State v Bradley Cooper - 3/24/11

[KellyCrash]

Same thing happened to me either yesterday or day before -- it got darker, froze, and this buzzzzz came on and no matter what I did (and I tried this, that & the other, I had to give up), it would hang up at the same spot at about the same time yours did. Haven't tried it tonight.

YES!!!! Happened to me as well. I emailed the webmaster.

 

[Maja]

Hmmm...perhaps they had some of the milk she liked and used it up at 4:00am. Went out to get some for breakfast. No food in the house? Perhaps Saturday was grocery shopping day? Perhaps they eat out a lot and don't keep a stocked pantry?

:fence:

Recall BC could not recall what the girls had for breakfast.

 

[johnfear]

First of all a Cisco IP Phone is an end device which needs to establish a connection to a call manager in order to place a call. Where exactly do you think this call manager would reside on the TWC network to allow the call directly from the landline?

It didn't. It resided on the Cisco PBX, BUT, the adapter allowed both phones to be plugged in. I am not sure which application allowed the swap, but you have to go back in time two whole years (almost three) and think about the fact that he worked for a company that deliberately broke networks to fix them and deliberately bypassed security in order to stop others from doing it.

If I'm right, we should see it within the next three days or so of testimony. If I'm wrong, I got caught up in the hoopla.

Either way, fun times.

 

[CyberPro]

Ok again, simply, no it does not work that way. You cannot simply plug a Cisco IP Phone into a TWC network and make it do anything. Cisco VoIP engineer hoodoo-voodoo super secret access, also simply not true.

We are not talking about some rube who just has the end device. This dude is working with this stuff all the time, and has access to a lot of equipment.

As far as super-secret access goes, I worked on a computer in Australia for 7 hours performing remote control operations from a WiFi in a hotel room in Kentucky. For all intents I was standing in front of the computer to drive the mouse and keyboard, remote access is a fact.

 

[SleuthinNC]

<snipped>
The reason I went down this "rabbit hole" is because I sat in court today and realized one of the "un talked about devices" was a CISCO SPA3102 Adapter/Router Combo.

Check it out, then argue with me after.

Ok so definitely did not see a Cisco (Linksys) SPA3102 and it wasn't entered into evidence, did see an 871W but anyway.

The SPA3102 is an FXO/FXS device that also has ethernet ports. This would be exactly the type of device used to connect asterisk to the the landline. Yes it can act as a VoIP to PSTN gateway but again Cisco IP Phone cannot work in a vacuum it must establish connection with a call manager server ie. Cisco's IP Phone server.

 

[gracielee]

:blushing:

Same place you got the WOO, just click [more] and scroll down....:blowkiss:

It doesn't work for me. :blushing: Ah, I have to open a little window, it won't scroll down for me. :boohoo:

 

[SleuthinNC]

We are not talking about some rube who just has the end device. This dude is working with this stuff all the time, and has access to a lot of equipment.

As far as super-secret access goes, I worked on a computer in Australia for 7 hours performing remote control operations from a WiFi in a hotel room in Kentucky. For all intents I was standing in front of the computer to drive the mouse and keyboard, remote access is a fact.

Of course remote access is possible. What I am saying is the BC did not have any special access to control the IP Phones on the Cisco server. We are talking about a production corporate phone system. He could have been on a test network where he had more access but there still would have been trails leading on and off both the IP network and the TWC network.

 

[cygnusx1]

So, in order for him to NEED to check his VM at work, he would have seen an INCOMING call from work at some point? Otherwise, why call it?

How do we know there wasn't? We only know about 3 entries in his call AFAIK.


:fence:

 

[sunshine05]

Once he left to dump her, I don't think he returned to the home until after the first trip to HT.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not explaining this well. He would have had to have been up in the middle of the night sometime, pulling the car into the garage to put the body in the car. Nobody heard/saw that. Then he had to take another risk of driving to the place where she was found. Nobody saw that either.

If my next door neighbor opened his garage in the middle of the night to put his car in there, my dog would bark and I would wake up and check it out and see that. I'm just saying, it's a little strange that no witnesses saw his car near the crime scene or saw him pulling it into the garage at 5 AM to put the body in the car. Just something I was thinking about.

 

[CyberPro]

Of course remote access is possible. What I am saying is the BC did not have any special access to control the IP Phones on the Cisco server. We are talking about a production corporate phone system. He could have been on a test network where he had more access but there still would have been trails leading on and off both the IP network and the TWC network.

We have not seen this yet, but for some reason every time the word computer is mentioned the defense gets really nervous. I have a suspicion that we are going to see something there shortly.

I do have some concerns because it is possible that the tracks were covered pretty well and/or the logs were not obtained in time. I don't know how long TWC keeps that stuff. It is telling to me that Kurtz has already tried to impeach the FBI and accused them of improperly handling the computer (e-machine) when they have not testified to anything at all about it yet.

 

[johnfear]

I agree that there would be trails on and off. That's what is making me think they spent all of this time dealing with. Barring the internet analysis, it's the only scenario that makes me go: BAM! Guilty dude. However, if this is not the scenario and what we have for evidence now stands and doesn't get more direct, I will go back to my fence post and sit there while the Kurtz-show continues.

 

[Cheyenne130]

(I promise I won't take this O/T by talking about Duke....OUCH!)

We know they had the Cisco VoIP in their home. That's been in testimony. Nancy hated it so Brad put in the VTech but that doesn't mean the VoIP wasn't still in place. Right? Does the Cisco system work in conjunction with TWC?

 

[gracielee]

But the pulling into the garage part - that would have been pretty risky, just one person noticing that would have changed a lot in this case. He would have had no way to explain that away.

Well, when you're needing to get rid of a body, one must take certain chances. :snowball::snowball:

 

[SleuthinNC]

I agree that there would be trails on and off. That's what is making me think they spent all of this time dealing with. Barring the internet analysis, it's the only scenario that makes me go: BAM! Guilty dude. However, if this is not the scenario and what we have for evidence now stands and doesn't get more direct, I will go back to my fence post and sit there while the Kurtz-show continues.

Ok so essentially I agree with you about what happened, just not your explanation of how it happened.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not explaining this well. He would have had to have been up in the middle of the night sometime, pulling the car into the garage to put the body in the car. Nobody heard/saw that. Then he had to take another risk of driving to the place where she was found. Nobody saw that either.

If my next door neighbor opened his garage in the middle of the night to put his car in there, my dog would bark and I would wake up and check it out and see that. I'm just saying, it's a little strange that no witnesses saw his car near the crime scene or saw him pulling it into the garage at 5 AM to put the body in the car. Just something I was thinking about.

You are talking about an isolated possibility. I can come and go at all hours and my neighbors would never know. My dog barks in the middle of the night and I ignore him and go back to sleep. Very, very few people would bother checking anything out in the wee hours of the morning. MOO

 

[Fairy1]

I want to thank y'all for keeping up with the trial here. I can't listen at work, but I do check in here throughout the day and I truly appreciate the updates!

 

[SleuthinNC]

(I promise I won't take this O/T by talking about Duke....OUCH!)

We know they had the Cisco VoIP in their home. That's been in testimony. Nancy hated it so Brad put in the VTech but that doesn't mean the VoIP wasn't still in place. Right? Does the Cisco system work in conjunction with TWC?

It is hard to say what was in place before the vtech phones that NC apparently hated. VoIP is being used really loosely to cover a bunch of different things so it is really easy to get confused.

We know he had a Cisco IP Phone which was as far as we know his work phone. The regular home phone line was apparently digital voice with TWC. Beyond that I don't think we have any other information about any other phone systems that may have been in place previously or at the time of her murder.

 

[Cheyenne130]

It is hard to say what was in place before the vtech phones that NC apparently hated. VoIP is being used really loosely to cover a bunch of different things so it is really easy to get confused.

We know he had a Cisco IP Phone which was as far as we know his work phone. The regular home phone line was apparently digital voice with TWC. Beyond that I don't think we have any other information about any other phone systems that may have been in place previously or at the time of her murder.

I was talking about the testimony that they had the Cisco phone and Nancy hated it because she kept getting calls that were meant for Brad's work, there was clicking and she thought he was listening in. He replaced the Cisco phones with VTech but that doesn't change the underlying system. That's what I meant.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I was talking about the testimony that they had the Cisco phone and Nancy hated it because she kept getting calls that were meant for Brad's work, there was clicking and she thought he was listening in. He replaced the Cisco phones with VTech but that doesn't change the underlying system. That's what I meant.

Ok so yes the VTech systems are a different system they are working on TWC digital voice. Previously they were apparently just using his Cisco IP Phone which is both odd and probably could have gotten him fired but definitely cheaper.

Hmm on second thought that was probably an extension on the Cisco test network. Which is less odd, wouldn't get him fired and still cheaper.

 

[gracielee]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not explaining this well. He would have had to have been up in the middle of the night sometime, pulling the car into the garage to put the body in the car. Nobody heard/saw that. Then he had to take another risk of driving to the place where she was found. Nobody saw that either.

If my next door neighbor opened his garage in the middle of the night to put his car in there, my dog would bark and I would wake up and check it out and see that. I'm just saying, it's a little strange that no witnesses saw his car near the crime scene or saw him pulling it into the garage at 5 AM to put the body in the car. Just something I was thinking about.

If my neighbors house burned down to the ground, I probaby wouldn't notice until about 10:00 the next morning. Once I'm *out*, I'm out. Our dogs bark on occasion, but usually hubby or me tells 'em to 'shut up'. One night when they were being especially persistent, I said to hubby, 'you know, we have them to warn us, one of us should really get up and check.......' :floorlaugh: