State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
misstibbs said:
If they proved that the computer was tampered with via Cisco VPN connection while in LE hands then they should be able to tell WHO had a VPN connection to Cisco. It's a Cisco employee who did the tampering in that case. I can definitely see why the Prosection is all over this....I would guess that Brad was deleting items from his computer while it was in LE custody.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking -if it's possible. Don't know? But, if that's the case, wouldn't the defense not have this testimony?
 
jrb0124 said:
He was asked 'who' had accessed it, he said no idea and mentioned this fact (Cisco VPN connection active) as an access avenue. He also said it could have been through malware, or direct human interface.
Click to expand...

He said he saw both physical tampering (like someone sitting there) and what could be automatic functions.
 
NCEast said:
I agree. But who would have done the tampering. I just don't think the CPD was capable of it, don't think the FBI or SBI would have taken the risk.
Click to expand...

The CPD and FBI don't have VPN access to Cisco. They COULD NOT have done the tampering. If I am on the jury and I actually understand this then I am wide awake at this point!
 
uh-oh....he's getting a tude. Snippy. Doesn't approve of the way others do things. He joined the team on Thurs.??? Oh my goodness....has he been posting here, too?? :floorlaugh:
 
BrownRice said:
I understand that, but if it was via VPN, maybe he was at home on another computer and was able to do something to affect that computer? I'm hardly a tech person, but I assume this could be done.
Click to expand...


I think they confiscated all the computers. And I don't think Cisco would allow you to connect from a non-Cisco computer (although I could be wrong on that). But, if it was BC, why wouldn't he have cleaned this up before the 15th. He had plenty of time to do so. I can't believe this would be BC.
 
Danielle59 said:
All that is in evidence of the morning of the 11th, and has not been disputed that I am aware is that BC was home helping NC with the children that morning. I would assume based on that that he saw her that morning.
Click to expand...

Actually, he was at Lowes buying the drop cloth. It was Brad who said he was home helping nancy, resulting in him being 'late for work.' But he was on video at Lowes, buying the drop cloth.
 
misstibbs said:
The CPD and FBI don't have VPN access to Cisco. They COULD NOT have done the tampering. If I am on the jury and I actually understand this then I am wide awake at this point!
Click to expand...

The jury isn't seeing this and he also said it could have been done by a person sitting at the PC.
 
Well there ya go. BII. I guess the defense can rest now. :) Glad to be on the ground now.
 
I am unable to watch this now, but:

VPN is not an automatic connection. I am not sure if he is talking about an actual VPN connection, or a secure connection.

Either way, the Laptop should not have been connected to an Internet Accessible (or non-private) network while in their possession. The Cisco VPN Client that I am familiar with requires an interactive login, with 2 factor authentication. You have to enter user name and password, along with a number that is provided by a token generation device. The 2 Factor is "something you know + something you have".

I cannot imagine that computer just booting up and attaching to the VPN, nor would I think that LE would have the information they needed to be able to log it into the VPN.

It is possible there was some kind of secure remote access software (PCAnywhere, Teamview) running on the machine that would allow secure remote access, but again, it should not be on a non-private network. It is also possible, but I think unlikely, that Cisco has a SSL only VPN that does not require 2 factor authentication.

Really puzzling information....:waitasec:
 
Come on, Boz. You can DO this. Ask just one wrong question so the judge can (at his discretion) allow this back into the defense.

Come on......
 
ncsu95 said:
I think they confiscated all the computers. And I don't think Cisco would allow you to connect from a non-Cisco computer (although I could be wrong on that). But, if it was BC, why wouldn't he have cleaned this up before the 15th. He had plenty of time to do so. I can't believe this would be BC.
Click to expand...

This expert's opinion was not that the hacking occurred via the VPN. He just said that was one of the mistakes that the CPD made. Allowing it to be connected to the VPN, and automatic functions changed files. He didn't say that's where the tampering came from.
 
jrb0124 said:
Kurtz: having examined machine - your opinion machine tampered with?

Witness: definite spoilation on that computer = tampering. Cannot tell who did it, confident it was tampered with. Computer was being accessed by VPN via Cisco while in LE possession.
Click to expand...

Believe SH's home computer should have been checked out too. Who had VPN access?
 
gracielee said:
Actually, he was at Lowes buying the drop cloth. It was Brad who said he was home helping nancy, resulting in him being 'late for work.' But he was on video at Lowes, buying the drop cloth.
Click to expand...

And both couldn't have happened? What do you think he was doing prior to 9:30 am?
 
johnfear said:
Come on, Boz. You can DO this. Ask just one wrong question so the judge can (at his discretion) allow this back into the defense.

Come on......
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be shocking if the judge didn't allow this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 214 more.
Total: 3,511 (members: 215, guests: 3,296)

Online statistics

Members online
215
Guests online
3,296
Total visitors
3,511
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,826
Messages
17,959,647
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top