State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[johnfear]

Actually it would be three (3) spoofed calls (2 successful and 1 failure), or no spoofed calls, or you can't tell if there was a spoofed call or not, depending of course on how you view the case.

Let me explain further:

But to answer your first question if the router was at home and connected, then it would be accessed everytime you made any type of VPN connection.

The data "just found" suggests it was connected @ 10:21 PM July 11th, 2008
just once and then "disappeared".

I Then say three spoofed calls, if there was any because: The first was made just after 6:20 AM July 12. This was called the search for the cell phone spoof, as a test.

The second spoofed call was on the first trip to HT, which failed to connect. Necessitating a return trip to HT, to establish an alibi.

Quick return to the house, re-set everything, and then the third call @ 6:40 AM.


Then I said no spoofed calls, because spoofed calls are only required if you believe the state timeline and facts as presented. NC could have been murdered after 6:40 AM, by BC, and no spoofing is required, IMHO.

And lastly I said, you cannot tell if there was a spoofed call, cause the data the BC's laptop is so screwed it cannot be relied on.

So there are your choices.

Thanks, Shadow. I have not caught up on today. Did they SHOW the last half of the day-ish?

People are saying: Boz didn't lie, etc. Did they see his explanation of how this all ties in to the "network security" and "VPN"?

Did they see him describing what is apparently a magical spoof call the waits on a VPN and then triggers itself in the night to come to fruition in the morning at specified times? (This is slightly exaggerated, but nowhere nears the mess he was babbling)

Also, what is it with this magical "network" that appears from the Cisco fairy?

Do people not know it goes through via an INTERNET connection?

 

[Shadow722]

Thanks, Shadow. I have not caught up on today. Did they SHOW the last half of the day-ish?

People are saying: Boz didn't lie, etc. Did they see his explanation of how this all ties in to the "network security" and "VPN"?

Did they see him describing what is apparently a magical spoof call the waits on a VPN and then triggers itself in the night to come to fruition in the morning at specified times? (This is slightly exaggerated, but nowhere nears the mess he was babbling)

Also, what is it with this magical "network" that appears from the Cisco fairy?

Do people not know it goes through via an INTERNET connection?

They have not shown the last half of the day that I'm aware of, at least I have not seen it. And I am aware that it all goes through the internet, and not the Cisco Fairy/VPN.....

I enjoyed your comments this evening, although some of them were a tad obtuse, but I'm old and slow and 9 Years into quite retirement after 27 years of working in and managing IT networks, so I don't know much anymore.

Thanks for the reads....

 

[johnfear]

They have not shown the last half of the day that I'm aware of, at least I have not seen it. And I am aware that it all goes through the internet, and not the Cisco Fairy/VPN.....

I enjoyed your comments this evening, although some of them were a tad obtuse, but I'm old and slow and 9 Years into quite retirement after 27 years of working in and managing IT networks, so I don't know much anymore.

Thanks for the reads....

Sorry for obtuse-ness. Thanks for your comments as well.

I will end my rant with this.

Cfry is potentially going to inadvertently allow the following obscurity:

We can tell you he logged in the night before (BC that is) but we have no record of the router and the same "log-in" then magically left no record at the time frame we SHOULD also have a record of for spoofing the call, therefore completely torpedoing the inference that he could still have made the spoofed call by saying: We now have evidence he had the equipment to spoof the call in a way that would have left a trail, but we have no trail.

 

[otto]

So even if the prosecution can connect the router with Brad on the evening of July 11, we still have problems like the following. Even though this particular expert was not allowed to testify, maybe someone else will present the same evidence.

Ref: WRAL video feed Thursday (might have been Wed).

 

[otto]

NEW WEEKEND THREAD​

April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community​

 

[Scamperoo]

I don't know what any one else thinks but this has become too bogged down in all the tech stuff that most of the jury won't understand

It's a shame

I think you underestimate Joe Public...most are very savvy to what is going on..JMO

 

[Danielle59]

Go to any time he talked in court today other than to say "Your Honor, can I have a moment." You'll see a lie He was talking out of both ends at length today, full on, work around, diarrhea of why-the-state-bar-should-step-in.
And seriously, pardon me, but attorneys on the defense side doing this earn hackles and fiery spit from all of us.....so should attorneys acting "green and geeky" for the state.

Thank you for your posts, and I think four of us on these boards saw that and said basically the same thing, you were in the court and came back with the same. Thank you!

 

[otto]

New Weekend Thread
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6415498&posted=1#post6415498​

 

[bloghooligan]

It's on video on WRAL now. There is a code on the laptop that shows the router was used. The defense has a copy of everything on the laptop but did not know what the code stood for. Cisco is the only one who could verify the code was for the router.

So, this is new evidence (because neither the pros or def knew about it) and JG is going to let a "new" expert (or non-expert) testify about it.

I agree with what was said up thread... if this evidence/expert is allowed then the defense expert that can testify to computer forensics GM (?) should be allowed in defense rebuttal of this (and earlier) testimony by the pros.

It's just wrong to let in the prosecution's evidence (FBI & CISCO) and not allow the defense expert in to rebut.

 

[macd]

So even if the prosecution can connect the router with Brad on the evening of July 11, we still have problems like the following. Even though this particular expert was not allowed to testify, maybe someone else will present the same evidence.

Ref: WRAL video feed Thursday (might have been Wed).

I was not impressed with GM testimony. If anything, I think it proved that evidence was NOT planted.

That's the real question:
1) Was the fielding drive zoom left by BC or was it planted?
2) Was the windows system event log entry left by BC or was it planted?

That thousands of files on the computer had an invalid timestamp really goes to show that something systemic happened on the computer. Whatever that was, it didn't generate a system event log with a 3825's mac address and it didn't create a zoomed map image of fielding drive.

That thousands of files were affected, not just the two pieces of evidence highlighted, goes to show that those invalid timestamps don't point to planting two pieces of evidence.

 

[macd]

Sorry for obtuse-ness. Thanks for your comments as well.

I will end my rant with this.

Cfry is potentially going to inadvertently allow the following obscurity:

We can tell you he logged in the night before (BC that is) but we have no record of the router and the same "log-in" then magically left no record at the time frame we SHOULD also have a record of for spoofing the call, therefore completely torpedoing the inference that he could still have made the spoofed call by saying: We now have evidence he had the equipment to spoof the call in a way that would have left a trail, but we have no trail.

Before CF info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. There is no direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment to make a spoofed call on or around 7/12.

After CF info:
There is no direct evidence that a spoofed call was made. This is direct evidence that BC had the necessary equipment on or around 7/12.