State v Bradley Cooper - 3/25/11

[ncsu95]

I am, of course, predicting we will see evidence of such a search on Brad's computer, in which he searched for a place to dump his wife's body...a search he conducted within a short time (mere hrs) of her death. I base my comments on that prediction.

Fair enough.

 

[sunshine05]

I am, of course, predicting we will see evidence of such a search on Brad's computer, in which he searched for a place to dump his wife's body...a search he conducted within a short time (mere hrs) of her death. I base my comments on that prediction.

If he did that and that is their BIG evidence, why did they wait until the end of October to arrest him for murder? I have to believe it has more to do with something that came out during the deposition due to the timing.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I know this hasnt been talked about on this thread..but since I missed the first few days of this trial..I missed alot of testimony..Did they play the 911 Call..I ask because I have spent the last hour searching for it..and unable to locate it...I know that Ms Adams made the call..so have to assume it was played after she verified it etc..BUT I just cant find it:maddening::waitasec:

I believe it was made on July 12th..however have no idea on just what stage of search was going on by anyone at that point..TYIA

Sorry to veer so off present topic ( Computer stuff)..just thought I would ask as has been bothering me...:seeya:

 

[ncsu95]

However most call detail records are able to distinguish a voice call from a fax call.

Voip as well? It would show as a T.38 call?

 

[sunshine05]

My prediction is they will use the "network was not secure" to explain how CPD was able to get into his files and history and change them. I looked up the expert the defense is planning to call on this and if it's the right guy, his credentials are pretty impressive. Defense says this expert will provide proof that this occurred. I am very anxious to hear this.

 

[ncsu95]

I know this hasnt been talked about on this thread..but since I missed the first few days of this trial..I missed alot of testimony..Did they play the 911 Call..I ask because I have spent the last hour searching for it..and unable to locate it...I know that Ms Adams made the call..so have to assume it was played after she verified it etc..BUT I just cant find it:maddening::waitasec:

I believe it was made on July 12th..however have no idea on just what stage of search was going on by anyone at that point..TYIA

Sorry to veer so off present topic ( Computer stuff)..just thought I would ask as has been bothering me...:seeya:

There was no 911 call. JA called the non emergency number, and it was played during her testimony.

 

[sunshine05]

I know this hasnt been talked about on this thread..but since I missed the first few days of this trial..I missed alot of testimony..Did they play the 911 Call..I ask because I have spent the last hour searching for it..and unable to locate it...I know that Ms Adams made the call..so have to assume it was played after she verified it etc..BUT I just cant find it:maddening::waitasec:

I believe it was made on July 12th..however have no idea on just what stage of search was going on by anyone at that point..TYIA

Sorry to veer so off present topic ( Computer stuff)..just thought I would ask as has been bothering me...:seeya:

Yes, they played it during court when the prosecution was questioning her on the stand. I can't remember which part though so you will have to listen to the whole thing to find it.

 

[Albert]

Voip as well? It would show as a T.38 call?

Yes, VoIP calls would indicate either voice or fax.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Voip as well? It would show as a T.38 call?

VoIP or virtual fax wouldn't go out across the PSTN as a call it would go out over the internet connection.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Yes, VoIP calls would indicate either voice or fax.

VoIP or virtual fax wouldn't go out across the PSTN as a call it would go out over the internet connection.

My prediction is they will use the "network was not secure" to explain how CPD was able to get into his files and history and change them. I looked up the expert the defense is planning to call on this and if it's the right guy, his credentials are pretty impressive. Defense says this expert will provide proof that this occurred. I am very anxious to hear this.

Voip as well? It would show as a T.38 call?

Ya know what!! I have quoted just s snippet of the info I have been exposed today regarding internet abilities..and have to say at this point I am in OVERLOAD...may have to delete to move forward:floorlaugh:..But seriously..This stuff has moved so far so fast..I am truly in awe of those that grasp it in its entirety..and feel very thankful there are so many who can put into peoples terms so those of us who are lacking can grasp it ( at least the gist of it)..

I so look forward to Forensics on that computer...and having afew other cases that focused on computer evidence..I truly think I will grasp it:great:
Thanks again to all the wonderful GEEKS here on WS thread!!! You are the greatest and so patient with lesser knowledgeable peep:seeya:

 

[SleuthSayer]

But, that said, I hope no one is so gullible that they would actually believe that someone hacked into the Cooper wireless network, somehow took 'control' of Brad's password-protected laptop, and did Google searches on where Nancy's body was dumped either right before or right after Nancy was murdered (sometime in the middle of the night/early morning of 7/11-7/12).

This part is way more challenging than the phone stuff. I read somewhere that the defense is going to bring someone up to state that WEP security is equivalent to no security at all. This is arguably true for skilled hackers, but not for just a nosey neighbor. You need a special wireless adapter to even try to do this and then you need a lot of patience and willingness to fool with with the software required.

If you get that far, once you are on the network, it's easy to freeload on their broadband and, since you have the special adapter already, to snoop on traffic from other computers on the wireless network. But, actually controlling another computer on the network is pretty unlikely, unless it were intentionally set up for remote access.

 

[SleuthinNC]

This part is way more challenging than the phone stuff. I read somewhere that the defense is going to bring someone up to state that WEP security is equivalent to no security at all. This is arguably true for skilled hackers, but not for just a nosey neighbor. You need a special wireless adapter to even try to do this and then you need a lot of patience and willingness to fool with with the software required.

If you get that far, once you are on the network, it's easy to freeload on their broadband and, since you have the special adapter already, to snoop on traffic from other computers on the wireless network. But, actually controlling another computer on the network is pretty unlikely, unless it were intentionally set up for remote access.

Agreed about the complexity. I would be more inclined to believe that BC was able to continue to access his machines remotely and messed with the data himself.

 

[borndem]

There is a LOT more to cleaning a computer than deleting the history. As an example.

1. When you delete a file, it is not deleted. The operating system only overwrites the first letter of the file name and marks the space it occupied as being available. It takes a special program to completely erase the file.

2. If you don't use the special program, the file that you deleted is easily recoverable.

3. If you do use the special tool, but use it incorrectly, the file can still be recovered, at least in part.

4. If you use the special tool, but don't understand that you need to wipe the slack space on the drive, there can still be traces of the file.

5. If you don't know to clear the registry, some traces of the file remain to be found. The registry is very complex, and parts and traces of the files are often in several locations, it is cryptic and hard to understand. Improperly editing the registry can corrupt the system.

Yessirree - it is a real PITA, and it takes more than a couple of minutes and the special s/w, as you say. I'd bet that he didn't go to all that trouble... Thx for layin' it out for us!

 

[LyndyLoo]

A a nosey observer..since Brad left that party at 8PM July 11th and put the kids to bed..and Nancy got home about 1245AM July 12th ( taken from depo thread)..I would really love to know just what Internet /phone usage Brad did in that time span..then in the following 12 hours??..Those are what I will focus on..

My theory is Brad did the deed during the night..and following that he dumped her body, then dealt with the kids in AM...then went into cleaning mode to cover his tracks...Simplified maybe..but Brad being a techie guy..I am sure he did something leading up to and after that could inculpate him..


A thought?? Did the kids ever get questioned?? on a simple basis..when got up, breakfast, when they saw mommy, etc...

 

[borndem]

I don't think we can really form a good opinion of how clean he was without personally knowing him/living near him, visiting the house regularly. Remember they were planning to get the house ready to sell, there were boxes everywhere, they had two little kids. I can't say that it's out of character for someone to have a clean car but a messy house. Didn't he say he removed the seats to clean Nancy's car out and get all the crumbs before her trip?

Please don't take this personally, please, because this is about BC -- talk is cheap.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Yessirree - it is a real PITA, and it takes more than a couple of minutes and the special s/w, as you say. I'd bet that he didn't go to all that trouble... Thx for layin' it out for us!

Yes but that assumes windows. It is much easier to do in linux.

 

[gracielee]

Still listening to the depositions, nearly spit my ice water when Brad says 'Dr. Gould said his test results were that he was a truthful person with a low tendancy towards violence.' Can we get anymore self-serving than that?

 

[SleuthSayer]

I fear I cannot make that trip with you. He has a CCIE in VOIP. Hardly a high school kid with a cellphone type qualification. The CCNA is not too bad, but CCNP is somewhat challenging and CCIE downright difficult, even for someone with a fair amount of smarts.

Sigh. I never said that he was an idiot or that he had the knowledge of a high school kid. What I said, is that setting up something to spoof a call doesn't require much more knowledge than a kid with interest in this kind of stuff would have.

As far as the CCIE goes, yes, it's a challenge and mostly it's time consuming. But, it also provides you with little expertise applicable to making a scheduled call from a TWC digital phone. A little time googling would be more helpful than a CCIE for that.

What I did disagree with, however, is this larger than life image that has been built of his technical expertise. Someone on this thread claimed that he had PhD-type expertise. That's the kind of thing that is vastly exaggerated. His actual title was "IT Engineer", which is essentially a support guy. Should he take the stand or should someone with knowledge of his job take the stand, there is a good chance that you will hear that his job involved internal testing and support of VoIP hardware/software. He claimed in his affidavit that he was a "Systems Engineer", but like some of the other instances that folks have pointed out, he seems to have trouble remembering things at times.

(As an aside, I will also mention that you would be surprised how meaningless "PhD level" expertise is in the technology industry, unless you are in company heavily focused on research.)

 

[CyberPro]

This part is way more challenging than the phone stuff. I read somewhere that the defense is going to bring someone up to state that WEP security is equivalent to no security at all. This is arguably true for skilled hackers, but not for just a nosey neighbor. You need a special wireless adapter to even try to do this and then you need a lot of patience and willingness to fool with with the software required.

If you get that far, once you are on the network, it's easy to freeload on their broadband and, since you have the special adapter already, to snoop on traffic from other computers on the wireless network. But, actually controlling another computer on the network is pretty unlikely, unless it were intentionally set up for remote access.

Partially true:

WEP Security is very easily cracked with the correct tool. It is a cookbook operation these days. No trouble, but I am not sure they were using WEP. It can be cracked in 20 minutes.

No special adapter is needed. The WiFi adapter just needs to be able to function in promiscuious mode. I have run a sniffer program on my laptop with off-the-shelf WiFi capabilities.

The tools to crack the WEP key is commonly available and free. It is a script kiddie thing now, but if you are running anything other than WEP or OPEN, it is pretty secure.

There is a sniffer program that is pretty good and free called Wireshark. I have a version that runs on my U3 USB Flash Drive, and will sniff the WiFi, it does not even have to be installed, it will disappear when I eject the U3 Drive.

 

[borndem]

SG, this is not like you. I am amazed that you are not using the full capacity of your brain....

1. The roving band of Hawaiin Mormons were crusing the area in the white van with a wireless laptop wardriving (looking for unsecured wireless signals) and found that BC's network was open and unsecured.

2. NC came out for her run, and they kidnapped her, killed her and dumped her on Fielding Dr.

3. They came back to the house, used the WiFi connection and hacked into his computers, then planted google search results on his system to make it look like BC did it.

4. BC, being the loyal and dutiful husband that he is, made several trips to HT that AM, and decided to launch into a cleaning spree, completely unaware that NC was not coming back to admire his handiwork.

5. When JA called, BC told her that she was running with CC, and then decided that it would be a great idea to go looking for her.

6. When LE called him, he did not answer the call, nor return the VM until ~30 minutes later.

7. Forgot to add, while BC was making his morning HT runs, he apparently decided to call work VM, and from what I could follow of the cell phone information yesterday take NC's phone on a little trip as well.

8. Somewhere in all this furious activity, and taking care of the kids, washing every piece of laundry in the house, mopping all the floors, taking care of the kids, running Google searches, doing laundry, looking for NC he called and canceled his tennis game.

So, it is clear that he is innocent, even though Kurtz & Co. get REALLY NERVOUS when someone mentions "computer" because they understand that it was really the roving band of Hawaiian Mormons that did this, although they have not been seen since this happened.

Now, I want you to TRY to use logic from now on, and don't make me have to straighten you out again! OK? :innocent:

:floorlaugh::great::floorlaugh:
:floorlaugh: Yesh, thanks -- except that you just made me spew my :floorlaugh:Caffeine-free Pepsi all over my CLEAN keyboard!!!!!!!! :floorlaugh:

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh: