State v. Bradley Cooper 4-12-2011

[gracielee]

I've been accused of being honest to a fault myself - but when I suspected my wife of an affair - the anxious part of my brain took over and I started to monitor her online activity (including her email). Human beings are emotional creatures by design and under extreme stress we do things that we otherwise would not. I'm not proud of that behavior and in hindsight I ask myself "what were you thinking, dude!" - but there was something about my brain that couldn't deal with "not knowing". Heck - my wife did the same with me when I got too cozy (virtually) with an ex-girlfriend I reconnected through Facebook. In stressful situations like that we're driven to do things we normally wouldn't - monitoring email, following our mates to their secret rendezvous points, and in some cases unfortunately...violence.

I've told this story many, many times with various divorced folk across the country, and a vast majority sympathize with this story with many adding - "been there, done that."

The way I've always felt is, you can't *make* somebody love you or want to be with you if they don't want to. I don't believe somebody can 'steal your man/woman'. It drives me nuts when a woman blames husbands secretary, or some such thing, for *stealing* her husband. He's not a child, he participated, ya know? We've been married 42 yrs. some rough ones in there long ago. But we've never been separated, worked through what we each needed to feel good. We're retired now, don't get on each others nerves, actually enjoy being able to spend every day together. We spend a lot of time working together on projects, gardening, woodworking, etc. We seldom fight, argue, we grew up together. I trust him, he trusts me. I'm not interested in reading his email, can barely find the time to read and answer my own. And he feels the same. There still aren't enough hours in the day to find the time to read and do eveyrthing we want to. I guess I can understand your feelings, I just don't have them myself. If my husband wanted somebody else, well, it would break my heart, but IMO spying wouldn't help. What would I do if I found something out? Would it change anything? would he love me again if I found out? If he didn't love me, went looking someplace else, well then, what would me finding out change about that? JMO, but it's the way I feel. I've never been one to follow him around, checking up, and neither has he. MOO

 

[FullDisclosure]

On 7/16 at 2:15 the SAM (Security Account Manager) was modified. This was after it was in CPD's possession. Kurtz asked about this:

Agent J: Seeing lots of files being touched all at the same time leads me to believe that it was a virus scan.
Kurtz: Would it be unlikely for a virus scan to show activity 30 seconds away from anythig else?
Agent J: It depends. Also both SAM modifications at the same time (there were two) leads me to believe that it was an automatic update.
Kurtz: Shouldn't there be just ONE SAM?
Agent J: Yes.
Kurtz: You checked all the files modified after 5:20 on 7/15. How did you determine this was part of an automated process?
Agent J: ...
Kurtz: So it does appear unlikely that this was due to an automated process?
Agent J: I would have to go back and look...
Kurtz: On 7/15 the SAM detected a temporary file.
Agent J: I didn't recognize or check that.

 

[ncsu95]

an illusion of work.

Then why not tell the police or mention it in the deposition?

 

[Danielle59]

On the other hand...

During the 4am to 6:30am hour when BC and NC were juggling their child it seems that BC would have done these work related calls at that time. I mean, you are already up, you have free time, why not make the work related calls at that time? Instead we have a flurry of call activity between 6-7am and then nothing till later in the afternoon.

If the calls were work related, ie., he was working on a reported problem then I would expect that there would be an email trail. He would at least email the user indicating that he checked the systems and all seems to be working fine. Or, if he found things not working as expected we would have seen more computer activity showing him actually connecting to devices in the newtork, via ssh, telnet, remote desktop or https. But we don't see any of this activity. So this greatly discounts this cell activity as work related in my opinion.

BTW, if you don't like to be bother with personal calls at work unless it is an emergency or to solidify plans I wonder how you know the callers intent unless you answer the call?

We have no indication there were no emails regarding the issue, if there was one. He also could have had to wait to a certain time, that he was aware of to check on something on the network he was working on, maybe change activity on the server was done at certain hours. I don't think anything discounts the cell activity as work related at this point. The Pros does not present evidence that does not support their case, that is not to say that the evidence does not exist.

I didn't say I didn't ever answer the calls, I said I don't like them, but many times I don't answer them and expect them to leave a voice mail which I will listen to when I have time. To be truthful, I rarely look to see who is calling, I just pick up my phone and say "hello, this is Danielle" and take it from there. If its personal, I listen for a minute, say, ok, then say, looks, I have to run, I will call you when I get home. My employer is not paying me to chat on the phone during the day, and I do have actual work and deliverables that people depend on me to complete.

 

[FullDisclosure]

That is really interesting, and when was it turned off? Did they mention what of those 600 or so files that had changes, or indications of being opened, what they were? If they were printed, etc?

Well, Kurtz asked Agent J if he was aware that the computer was left on for 27 hours while in CPD's custody. Agent J said he was not. He said this wasn't "best practice" but that he could understand why they would do that if they were afraid of losing data by turning it off.

ETA-- When it was all said and done, in Agent J's professional opinion, he did not believe that anyone had tampered with the computer.

 

[Danielle59]

We know he was not on the phone, at least with his cell phone, as the billing records have been entered into evidence. The TWC bill has well but I don't think we know the details of calls from the land line.

Personally, I would love to see the number of times that NC has called BC from the land line versus calling from her cell phone.

I don't think we know that he was not talking to his mother that day, and from the sound of the testimony he used his Cisco cell phone for mainly Cisco work. He could have been on the landline phone with his mother. Even though the cell phone records have been entered into evidence, I am not sure we know that he wasn't on that with his mother, I am not sure they compared the time he was on his cell phone with the time he was on the Air Canada site, are you aware of something different, or did I miss some relevant testimony?

I would be interested in seeing that too.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Last time BC's profile was modified: 7/16 at 1:55 pm.

 

[FullDisclosure]

With regard to State's Exhibit 644--on cross:

Kurtz: In your report, you do not note the failed log-in attempt, don't you?
Agent J: No.
Kurtz: Based on the report, BC was already logged in?
Agent J: Yes.
Kurtz: Did you try to determine who tried to log in?
Agent J: No.

 

[gracielee]

I strongly disagree. There is nothing that indicates abuse. It's time to stop blowing things out of proportion. Much has come out in this trial now and none of the abuse allegations have been even remotely shown to be true.

Emotional abuse can leave much deeper scars than physical abuse.

 

[Danielle59]

On 7/16 at 2:15 the SAM (Security Account Manager) was modified. This was after it was in CPD's possession. Kurtz asked about this:

Agent J: Seeing lots of files being touched all at the same time leads me to believe that it was a virus scan.
Kurtz: Would it be unlikely for a virus scan to show activity 30 seconds away from anythig else?
Agent J: It depends. Also both SAM modifications at the same time (there were two) leads me to believe that it was an automatic update.
Kurtz: Shouldn't there be just ONE SAM?
Agent J: Yes.
Kurtz: You checked all the files modified after 5:20 on 7/15. How did you determine this was part of an automated process?
Kurtz: So it does appear unlikely that this was due to an automated process?
Agent J: I would have to go back and look...
Kurtz: On 7/15 the SAM detected a temporary file.
Agent J: I didn't recognize or check that.

Was BC's computer connected to the Cisco network when these changes were taking place? Was this his Cisco laptop being discussed?

 

[Albert]

Then why not tell the police or mention it in the deposition?

Because there was nothing to support this alibi. If there was any outage or issue associated with the Ireland upgrade then there would be an email or voice mail trail that would support this. I have mentioned before that you don't test a conferencing system by simply connecting to it, pressing 0 and then disconnecting. This does not test a conferencing system at all. Even the Cisco expert stated that by simply pressing 0 and hanging up does nothing.

 

[Danielle59]

Well, Kurtz asked Agent J if he was aware that the computer was left on for 27 hours while in CPD's custody. Agent J said he was not. He said this wasn't "best practice" but that he could understand why they would do that if they were afraid of losing data by turning it off.

ETA-- When it was all said and done, in Agent J's professional opinion, he did not believe that anyone had tampered with the computer.

I wonder what happened at the 27th hour that they then thought it would be okay to turn it off without losing data, that they thought would be lost, for example at hour 5 or 10, or even 26?

 

[FullDisclosure]

With regard to the Sony that was not recovered:

The "receipt" for it was a forwarded email from BC to NC with another person's original email header. It appears that another person bought the computer, as the "Dear Customer" email was originally to him (the other individual.) Not sure why BC forwarded that to NC. Maybe she was considering a Sony?

 

[FullDisclosure]

Was BC's computer connected to the Cisco network when these changes were taking place? Was this his Cisco laptop being discussed?

This was the IBM laptop. On 7/16 it was in CPD's custody.

I don't know what ANY of this means, as I'm not a tech expert. I did, however, take copious notes.

 

[Danielle59]

This was the IBM laptop. On 7/16 it was in CPD's custody.

I don't know what ANY of this means, as I'm not a tech expert. I did, however, take copious notes.

It could have been the Cisco laptop then. Thanks for all the info we were blacked out of today.

 

[Albert]

From Kurtz's cross:

Actually, the CSA log shows that the last login to BC's computer was at 6:00 pm on 7/15, which was AFTER BC left the house.

He also began to ask about the CSA log on 7/16 and then Zellinger objected. Sustained.

Then the questions went something like this:
Kurtz: If the CSA log indicates that a malicious package was detected, originating from the home network, would that indicate tampering?
Agent J: Not that alone. It would make me look deeper...
Kurtz: Would it matter if it happened frequently or ONLY ONCE?
Agent J: I would seek detail on the reason for the detection
Kurtz: (Continues to "ask questions" in effort to give info to the jury that got shot down with Zellinger's objection, IMO.)
Kurtz: When were you made aware that we alleged tampering?
Agent J: ? Months ago.
Kurtz: Did you then discuss w/LE how to evaluate?
Agent J: I'm sure I have discussed that.
Kurtz: Would CSA log have helped?
Agent J: Yes.
Kurtz: At any point were you told not to check?
Agent J: No.
Kurtz--then got Agent J to admit easy programs to get into computers, like "following a recipe on a box of brownies." Also got him to admit that it is simple to change times, "like students do to show they turned homework in on time."
Kurtz: From the files/cookies on the computer, it doesn't appear that BC ws cleaning files. Old files are on the computer. Is that correct?
Agent J: Yes, old files. Doesn't appear to be "cleaned."

On a windows machine the Security Event logs would show login attempts from remote machines. It would show the client name (hostname of remote computer) and the client address (ip address of remote device)

 

[FullDisclosure]

On a windows machine the Security Event logs would show login attempts from remote machines. It would show the client name (hostname of remote computer) and the client address (ip address of remote device)

Hmmmm.....they didn't go into any of that at all.

 

[CuriousDad]

What makes you think that NC had MH's phone number?

NC went on vacay w/ MH. She called MH from her phone, handed phone to BC. Check out the defense petition to delay trial so they could get all those dvd's and booklets of info they just rec'd today, wanted those before the trial. Start reading the petition on page 61. There was a link to it earlier today.

 

[ncsu95]

Because there was nothing to support this alibi. If there was any outage or issue associated with the Ireland upgrade then there would be an email or voice mail trail that would support this. I have mentioned before that you don't test a conferencing system by simply connecting to it, pressing 0 and then disconnecting. This does not test a conferencing system at all. Even the Cisco expert stated that by simply pressing 0 and hanging up does nothing.

Then why do it? If it was to give the illusion of doing work, then why half-*advertiser censored* it? It's not like he didn't know how the system worked. I've done both types of tests for my conferencing servers. I've simply called into it to make sure it is up and running, and I've called in and launched an actual conference when a user says there is an error with their service. Obviously I don't work with Cisco conferencing, but I do these types of calls frequently from a test perspective.

 

[gracielee]

I can only speak from what I personally saw. BC seemed to dote on those children A LOT more than NC did when I saw them at the pool, clubs, etc. He definitely did a lot of the hands on parenting. Again, that is from what I observed when I saw them (which was typically on the weekends)

So - don't believe it when someone claims that he said he wouldn't want to see his children again. I think that is a complete lie

But Brad said he worked out, trained, 12 to 13 hours a day on the week-ends. And he worked out a couple hours every night, usually getting home around midnight. So when did he do all this parenting?