State v Bradley Cooper - 3/24/11

[ncsu95]

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

But did he say who washed it?

 

[ncsu95]

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

Cisco should have a record of what extension was entered, right? If he called anything other than a voicemail system, I'll jump off the fence right now and lead the lynch mob party.

 

[SleuthinNC]

If he had his laptop with evdo card it would have been much easier to pull off the asterisk scenario. He could simply remotely access his asterisk server and initiate a call over the landline. I wonder if they will have the records of the cisco voicemail that he checked. Just wondering if he tested things by asterisk calling his voicemail and leaving a message then initiating the asterisk call to the cell from home.

At any rate, things are a thousand times simpler when you have IP access to everything everywhere.

 

[jmflu]

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.

So in this case, all it would take is a home phone record with no call from the home phone.

Folks, I think we are getting somewhere...

(Thanks, ncsu, for the timeline!)

 

[ncsu95]

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.

The state has video footage of him leaving the hotel and none of him returning (along with the keycard issue). That's not as difficult a leap as saying someone had the potential to spoof a call without showing proof that he did. Especially since it essentially answers the question of guilt or innocence.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Cisco should have a record of what extension was entered, right? If he called anything other than a voicemail system, I'll jump off the fence right now and lead the lynch mob party.

He would have gone into his own extension to check voicemail or do anything else so that wouldn't tell us to much unfortunately.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

Based on what you just said, I think it is impossible that he rigged this phone call in an unidentifiable way. Kurtz said in his opening that they would try to show different scenarios but that none of them can be proven. But we'll see what they've got soon.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

How is that ridiculous? I have a Cisco 7940 phone sitting right beside me (along with a ton of other voip phones). But I know nothing about smart phones. And what the heck does his testing voip with a cell phone have to do with it? He didn't say that he didn't know how to make and/or answer calls with it. And I doubt he used his personal cell phone in lab testing.

 

[Just the Fax]

10/2010 theory about VOIP.
Internet action vs a simple call to Cisco to set up call forwarding.
Sounds like they have experts that can sort this out...hopefully clearly so the jury understands.

 

[calgary123]

If Brad stated to the police that he did not know how to get his call history on his cell phone, well I am positive that is a lie. When Brad gets a new gadget he learns its features thoroughly. He is highly technical and well ahead of the technology curve compared to most. And not just with VOIP.

To give an example, when MP3's first came out, as in before they were general knowledge, Brad was one of the first adopters and blew us away showing us we could play music on our computers... and get music for free from the internet. Remember the first digital Elph cameras (I think from Sony?), well he knew it inside out, when digital photography was new to all of us. He was using digital photos before they were mainstream. And cell phones, well don't get me started. He always had the newest thing and could use all its features, unlike most people.

I'm in the "he did it" camp (and I'm personally certain he did but am underwhelmed so far with the evidence presented). When I hear things like him claiming not to know how to access his cell phone's call history I know he's covering up. Knowing him and reviewing all the small things known to date, to me it is clear he did do it, but I know that is not legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What perplexes me is he is smart enough to know that digital trails are left with what you do. So in the case of the cell phone call history I think he was buying time knowing that the police would get his call history from the cell phone provider if not from him. He certainly knew the police would get the information eventually. He may have been buying time to determine how best to review, and then be able to better explain, the evidence that he knew they would find. But of that I'm not so sure.

Did he know enough to spoof calls? We're going to find out. I'm quite sure he did, but someone who knows how to do that also would know which information is recorded on the servers you are passing through. His knowledge might have been good enough to do it, but somewhat incomplete in that he did not know, or forgot in the moment, that some digital trails remained.

 

[borndem]

476-2100 or 2001? The first goes to a person working at Cisco. The second goes to an automated Cisco line allowing you to enter an extension or hold for an operator.

Right as rain -- I just dialed the 2001 -- we had a system like that, and you could check msgs, leave a msg for several different nos. at one time, send a message to a number with a time to place the call -- very useful if you're sick (or sick baby) at 2 or 3 in the morning & know you won't be coming to work, but really don't wanna call the boss at 3am at his house, etc., etc.

You may be onto something there... hmmmmmmmmm

 

[Just the Fax]

How is that ridiculous? I have a Cisco 7940 phone sitting right beside me (along with a ton of other voip phones). But I know nothing about smart phones. And what the heck does his testing voip with a cell phone have to do with it? He didn't say that he didn't know how to make and/or answer calls with it. And I doubt he used his personal cell phone in lab testing.

Cause Brad is smarter than you :floorlaugh:

 

[ncsu95]

So in this case, all it would take is a home phone record with no call from the home phone.

Folks, I think we are getting somewhere...

(Thanks, ncsu, for the timeline!)

Yes, because there wouldn't be an incoming call to my home phone. And Vonage (my provider) has a record of every call I make/receive from home. I'm assuming TWC does as well.

 

[jmflu]

10/2010 theory about VOIP.
Internet action vs a simple call to Cisco to set up call forwarding.
Sounds like they have experts that can sort this out...hopefully clearly so the jury understands.

Ok, so there WAS a call record from the home phone. Had to be another way, then..,

 

[SleuthinNC]

10/2010 theory about VOIP.
Internet action vs a simple call to Cisco to set up call forwarding.
Sounds like they have experts that can sort this out...hopefully clearly so the jury understands.

Well that clip sounds interesting but it is really MUCH more involved than that. The key is being able to generate a call that actually came from the home phone to generate the necessary call records as opposed to simply generating a call that places a specific phone number into the call log on the actual cell phone. Two VERY different things.

Simply having internet capability on the cell phone doesn't mean he had the server and network in place to make it happen. (I think maybe he did) but just not that simple.

 

[jmflu]

If Brad stated to the police that he did not know how to get his call history on his cell phone, well I am positive that is a lie. When Brad gets a new gadget he learns its features thoroughly. He is highly technical and well ahead of the technology curve compared to most. And not just with VOIP.

To give an example, when MP3's first came out, as in before they were general knowledge, Brad was one of the first adopters and blew us away showing us we could play music on our computers... and get music for free from the internet. Remember the first digital Elph cameras (I think from Sony?), well he knew it inside out, when digital photography was new to all of us. He was using digital photos before they were mainstream. And cell phones, well don't get me started. He always had the newest thing and could use all its features, unlike most people.

I'm in the "he did it" camp (and I'm personally certain he did but am underwhelmed so far with the evidence presented). When I hear things like him claiming not to know how to access his cell phone's call history I know he's covering up. Knowing him and reviewing all the small things known to date, to me it is clear he did do it, but I know that is not legal proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What perplexes me is he is smart enough to know that digital trails are left with what you do. So in the case of the cell phone call history I think he was buying time knowing that the police would get his call history from the cell phone provider if not from him. He certainly knew the police would get the information eventually. He may have been buying time to determine how best to review, and then be able to better explain, the evidence that he knew they would find. But of that I'm not so sure.

Did he know enough to spoof calls? We're going to find out. I'm quite sure he did, but someone who knows how to do that also would know which information is recorded on the servers you are passing through. His knowledge might have been good enough to do it, but somewhat incomplete in that he did not know, or forgot in the moment, that some digital trails remained.

Hi Calgary... It's so cool to have someone on here who actually knows Brad!! IIRC.., you dated him at one time, long time ago before Nancy? Thanks for the info!

 

[ncsu95]

Okay, I'm making a prediction. There will be no records from TWC produced from either side. And we will be left to debate forever if he spoofed the call. And I'm going to be pissed about it. This is honestly what I've been waiting for in this whole trial (especially given my line of work).

 

[Just the Fax]

Well that clip sounds interesting but it is really MUCH more involved than that. The key is being able to generate a call that actually came from the home phone to generate the necessary call records as opposed to simply generating a call that places a specific phone number into the call log on the actual cell phone. Two VERY different things.

Simply having internet capability on the cell phone doesn't mean he had the server and network in place to make it happen. (I think maybe he did) but just not that simple.

This SW affidavit was 2 years after his arrest.
Don't you think they had every detail of this VOIP stuff figured out by then?
I do.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Okay, I'm making a prediction. There will be no records from TWC produced from either side. And we will be left to debate forever if he spoofed the call. And I'm going to be pissed about it. This is honestly what I've been waiting for in this whole trial (especially given my line of work).

You and me both. Prosecution please tell me you subpoenaed the TWC records AND Verizon EVDO records. We so need that information!

 

[calgary123]

Hi Calgary... It's so cool to have someone on here who actually knows Brad!! IIRC.., you dated him at one time, long time ago before Nancy? Thanks for the info!

Lol no, former roommate. You can search my name to find my prior comments when the story first broke in 2008.