State v Bradley Cooper 5-3-11

[Madflava]

I do have an IT background. I understand the singular mindset and skillset of those who unleash viruses. This wasn't a virus. It was a single instance of an automated phone call. It was not sent out over the WWW. There wasn't much to erase. MOO

None of the instances I named were sent out over the WWW either and people still call it the WWW?

 

[Cheyenne130]

We have been in circles about this. The call was too long for it to have been generated through the router.

The length of the call meant it had to have gone through the Cisco IT managed system.

There is no way he would have taken that enormous industrial size router home when he could have picked up a non-traceable, much smaller router from the Cisco repo-depot and then just pitched it. It's not logical.

I disagree about the length of the call meaning it had to go through Cisco managed system. As to "no way he would have taken that enormous industrial size router home", he did. That is in the chat log. He informed GM that he had taken home a 3825. It was in his home according to testimony in court.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Where did the call go then? Through two tin cans and a string? If it went through the internet, there are traces and not going through Cisco's network would make it IMPOSSIBLE for him to cover his tracks. Im sure he doesnt have access to Time Warner or ATT or whoever his ISP was's logs.

I think you are a bit behind the curve here. The call was on the Time Warner logs and that's how he is using it for an alibi.

 

[otto]

I shoulda wrote it as "smirk" since that's how others are describing it. To me he's had the same or similar expression throughout the trial. But people see what they wanna see and hear what they wanna hear, on both sides of the fence.

That's what I'm seeing too - no change in expression at any time, and I certainly did not see a change in expression in the last 3 minutes of the closing arguments. He looked like he was about to pass out.

 

[Cheyenne130]

None of the instances I named were sent out over the WWW either and people still call it the WWW?

I would say so because it is still the "world wide web".

 

[cassius]

I would say so because it is still the "world wide web".

I thought it was changed to the "Interwebs" by GWB...?

 

[Madflava]

I think you are a bit behind the curve here. The call was on the Time Warner logs and that's how he is using it for an alibi.

I understand that. Thats not the point I was trying to make.

People that want to see him guilty are going to continue to try to poke holes in the digital forensics but the bottom line is you cant because its not there at least with the information thats been presented.

I dont have a dog in this hunt. I dont know BC, I didnt know NC nor do I know anyone that knows them. I live close by, thus my interest but Im not invested in this enough either way to "want" a particular verdict. I just dont think they did enough to disprove the call was spoofed.

 

[kljohnson0458]

JMO but there are many posting here that haven't heard the entire case or spent time watching what they couldn't see at the time. The state has good CE and the google search and this disappearing 6:40 a.m. call are good IMO. BC's demeanor before and after the disappearance also speak volumes. Still can't get over the fact he NEVER EVER contacted NC's parents. Why do you think they went to the custody hearing.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I understand that. Thats not the point I was trying to make.

People that want to see him guilty are going to continue to try to poke holes in the digital forensics but the bottom line is you cant because its not there at least with the information thats been presented.

I dont have a dog in this hunt. I dont know BC, I didnt know NC nor do I know anyone that knows them. I live close by, thus my interest but Im not invested in this enough either way to "want" a particular verdict. I just dont think they did enough to disprove the call was spoofed.

I do agree with the bolded part.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I understand that. Thats not the point I was trying to make.

People that want to see him guilty are going to continue to try to poke holes in the digital forensics but the bottom line is you cant because its not there at least with the information thats been presented.

I dont have a dog in this hunt. I dont know BC, I didnt know NC nor do I know anyone that knows them. I live close by, thus my interest but Im not invested in this enough either way to "want" a particular verdict. I just dont think they did enough to disprove the call was spoofed.

I'm guessing that you meant to prove that the call was spoofed, otherwise you've switched to the other team in mid thread.

You made an emphatic statement earlier that there would be tracing information left if the call was spoofed. I assumed that if you were able to make that statement you would be able to share with us where that tracing info would be.

 

[ncsu95]

FYI, my cellphone got left, and hence my note taking capabilities, at my office this morning.

I am not bashing the attorneys at all. I clearly saw Boz pitch at least three softball lies to the jury. I think I only counted one amongst all of Kurtz and Trenkle (that could be proven by the evidence).

And, as for my bias, I am biased against the current state of the GJ and the way that it impacts the courts in NC. Specifically that judges assume (on a fairly large level) that you are there to waste your time and are probably guilty. I would say judges who are open minded versus judges who are making that assumption probably runs 6:1 in this state. (I have spent a LOT of time in court rooms, just not for murder trials, for all kinds of actions/trials/etc)

There was something ineffective about much of what Cummings did that I honestly can't put my finger on. Boz is just Boz. But, Cummings, he has been spot on until about a week ago, if slow. He has really baled on the case. The only thing I felt like was an interesting and possibly game-turning move by him was the moment he chose not to show photos of the body and the moment he paused for three years to separate the 2nd degree and 1st degree charges.

I think he made an error doing that, perhaps successfully ruling out the second degree murder charge and leaning some folks to not guilty.

There was some murmuring and buzz after both sides completion, which is odd, because in my experience it is usually after the state's case.

I will just say: Let's see what happens, because there is nothing anybody can do about it at this point. Ya know?

I made a comment on here that he just threw 2nd degree out the window. I can't imagine they would come back with 2nd now.

 

[less0305]

And there's no proof she wasnt either except that there is ZERO proof the call was spoofed. Do you really believe Brad had full access to every piece of equipment that he needed to spoof that call? Do you REALLY think he had time to go through and delete all traces in between the cleaning, going to HT and all the other stuff he supposedly was doing? Its not as simple as "delete call trace" and hit enter. Tossing the router doesnt get rid of the evidence either. There are always traces.

If they had offered a shred of evidence that he spoofed that call, I would be driving the guilty bandwagon but I just dont see how it would have been done without leaving a log entry or something SOMEWHERE.

BBM

Me!!! I do!!!!! Yes, I do, I do, I do. Spoofed, spoofed, spoofed. He had access to all the equipment. There were 10 different ways to do it. He was an "expert" - one of only 157 in the world. He HAD to make the call to give himself an alibi. He brought that all on himself. Again, he should have went with the "she never came home from the party" lie instead. I bet he's still hitting himself on his pointed little forehead over that.

 

[otto]

I understand that. Thats not the point I was trying to make.

People that want to see him guilty are going to continue to try to poke holes in the digital forensics but the bottom line is you cant because its not there at least with the information thats been presented.

I dont have a dog in this hunt. I dont know BC, I didnt know NC nor do I know anyone that knows them. I live close by, thus my interest but Im not invested in this enough either way to "want" a particular verdict. I just dont think they did enough to disprove the call was spoofed.

Quite true. The lead detective stated that there was no proof that the call was spoofed. What we have is speculation that it could have happened, but no evidence to support it. I think the jury would have to exclude that evidence ... but who knows. I hope the jury won't think that proof isn't needed to support theories.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

I disagree about the length of the call meaning it had to go through Cisco managed system. As to "no way he would have taken that enormous industrial size router home", he did. That is in the chat log. He informed GM that he had taken home a 3825. It was in his home according to testimony in court.

Thank you! This is exactly what I fear is/will be happening in jury deliberations. You have technical details in the case and perhaps some non-technical people trying to make sense of it. The prosecution should have been clearer about how exactly it is done with the Cisco router. I have a very hard time believing it's difficult to program a Voip phone system to place calls automatically (not exactly earth-shattering concept)...but many people on this board are having a hard time processing this. Same people who couldn't program the VCR (or DVR).

 

[otto]

I made a comment on here that he just threw 2nd degree out the window. I can't imagine they would come back with 2nd now.

Cummings said something like "only first degree" in the last couple of minutes in closing, and even the Judge seemed to be surprised that the Prosecution is arguing that it was not second degree.

 

[less0305]

But it shouldn't be assumed that he did it just because he did VOIP. Engineers don't fake phone calls as part of their job. It is not part of their training to learn how to fake phone calls without leaving a trace.

Nothing was found on the Cisco records.

He went with what he knew how to do. Like it's been said before - he should have gone with a story of her never returning from the party. Then he wouldn't have been the last person to ever see her alive and his phone technology/knowledge would never have come into play, would it? No, he reverted to what he felt safe with, his expertise - technology. He thought he was just that smart. Too bad, too sad...

 

[gbay]

Not exactly but if something happened to me, it wouldn't be the phone that would determine my last communication. It would be this computer. I turn it on before I check my phone. If Brad had received a call to his cell phone from Nancy's cell phone, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Coming from the home phone with his equipment and his abilities, there is no proof that Nancy was alive at 6:40. MOO

It is interesting that for the calls Nancy made to Brad the day before...Every one of them was from her cell phone. None were from the home phone even when she was at home. She called him 8 x and of those 5 were when she was at home (from what I can gather).

 

[Cheyenne130]

Cummings said something like "only first degree" in the last couple of minutes in closing, and even the Judge seemed to be surprised that the Prosecution is arguing that it was not second degree.

IMO, the google search SCREAMS that it is not second degree.

 

[SleuthSayer]

This is exactly the kind of logic which has BC on trial right now. When LE found anything which did not fit their case, they threw it out or said it may be faked.

That logic is flawed by definition. Could you please prove to me our higher power is not a flying spaghetti monster whose followers fluctuate with the number of pirates in the world at any given time? Or that there is not a cup and saucer orbiting the Earth right now?

awk: Cannot parse near line 4
awk: bailing out near line 4

 

[CarolinaTitan]

Cummings said something like "only first degree" in the last couple of minutes in closing, and even the Judge seemed to be surprised that the Prosecution is arguing that it was not second degree.

The basis for 1st degree murder, for the prosecution, is the Google Map search...that happened before the murder. That must mean premeditation in their eyes....so if you believe that to be factual...it can't be 2nd degree.