State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[less0305]

I'm going to say again, all the RTP techies have shown up for this case because the dude worked at Cisco and they lived in Cary... so therefore, their interested in the technical aspect. My guess is, the jury, um, not so much. My guess is the jury more than likely is a little more like me... blah, blah, blah, blah, blah blah blah blah when it comes to all this technical testimony. They're going to look at this first and foremost:

Brad's marriage was horrible.
Brad had an affair with his wife's best friend, which in effect ended the marriage.
Brad admitted this and was going to allow his wife to take his two children and go back to Canada UNTIL
Brad started snooping and being nosey in Nancy's email account and saw the separation agreement.
Brad didn't like the $$$ cha-ching it was going to cost him to keep up his crummy wife and his two kids.
Brad set out to make a plan - and changed Nancy's plans.
Brad decided it would be cheaper to keep his kids and do away with his wife.
Brad was an expert in some technological field that gave him just enough knowledge and ability to create himself an alibi.
Brad looked at and zoomed in on a map right over the spot his wife's dead body was found - and did it the day before his wife mysteriously went missing.
Brad did not withdraw the allowance for Nancy that weekend.
Brad stated he was asleep and yet he was on the computer checking his wife's email - lying in wait in the dark for her to arrive home from a cook-out.
Brad made a couple unusual trips to HT on the very morning his wife disappears and took two completely different routes.
Brad's wife went running in two shoes for the same foot.
Brad's dead wife's running clothing was never found, except the sports bra that was rolled under as if it was being put on, not taken off.
Brad lost his shoes.
Brad lost items from the foyer.
Brad got down on his hands and knees and washed hardwood floors.
Brad cleaned out part of a garage he hadn't cleaned in 8 years.
Brad cleaned his trunk to an immaculate state.
Brad couldn't remember, couldn't find, finally found, and laundered the dress his dead wife had been wearing the night before that had what he and he only saw as a wine stain.
Brad did not report his wife missing.
Brad did not return a police officer's call even after he played the voicemail and knew it was a p.o.
Brad did not call his wife's family.
Brad showed no emotion other than being very tired.
Brad searched Air Canada and jobs in Canada while his wife was missing.
Brad ended up with a diamond necklace in the drawer of his dresser that his dead wife never took off.
Brad is a confirmed liar.
Brad had the opportunity and motive for his wife to suddenly be dead.
Brad had a $75,000 life insurance policy on his wife.
Brad Cooper was the only person to benefit from his wife's death, the only person who did not care that his wife was suddenly missing and dead, the last person to see his wife, the ONLY person to say she called him that morning on his way to the store, the person who never once inquired of the police how the investigation was going, what was going on, did you find the person yet. And Brad Cooper was the one person who did not look the police in the eye and say, "I did not kill my wife," that they would have liked to have heard it from the most.

And believe me... all this mumbo jumbo about hacking, white hat hackers, secure/non-secure, VOIP, FXO cards and the possibility that Brad is being framed by a neighbor is going to all be a huge waste of time.

 

[Shadow722]

Compromised by whom? Motive? Inquiring jurors will want to know.
Pretty simple concept.

Compromised by whom? The defense will allege "The real murderer".....
Motive? To cover the crime, and frame BC.......

A stretch maybe, but the defense does not have to prove BC innocent, just show enough to establish reasonable doubt, to a) get an acquittal or
b) hang the jury.

And that dear lady is their job. Any trial is a Kabuki Dance, and we are only in the second act. It is going to be a long ride, and far from over.

 

[otto]

Computer forensics is now included in Murder Investigation 101.
A detective would indeed be inept if he did not look at the computers and phones of their suspect(s).

I think this has gone far beyond looking at them. This is into the realm of looking at them in terms of "what you see is not the truth". The prosecution opened that can of worms by suggesting that phone records are not truthful. Now we have the defense saying that computers records are also not truthful. What these lawyers are doing is pretty much establishing that phone and computer evidence is not reliable.

 

[Just the Fax]

~~~snipped

And believe me... all this mumbo jumbo about hacking, white hat hackers, secure/non-secure, VOIP, FXO cards and the possibility that Brad is being framed by a neighbor is going to all be a huge waste of time.

:thumb:

 

[otto]

I think about that a lot, how he is penalized for being a VOIP engineer. No, I don't think they would have suggested the phone spoofing.

Isn't it interesting that JA and BA's affidavits both made mention of BC's VOIP knowledge? They steered the police right down that track too. They have driven the entire investigation from the 911 call to the laundry detergent(lie) to the paint plan story to the VOIP expertise. And let's not forget the ducks and sticks.

That is how this trial has appeared from the beginning. We have a bunch of neighbors convinced that they know more about Brad and his family than Brad does. They decided he was guilty of murder by noon on the day she disappeared, and I agree that the neighbors guided police to the evidence that has been presented. It is believable that if the neighbors thought the police needed a little help that they would work together to help them along.

 

[sunshine05]

That is how this trial has appeared from the beginning. We have a bunch of neighbors convinced that they know more about Brad and his family than Brad does. They decided he was guilty of murder by noon on the day she disappeared, and I agree that the neighbors guided police to the evidence that has been presented. It is believable that if the neighbors thought the police needed a little help that they would work together to help them along.

HP did for sure. She lied on the stand about those screw back earrings (and in her statement). Then she lied about requesting photos of NC only wearing the necklace. Those are two examples and we have lots of inconsistencies to their stories. But most everyone here brushed that off.

 

[unc70]

Enough of the lectures please. I am fully aware the defense does not have to prove anything. "Reasonable" is the key word here.

I am beginning to think the defense might be going far beyond "reasonable doubt" and get to proving tampering by someone. Until today, I had thought the tampering argument was probably weak and had considered other ways a search of 27518 might have been more-or-less by accident (e.g. searching on a weather site that then used Google mapping to display radar data).

I am now at least considering the possibility that K will actually prove tampering as he stated in his openning. No wonder the pros. has been trying so hard to disqualify this witness's testimony. Makes me wonder if we are about to see a repeat of the Duke lacrosse case.

BTW None of you would be safe if Ward did a "white hat" intrusion attempt on your systems. You might not be safe if even I tried, and that is not my specialty.

Yes, all wireless systems are insecure; the "secure" ones just take longer using better tools. So are all wired systems, too. The only secured systems are not connected to anything else inside shielded facilities, better yet without power.

I will try to avoid one of my usual rants on this and related topics.

 

[cody100]

I have to tell everyone that this discussion is a whole lot more entertaining than the courtroom today. Both sides have legitimate arguments. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I have noticed with so many witnesses in this trial, mostly 30ish, that they begin what they are going to say with "So".....and they continue with their sentence. It's not needed in the context of what they are saying. Is that a trendy thing in the RTP area? I don't hear it here.

It's a terrible habit. I catch myself doing it all the time.

 

[cody100]

I am beginning to think the defense might be going far beyond "reasonable doubt" and get to proving tampering by someone. Until today, I had thought the tampering argument was probably weak and had considered other ways a search of 27518 might have been more-or-less by accident (e.g. searching on a weather site that then used Google mapping to display radar data).

I am now at least considering the possibility that K will actually prove tampering as he stated in his openning. No wonder the pros. has been trying so hard to disqualify this witness's testimony. Makes me wonder if we are about to see a repeat of the Duke lacrosse case.

BTW None of you would be safe if Ward did a "white hat" intrusion attempt on your systems. You might not be safe if even I tried, and that is not my specialty.

Yes, all wireless systems are insecure; the "secure" ones just take longer using better tools. So are all wired systems, too. The only secured systems are not connected to anything else inside shielded facilities, better yet without power.

I will try to avoid one of my usual rants on this and related topics.

Oh, don't stop now. Everyone else rants too so join the crowd. Just be courteous about it so we don't lose your expertise.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Im sorry, I would really love to continue this debate..but I am getting sensory overloaded now..and must take a breaky poo..Im with poster who made that long list of motive means and opportunity and this computer stuff defense is attempting to sway jurors in reasonable doubt that some stranger or nosey neighbour would spoof computer activities..is really really reaching??

So will catchup with ya all later gators.. Its been a pleasure..:seeya:

You guys are the greatest :grouphug:fftobed: Im off to get rejuvinated..

 

[TXredhead178]

No, I am sure CPD took over the house, BC left and they had access to the powered up computer for 27 hours. Don't know the exact dates but this has not been disputed.

I don't think they needed the password. The PC was up and running.

Nor am I disputing that there was a time delay between the house being sealed off and a search warrant being issued that would allow seizure of the computers. Until they were seized by specially trained officers, nothing could be done to power them down, because that could compromise evidence.

I don't know that we can make any assumptions about needing the password, but I do know that company-issued laptops typically lock down automatically (requiring a password) after a relatively short period of inactivity. And we don't know that BC didn't lock it himself before he left the house.

Once the crime scene was established, there would have been a log of everyone going into and out of the house. I would think all of the police officers there would be too busy doing their job to fool around with BC's computer. And they'd also risk other officers seeing them do so and calling suspicion on themselves. It is quite a stretch indeed.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Hopefully prosecution can correct this error.
Google "cisco 1751 fxo" to see.

Cisco, and other large companies, would never use an FXO port internally, so it's an easy mistake to make for enterprise VoIP guys. You'd only buy one to use at a very small business (or home).

1751 EoL was Dec 2008. Internal ordering and use would have stopped well before that.

 

[otto]

HP did for sure. She lied on the stand about those screw back earrings (and in her statement). Then she lied about requesting photos of NC only wearing the necklace. Those are two examples and we have lots of inconsistencies to their stories. But most everyone here brushed that off.

I think it's possible that all those negative (and sometimes questionable)character witnesses could have their negative views flipped right back on them with the big question being: we know this gang had it in for Brad, so how far were they willing to go to see him convicted?

 

[Just the Fax]

HP did for sure. She lied on the stand about those screw back earrings (and in her statement). Then she lied about requesting photos of NC only wearing the necklace. Those are two examples and we have lots of inconsistencies to their stories. But most everyone here brushed that off.

So with that, do you think it is reasonable for the jury to consider her a suspect over BC?
:smiliescale:

 

[otto]

So with that, do you think it is reasonable for the jury to consider her a suspect over BC?
:smiliescale:

Defense doesn't have to present other suspects, only has to demonstrate that the neighborhood gang had it in for Brad, was willing to modify and compare notes before talking with police, was eager to point police in certain directions and now ... we have one piece of evidence (41 seconds of evidence with no prior research on this map) pointing straight at the computer nerd who should have been smart enough to make sure that didn't happen.

 

[Just the Fax]

Defense doesn't have to present other suspects, only has to demonstrate that the neighborhood gang had it in for Brad, was willing to modify and compare notes before talking with police, was eager to point police in certain directions and now ... we have one piece of evidence (41 seconds of evidence with no prior research on this map) pointing straight at the computer nerd who should have been smart enough to make sure that didn't happen.

Oh, but Kurtz has indeed presented his suspects.

1- Hispanics
2- CD
3- JP

I'm sure he will suggest more.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I agree re office vs home sec. difference -- but I just can't imagine someone working in a Cisco or similar business (like many of us who know the dangers of hacking) and not being just naturally security-conscious. He certainly wouldn't want his unfriendly neighbors having any teeny tiny chance of breaking into anything he had online, so surely, Shirley, he would have had it wrapped up in some decent kind of protocol, protection, etc., etc.

I have said this before and I don't think many believed me but I don't think BC's data networking skills are all that great.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Defense doesn't have to present other suspects, only has to demonstrate that the neighborhood gang had it in for Brad, was willing to modify and compare notes before talking with police, was eager to point police in certain directions and now ... we have one piece of evidence (41 seconds of evidence with no prior research on this map) pointing straight at the computer nerd who should have been smart enough to make sure that didn't happen.

I'm not sure they can demonstrate to a level that will make it believable. It doesn't matter how many of us look at this witness or any other and say, "Yeah, that COULD have happened". It really only matters what the jury of 12 are willing to accept as reasonable. MOO

 

[lib's mom]

I just have to say, I don't think HP lied about the earrings or the pictures. She is not a jewelry manufacturer nor a jeweler. Nancy had a pair of earrings similar to hers and she assumed the backs would be the same. This makes her guilty of assuming things.

As far as the "pictures of Nancy wearing the necklace" thing goes, I interpreted that to mean "Don't send pictures of Nancy taken from the back" or "Don't send pictures of Nancy where she is wearing a winter jacket zipped up to her neck."

Mr. Kurtz had Nancy's earrings, showed them to her while she was on the stand and she admitted she was mistaken. Maybe I'm wrong.