State v Bradley Cooper - 3/24/11

[ncsu95]

Hmm this is true 476-2001 could very well have been work voicemail or accessing his work IP Phone. He could then use the IP Phone to dial his home phone which he previously forwarded to his cell.

The question then would be, does the forwarded call show the Cisco number or the home phone number when it forwards the call.

This would explain call #1 "missed call" to set up forwarding however this should show up on call records.

At any rate it looks very fishy to me

It either looks completely innocent or completely guilty. Again, if he just killed his wife, there would be no need to call in to check work voicemail. If he didn't kill his wife, it might be a very normal thing to do while driving to the store. I've said all along that this call to his cell at 6:40 will be the determining factor for me. I certainly hope there is proof and not a concept of how he might have done it. Again, since it went out using TWC, and his other call went to Cisco...there should be records galore for this.

 

[Just the Fax]

He hasn't testified in this trial.

Det. Young testified Brad said the dress had been washed.

 

[ncsu95]

depends on the switch which number would show. I guess I could test it actually but I think my husband would be really irritated with me.

And yes the 476-2001 is the Cisco PBX number which if you are an employee and access that number you have full control over your IP Phone. Once you get into the menus you can do pretty much anything with it.

Can you also access the voicemail system? Would this be a normal way to check voicemail remotely, or is there a direct dialed number?

 

[SleuthinNC]

But the TWC records would show an incoming call to the home phone line. I'm trying my best to figure out a way to do this calling into Cisco's automated system. It allows you to enter an extension to dial (ie, an internal number, not an external one). But I can't think of a way for this to generate a call using TWC that doesn't show an incoming call to TWC.

I agree there should have been an incoming call record if he called from the IP phone.

 

[ncsu95]

Nope, Not likely.

I have not heard the testimony, but from what I have read here the detective saw that dress in a laundry basket, but as it was not the described color, and it was arrainged in the basket to look like a shirt, he did not pick it up. NC was already missing at that time, and the lab testimony was that the dress did not appear to have been washed.

Okay, then it was never washed and is a non-issue.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Can you also access the voicemail system? Would this be a normal way to check voicemail remotely, or is there a direct dialed number?

Yes this is also how you would call in to check your voicemail.

 

[ncsu95]

I have a work IP phone in my remote office in another city.
Yes, it rings my cell after 3 rings go unanswered.
You can program all kinds of different forwarding scenarios.

I am looking forward to the VOIP expert.
I'm thinking that and the computer forensics will be the nails in Brad's coffin.

It's what will get me off :fence: one way or the other. I'm really looking forward to it, as long as it isn't Cummings asking the question.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Ok re-listened to the flash drive testimony it was verizon 64MB and IBM 32 MB.

I would think the Verizon drive was actually an EVDO modem rather than a regular flash drive.

 

[ncsu95]

Yes, and I think it was a thing of beauty the way question was asked about his inability to find his call log on a his cell phone and then the picture shown of NINE PHONES in BC's office along with his PHONE AWARD!

I would have been ejected from the courtroom at that point for braying with laughter like a big donkey at that point! HAHAHAHA!

Why? Those voip phones are nothing like smartphone cell phones.

 

[Just the Fax]

It either looks completely innocent or completely guilty. Again, if he just killed his wife, there would be no need to call in to check work voicemail. If he didn't kill his wife, it might be a very normal thing to do while driving to the store. I've said all along that this call to his cell at 6:40 will be the determining factor for me. I certainly hope there is proof and not a concept of how he might have done it. Again, since it went out using TWC, and his other call went to Cisco...there should be records galore for this.

Jason Young "could have" driven back from Hillsville Va to kill Michelle.
Is there absolute proof he made the trip? No
Will the jury accept the state's explanation he did? Very likely.

Even if the state can't absolutely prove Brad rigged the call, but they show it was very possible, if not probable...the jury can then dismiss his alibi based on what they feel most likely happened. Sure, they need more to convict, but Brad's alibi is no longer solid.

 

[ncsu95]

No, he is VERY technical. Cisco Certified Internetworking Expert (CCIE) for VOIP. They don't hand those out as Crackerjack prizes. This is a PhD. level networking certification. I know some sharp cookies that have taken the regular CCIE test 3 times and still have not passed it.

That is VERY interesting that the call was shown to the Cisco system. Yep, I think I hear the fat lady warming up in the wings. I have thought for a while that he set up some kind of call forwarding so that the call appeared to come from home. So, he calls the work phone from the cell, the work phone has been set to forward all calls to his home line, the home phone is set to forward to the cell? Tinker to Evans to Chance?

That scenario should be easy to prove with call records at Cisco and/or TWC.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Ok here is a question I am sure nobody has an answer to but would be really nice to know. Did he take his laptop (specifically the MacBook) with him at any point the morning of the phone calls. Do we have the data records from the Verizon data network indicating any mobile data activity during those times.

I need to see records darn it! :crazy:

 

[gracielee]

We have plenty of pantry food as well. But what do you do with a crying 2 year old at 4 in the morning that only wants milk? I have a very level headed 2 year old (sweet little girl), but she has recently started occassional tantrums when she is overly tired. And if she wants milk, she will cry "milk, milk, milk, milk" until we give her mild or are able to direct her attention elsewhere (which is hard). If this happened at 4 in the morning, I would probably go get her milk.

That doesn't address my thoughts on 'why no food in the house' though? The detective asked Brad 'why there was no food in the house?' And I'm wondering that too. Why no supplies in the house? And why did he have to go out for milk when therre were already two kinds of milk in the fridge? If the child awoke at 4:00 a.m. wanting milk, what did he do between 4:00 and 6:30 when he finally did go to the store? That's 2 1/2 hours of what, crying? I can more likely understand you going to the store at 4:00 then waiting till 6:30. Most kids would have cried themselves back to sleep in 2 and half hours. JMO

 

[ncsu95]

Can someone lay out the phone call timeline with the just-learned-about phone call on it?

I am thinking he went to the store for the first item, came back, called his cell to locate, went back, called his Cisco number, got a call from home. Is that correct?

Yes. Original call to cell around 6:34 (supposedly to locate). Then call from cell to Cisco automated system at 6:37. The call from home phone to cell at 6:40.

 

[ncsu95]

Hi Everyone;
It's been awhile since I posted on here. Thanks to all of you who kept the media links current for the past 2+ years.
Did I hear correctly this morning during Det. Y's testimony - that as soon as Brad returned home the first time from HT, Nancy told him they were out of detergent. Am I remembering correctly that being out of detergent was the reason Nancy made the call to his cell phone?
As to the color of the dress - Maybe DD didn't know they were looking for the dress Nancy had on at the party. Maybe she thought they were just looking for Nancy's black dress.

I don't think anyone answered. The testimony from today is that BC said the call was for him to pick up green juice. He was told when he got home from picking up milk to go back for detergent.

 

[jmflu]

That scenario should be easy to prove with call records at Cisco and/or TWC.

It probably already has been. I wonder if we'll hear from a Cisco employee who could verify Brad knew how or was trained to do certain things?

 

[ncsu95]

Ask Kevin Mittnick. He was the hacker that they caught in Raleigh about 10 years ago, from California. He hacked an Alltel cellular switch and a GTE landline switch so they thought the calls he was placing were being handled by the other service, so there were confusing records and no cellular billing for the calls.

I remove my hat at your Husband's skill! Seriously. I do some networking, but most of my stuff is handled by the customer these days so I am not pursuing the Cisco Certification path, but I have a lot of respect for that certification, and a DOUBLE... cool.

When I was a senior at State (95 obviously), my senior project in electrical engineering was dealing with cellular towers. The guys we worked with on the project helped law enforcement catch him. I don't remember the details, but it was pretty cool using triangulation.

 

[gracielee]

Again, 2 year olds are quite picky...especially about the milk they drink. I can attest to that.

I've had three kids, and six grandchildren. Thankfully, none of them needing anything we didn't have in the house at 4:00 a.m. We live nextdoor to our youngest daughter who had three little boys within 20 months. Meaning she had our grandson, and he was only 20 months old when she gave birth to twin boys. Middle of the night trips to the ER on a couple occasions, for high fevers or breathing problems, but no emergency grocery trips.

 

[ncsu95]

The switch within the network is the device that determines which number goes out across the caller id. Depending on the switch configuration it can show the original number (Cisco IP Phone) or the number from which the call is being forwarded (Home). The kicker would be, that same switch should have a notation in the call processing details that indicate the call was a forwarded call rather than originating from "Home". Would not necessarily show in the simple call log but rather in the switch processing details.

I hope that makes sense.

Edited: Ok so I didn't answer the actual question at all. To answer the call log question, when the IP Phone rings the home phone the home phone then sends the call forward to the cell phone. The call should show up on the call log because it would in essence be a billable call. otherwise people could set their call to forward to a number overseas for example and if that forwarded call did not leave a call record it could not be billed and would then be free. We all know Ma Bell does NOT do free!

Since I control a voip system, I could actually set my work phone up to send my home phones callerid information. So I can call from my work phone and it looks like a call from my home phone. But again, it wouldn't show up in my Vonage record (which records every call) as having made a call from my home phone. But it would show on my cell that I received a call from home. Man I hope there are accurate records of what happened.

 

[Just the Fax]

Why? Those voip phones are nothing like smartphone cell phones.

That statement is literally true, but ridiculous.
Go back and look at the depositions and Brad will say he was beginning to test VOIP with a cell phone component. Rest assured,, he knew how to work that Samsung Blackjack in his sleep.