Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[oenophile]

The link appears to be copied and incomplete ... so it doesn't work.

Here is the correct link:

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9524242/

 

[Just the Fax]

Too bad it was discovered at the 11th hour by Cisco and not presented to the jury.With system logs, Mr Frye will prove the missing $11,000, 3825 router was in fact used by Brad when he said he was sound asleep.

Wonder how the defense will attempt to counter this smoking gun? Maybe they will say Cisco conspired with CPD to frame Brad.:lol:

 

[oenophile]

Too bad it was discovered at the 11th hour by Cisco and not presented to the jury.With system logs, Mr Frye will prove the missing $11,000, 3825 router was in fact used by Brad when he said he was sound asleep.

Wonder how the defense will attempt to counter this smoking gun? Maybe they will say Cisco conspired with CPD to frame Brad.:lol:

I think there are two ways that this could go. 1) that the system logs are accurate, and they do demonstrate beyond doubt that Brad was configuring a locally connected router on Friday night; or 2) the system logs are being misinterpreted, and that they do not actually say what they claim to say.

(Note: it is safe to assume that Brad was not asleep, that he was mistaken about that at his deposition, and that he was actually doing some work on the computer Friday night.)

If the first case is true, then those like me will likely believe that the state has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and we will be convinced of his guilt. If the second case is true, then we are back where we were before the logs were introduced.

 

[macd]

Hypothetically, what if a defense witness claims that the log could have been planted?

 

[oenophile]

Hypothetically, what if a defense witness claims that the log could have been planted?

Windows systems logs are very different than temporary internet files, and it takes much more skill to plant that (if it is even possible). In addition, it requires the knowledge of the MAC address of the router, which is not readily available. It would be a much tougher sell.

 

[macd]

Hypothetically, what if the defense argued in closing arguments, that yes he was configuring the router at 10:21pm, but he was configuring VoIP for work, not to create an alibi?

 

[Just the Fax]

Hypothetically, what if the defense argued in closing arguments, that yes he was configuring the router at 10:21pm, but he was configuring VoIP for work, not to create an alibi?

......and then decided to dispose of it the day Nancy died?

Round 2 should be a slam dunk for a 2nd guilty verdict.

 

[oenophile]

......and then decided to dispose of it the day Nancy died?

For once I agree. If a router was connected locally Friday night, and it was no longer around immediately after, that is pretty solid circumstantial evidence.

 

[otto]

I think there are two ways that this could go. 1) that the system logs are accurate, and they do demonstrate beyond doubt that Brad was configuring a locally connected router on Friday night; or 2) the system logs are being misinterpreted, and that they do not actually say what they claim to say.

(Note: it is safe to assume that Brad was not asleep, that he was mistaken about that at his deposition, and that he was actually doing some work on the computer Friday night.)

If the first case is true, then those like me will likely believe that the state has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and we will be convinced of his guilt. If the second case is true, then we are back where we were before the logs were introduced.

Police asked Brad what he was doing after he returned home on the night of the murder. The only reason this is important is for the purpose of alibi. Brad said he was sleeping - which is not a very good alibi. Instead, there might be some evidence that he had a better alibi: computer use. Either way, all the matters is that he wasn't murdering his wife at the time. The prosecution is eager to accept evidence that he wasn't murdering his wife at 10, so Brad now has something of an alibi for some time on the night of the murder.

Regarding the router, I can't see how it could be admissable evidence. There is a huge problem with the chain of custody. The prosecution imagined that a router was in the house on the night of the murder because it heled explain the theory of the crime. There was no router. Instead of rethinking the theory of the crime, a dust spot explains the missing evidence. In the nick of time, evidence of the router is discovered after the publicized trial makes it clear that the discovery of the router would be very helpful. Now we have a router, but it was not collected by police at the crime scene. A router with just the evidence police need is discovered and analyzed by an unknown party.

 

[Madeleine74]

The police already knew Nancy was across the street @ the BBQ until sometime between midnight to maybe 12:20am (estimated). Obviously she wasn't being murdered at 10pm or 11pm since she was very much alive and in the presence of friends.

The computer forensics showed a different set of details that didn't match what Brad said he was doing after he got home. He logged onto that computer at least 3 or 4 times, maybe more.

In regards to the 3825 router, which is the one that counts, the router itself was discarded before it could be seized by LE. There most definitely was a router and to say there wasn't is insanity. Brad said in a chat log at work he had taken home a 3825 router mid-January. That router was never seen again. But Cisco eventually found a "calling card" of sorts that the 3825 router left behind on his work laptop--a Windows system event log error notation with a code that pointed directly to that very 3825 router being configured and having an IP address conflict on 7/11/08 @ 10:21pm. That evidence was found by Cisco too late to come into the first trial, but there's no reason it shouldn't be able to come in if there's a 2nd trial. The defense will have it in discovery and can find their own expert to opine about that log entry.

 

[oenophile]

In regards to the 3825 router, which is the one that counts, the router itself was discarded before it could be seized by LE. There most definitely was a router and to say there wasn't is insanity.

That is simply an unproven, highly speculative statement. Yes, there were tons of routers that Brad worked with, including some that he took home with him over the years, one in January. But to state that Brad had a router home with him in July is highly speculative at this point. The burden of proof lies with the claimant, and it is not insanity to insist on evidence before drawing a conclusion.

Brad said in a chat log at work he had taken home a 3825 router mid-January. That router was never seen again. But Cisco eventually found a "calling card" of sorts that the 3825 router left behind on his work laptop--a Windows system event log error notation with a code that pointed directly to that very 3825 router being configured and having an IP address conflict on 7/11/08 @ 10:21pm. That evidence was found by Cisco too late to come into the first trial, but there's no reason it shouldn't be able to come in if there's a 2nd trial. The defense will have it in discovery and can find their own expert to opine about that log entry.

We don't know if that router was "never seen again". It could have been recycled, it could have been put to another use within Cisco. All kinds of things could have happened to it. As to the Windows system event log, we don't know yet what the evidence is, and it has not been subject to cross examination. If it is real, and if it is presented at the second trial, THEN we will be able to make a judgement call on it.

To say that there definitely was a router in the home in July is the same as Brad was out buying bleach the morning of the murder.

 

[oenophile]

Regarding the router, I can't see how it could be admissable evidence. There is a huge problem with the chain of custody. The prosecution imagined that a router was in the house on the night of the murder because it heled explain the theory of the crime. There was no router. Instead of rethinking the theory of the crime, a dust spot explains the missing evidence. In the nick of time, evidence of the router is discovered after the publicized trial makes it clear that the discovery of the router would be very helpful. Now we have a router, but it was not collected by police at the crime scene. A router with just the evidence police need is discovered and analyzed by an unknown party.

IF the prosecution can prove that a device with an identical MAC address as one of the 3825 routers was physically attached to Brad's computer on the Friday night of the murder, THEN you must admit that there was a router at the time of the murder that wasn't there immediately after the murder.

This is what the System Event Log supposedly shows. However, we don't know what the Log actually shows, only what it supposedly shows. And we probably won't find out until trial #2.

 

[Madeleine74]

Frye's proffer on the Win Sys Event log from 7/11/08 pointing to the 3825 router with MAC ID matching the one 3825 that was missing at Cisco was real. His proffer and the hearing are part of the trial transcript. The jury didn't have that log file as part of their considered evidence and they were able to convict without it. We know about that system event log file because of the video stream where the newly found evidence is being discussed in a motion and the details of what Frye found are elicited before the cameras were turned off.

 

[oenophile]

Frye's proffer on the Win Sys Event log from 7/11/08 pointing to the 3825 router with MAC ID matching the one 3825 that was missing at Cisco was real. His proffer and the hearing are part of the trial transcript. The jury didn't have that log file as part of their considered evidence and they were able to convict without it. We know about that system event log file because of the video stream where the newly found evidence is being discussed in a motion and the details of what Frye found are elicited before the cameras were turned off.

Understood, however that proffer was never subject to a critical cross examination, and the evidence was not thoroughly evaluated by a defense expert prior to it being submitted as part of the proffer. Frye may have misinterpreted the data, he may have overlooked data that contradicts what he testified to, etc. Thus, we really don't know much about the Win Sys Event log apart from what the prosecution, via Frye, has told us.

Feel free to post the Frye proffer transcript if you have it.

 

[JusticeFever]

Any word on a date for the 2nd trial?

 

[Just the Fax]

Understood, however that proffer was never subject to a critical cross examination, and the evidence was not thoroughly evaluated by a defense expert prior to it being submitted as part of the proffer. Frye may have misinterpreted the data, he may have overlooked data that contradicts what he testified to, etc. Thus, we really don't know much about the Win Sys Event log apart from what the prosecution, via Frye, has told us.

Feel free to post the Frye proffer transcript if you have it.

I'm quite sure the defense can hire a 'hack' that can at least try to muddy the water on a windows system even log that clearly points to guilt. We'll see how smart these jurors are. Hopefully they will have at least some common sense and justice will prevail for the Nancy.

 

[oenophile]

I'm quite sure the defense can hire a 'hack' that can at least try to muddy the water on a windows system even log that clearly points to guilt. We'll see how smart these jurors are. Hopefully they will have at least some common sense and justice will prevail for the Nancy.

Justice will NEVER prevail for Nancy until they find the actual killer. If Brad is innocent, then convicting him of this crime would be a grave INJUSTICE for Nancy. Sometimes people here forget this.

I do hope that the jurors do have common sense though.

As to the Windows System Event log, I'm less interested in "muddying the water" than finding what the truth is. If the truth is that Brad was configuring a locally-connected router that evening, then I hope the Windows System Event log shows that evidence. If he wasn't, then I hope that an expert can show that there is not evidence of a router connected that night.

 

[Madeleine74]

Oenoephile opined: Understood, however that proffer was never subject to a critical cross examination, and the evidence was not thoroughly evaluated by a defense expert prior to it being submitted as part of the proffer.

The exact same thing can be said for defense witness Massuci's proffer, yet that hasn't stopped Brad's supporters from claiming Masucci's assertions from his hearing as proof of tampering/spoilation. Kurtz even used Masucci's graphs in his closing arguments, even though Masucci did not testify in front of the jury. Massuci didn't get any further than Frye did, nor were his allegations and findings subject to a thorough evaluation by any prosecution expert prior to it being submitted as part of the proffer. The only difference is Massuci's hearing was live-streamed and Frye's was not. Massuci even said during his proffer he hadn't completed his report yet.

 

[oenophile]

The exact same thing can be said for defense witness Massuci's proffer, yet that hasn't stopped Brad's supporters from claiming Masucci's assertions from his hearing as proof of tampering/spoilation. Kurtz even used Masucci's graphs in his closing arguments, even though Masucci did not testify in front of the jury. Massuci didn't get any further than Frye did, nor were his allegations and findings subject to a thorough evaluation by any prosecution expert prior to it being submitted as part of the proffer. The only difference is Massuci's hearing was live-streamed and Frye's was not. Massuci even said during his proffer he hadn't completed his report yet.

That isn't true at all. Masucci's report was basically an endorsement of Jay Ward's report. The prosecution had ample time to review and prepare to cross-examine Jay Ward and his report had he been able to testify as an expert witness on the tampering. In addition, the prosecution pre-emptively addressed the accusation when questioning Chappell and Johnson. Given that Masucci was really acting to replace Ward, on exactly the same issue, there wasn't a great deal of difference in the cross examination preparation.

 

[Madeleine74]

Until Masucci took the stand, he and his partial findings (his own admission is he wasn't finished) were unknown to the state and certainly not in time to do any in depth examination of his report. Doesn't matter if he agreed with Jay Ward or not. Masucci may have misinterpreted the data, he may have overlooked data that contradicts what he testified to, etc. (your words, not mine, just applied to Masucci the same as applied to CFrye).

Masucci is not Jay Ward and neither Masucci nor his proffer got the same examination that would be expected for CFrye's proffer to be seen as anything other than mere speculation at this point. Neither witness testified in front of the jury, therefore neither ones' evidence is considered real or valid until it is presented in front of a jury (per your prior claim of CFrye's assertions of the Win Sys Event log only being supposedly what it shows).

Can't say one witness' proffer is valid(ated) evidence and the other witness' proffer is not valid(ated) evidence. Well I suppose one can, but that seems disingenuous to hold only one side to a standard.