brewery, weren't the fringe benefits worth sticking around.

 

[gracielee]

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/29/1164010/coopers-defense-rests-but-more.html

After the jurors went home for the weekend, the judge agreed to let a Cisco security investigator return to the stand in the prosecutor's rebuttal case to talk about a router the defendant checked out from the company.

Chris Fry testified outside the presence of the jury that his examination of computer evidence the prosecution gave him as part of their effort to challenge testimony about the computers introduced by the defense. During that examination, Fry hit on information showing that Brad Cooper had used a router on July 11, 2008.

Prosecutors have argued that Brad Cooper used a router to send a phone call from his home phone to his cell to make it look like Nancy Cooper was alive shortly before 7 a.m. on the day investigators say she was killed.

Investigators never found that router.

Fry said he found evidence that Cooper had checked out two routers from Cisco and only one had been returned.

How appropriate would it be if Brad was brought down by his own expertise, his computer stuff.

 

[less0305]

Way, way, way, way, wayyyyyyyyyy off topic here, but last night's Big Bang Theory was hilarious!!! Just watched it on DVR and just had to say that. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[macd]

Would an electronic trail on the laptop just give the router number and date it was used or would it include more info?

The setup I'm envisioning is his laptop and this router, sitting next to each each other connected only to each other and the home phone line. Both the router and the laptop could have made log entries on themselves. The router was presumably disposed of, so we have no way of knowing what logs are or were on it. Any log on the laptop that BC thought of could have been erased. It seems he might have missed one, we'll find out next week what info is in it. I'm guessing not much, just enough show a specific router was connected locally to the laptop at a certain time.

 

[cassius]

so is this cisco guy going to testify as an expert again?

 

[SleuthSayer]

The setup I'm envisioning is his laptop and this router, sitting next to each each other connected only to each other and the home phone line. Both the router and the laptop could have made log entries on themselves. The router was presumably disposed of, so we have no way of knowing what logs are or were on it. Any log on the laptop that BC thought of could have been erased. It seems he might have missed one, we'll find out next week what info is in it. I'm guessing not much, just enough show a specific router was connected locally to the laptop at a certain time.

Earlier posts in this thread referred to some mention of VPN being somehow involved. I'm not sure how or why it would have come in to play in spoofing a call, but evidently it was brought up somehow. That would mean that the router would need an Internet connection as well.

 

[oenophile]

Would an electronic trail on the laptop just give the router number and date it was used or would it include more info?

It depends on how it was configured. If it was done via telnet, then the telnet session itself would be logged, but not necessarily all of the details. And in that case, it should only provide the IP address of the router (which itself is configurable). But, the router would need to be connected to the switch, so the switch should know the MAC address of the router.

If it was done via a console cable, then theoretically the computer should have a log of the MAC address of the router, although I'm not certain (need to check with an expert on this). There is no need for a switch if done via console cable.