State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[ncsu95]

This whole router, call spoofing fiasco is becoming more annoying than anything. If they would just ask the right people for the right information this should really not be that hard to prove or disprove.

I can't believe they didn't think to check this earlier. It's why I asked earlier this week if the mac address of the routers he purchased could be found on Cisco's network. They've had 2.5+ years to search for this stuff.

 

[otto]

I do too. Until then, we are just speculating.

My guess is that the information they are trying to have admitted by the court is new information that was held in the logs of the router. The router was connected to the computer, but the computer would have less information in the logs than the router. My guess is that this is new evidence, and that if this new evidence is admitted, then the defense is being blindsided in the sense that they cannot rebut this evidence. If this is the case, I think we can expect another mistrial request from the defense. The problem with that, though, is that in a retrial his evidence (if it is significant) might sink their client.

 

[ncsu95]

I guess we were allowed to hear yesteday's voir dire because it was for appelate purposes, but we are not allowed to hear this voir dire because it may be new State's evidence?

I think it is because it's a motion to suppress. They have shut the camera off at other times in the trial when discussing other motions to suppress (specifically, the google search).

 

[ncsu95]

Boz is really trying to play both sides of the fence with this router information.

On one hand he saying the defense has had access to this data all along because it is on the hard drive. If that is the case the prosecution has had it all along as well along with access to the same Cisco people who they want to bring back to talk about it. They should have had this done prior to trial.

On the other hand Boz says, we are just getting this information from Cisco so we couldn't have brought it during our case in chief. Ok so then it is new evidence and should not be admitted.

I can't see any reason why this new evidence should be allowed.

I was surprised Trenkle didn't say the same thing. I was thinking it at the time as well.

 

[ncsu95]

My guess is that the information they are trying to have admitted by the court is new information that was held in the logs of the router. The router was connected to the computer, but the computer would have less information in the logs than the router. My guess is that this is new evidence, and that if this new evidence is admitted, then the defense is being blindsided in the sense that they cannot rebut this evidence. If this is the case, I think we can expect another mistrial request from the defense. The problem with that, though, is that in a retrial his evidence (if it is significant) might sink their client.

Yes, it does sound like they located one of the routers. But if it is a log in that router, it means that router was at Cisco on the 11th. We know he only accessed that building once before his badge was turned off, and that was on the 17th. That would have meant he had to hide a router somewhere and also somehow avoid the security cameras at the office to return it.

 

[jrb0124]

As I posted previously - if in fact there was a 3825 (even one FXO capable) at the BC residence that connected to Cisco on 7/11...this is not a smoking gun.

By October, which is when the SW for routers, modems and phones was issued, BC already knew that NC friends were directing CPD to look into the possibility that he spoofed calls - it reasons that he (innocent or guilty) would not cooperate in the discovery of self-incriminating evidence.

More importantly, why would he use that behemoth piece of equipment to connect to Cisco on 7/11 and then spoof a call the next day when he didn't need it to connect to work, and could have spoofed a call in a really "low tech" way?

If BC is guilty, why would he even need to create an alibi to 'prove' NC was alive at 6:40? How would BC know at that time that pinpointing NC death to earlier in the evening would be crucial to the prosecution? Even if he did, he could have just as easily said, "I was back and forth to HT for groceries and NC was home with the kids. I wouldn't leave them home alone."

 

[unc70]

I am all comfy here on the wall, finally brought a cushion and a cooler. Think it best to stay where I am for the moment, commune with nature, watch the ducks, start the weekend early. Anyone want a beer or some wine?

 

[SleuthinNC]

I was surprised Trenkle didn't say the same thing. I was thinking it at the time as well.

LOl well hopefully they are all still monitoring web sleuths so they can add that statement during this motion to supress hearing.

 

[FullDisclosure]

I am all comfy here on the wall, finally brought a cushion and a cooler. Think it best to stay where I am for the moment, commune with nature, watch the ducks, start the weekend early. Anyone want a beer or some wine?

I'm in! Red wine for me, please!

 

[yeknomaras]

I am all comfy here on the wall, finally brought a cushion and a cooler. Think it best to stay where I am for the moment, commune with nature, watch the ducks, start the weekend early. Anyone want a beer or some wine?

I'll take a Newcastle if you've got one.

 

[macd]

That's what I get from it. I personally would like to see it entered. But objectively, I can't see how the judge would allow it. It most definitely is not rebuttal testimony like BZ is trying to claim. Again, the only thing I can think he would be allowed to rebut is the size of the router (to show a smaller one is possible, even though the defense showed the router that the prosecution witness said would be needed), or something to do specifically with the csa log. We know this isn't part of the csa log, it's a system event (apparently). So it's completely new evidence.

I would love to hear the arguments first hand.

What are the hurdles for the prosecution?

1) show it is rebuttal
The defense did have an expert testify on the contents of the hard drive.
It should be allowable to have a rebuttal witness to be called on the contents of the hard drive. The judge seems to be interpreting hard drive as a single piece of evidence, not each file as a separate piece of evidence.

2) don't introduce a new expert witness
Prosecution has to show that the reading and interpreting the log entry does not require a new expert.

3) don't delay trial
Gotta get the testimony in on Monday. CF is not available. Can another witness bring evidence without violating #2?

I predict these hurdles will be met, and testimony will be allowed.

Defense will re-rebut with testimony on spoilage, tampering, and proper procedure.

 

[Danielle59]

The words don't have to come out of the defense attorney's mouth.

That has been my opinion from watching the trial. I'm not saying that CISCO is, just saying that the line of questioning went along that way.

The only place I have seen Cisco trashed is on here by BDIers, and by the State when they and many on this board tried to say they were inept by not having every piece of equipment checked out, and how non-existent and lax they were on inventory.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I would love to hear the arguments first hand.

What are the hurdles for the prosecution?

1) show it is rebuttal
The defense did have an expert testify on the contents of the hard drive.
It should be allowable to have a rebuttal witness to be called on the contents of the hard drive. The judge seems to be interpreting hard drive as a single piece of evidence, not each file as a separate piece of evidence.

2) don't introduce a new expert witness
Prosecution has to show that the reading and interpreting the log entry does not require a new expert.

3) don't delay trial
Gotta get the testimony in on Monday. CF is not available. Can another witness bring evidence without violating #2?

I predict these hurdles will be met, and testimony will be allowed.

Defense will re-rebut with testimony on spoilage, tampering, and proper procedure.

Defense expert was not allowed to testify to the contents of the hard drives. He was not allowed to read from any event log, because he wasn't an expert.

So, how is it now, one week later, that the reading of event logs doesn't require an expert's knowledge?

Play fair for both sides Judge. This isn't it.

 

[Shadow722]

As I posted previously - if in fact there was a 3825 (even one FXO capable) at the BC residence that connected to Cisco on 7/11...this is not a smoking gun.

By October, which is when the SW for routers, modems and phones was issued, BC already knew that NC friends were directing CPD to look into the possibility that he spoofed calls - it reasons that he (innocent or guilty) would not cooperate in the discovery of self-incriminating evidence.

More importantly, why would he use that behemoth piece of equipment to connect to Cisco on 7/11 and then spoof a call the next day when he didn't need it to connect to work, and could have spoofed a call in a really "low tech" way?

If BC is guilty, why would he even need to create an alibi to 'prove' NC was alive at 6:40? How would BC know at that time that pinpointing NC death to earlier in the evening would be crucial to the prosecution? Even if he did, he could have just as easily said, "I was back and forth to HT for groceries and NC was home with the kids. I wouldn't leave them home alone."

JRB,

To go further with your line of thought, BC made two trips to HT. The Pros contention is that the spoofed call "failed" the first time, making the second trip to HT necessary to complete the allusion of NC being home.

So he had to reprogram the router to initiate a correct spoofed call, and this NOT visible in a router log???? There is some serious funny business going on, that is NOT of BC's making.

The digital artifacts in the case are making less and less sense. And the more we learn the LESS likely BC did this crime.

I'm back on the NG side, sigh......

 

[cityslick]

I'll take a Newcastle if you've got one.

Yes, Brown/amber ale is the way to go.

BTW, it must be pretty boring if the discussion is moving to alcohol

 

[uncfan]

I am all comfy here on the wall, finally brought a cushion and a cooler. Think it best to stay where I am for the moment, commune with nature, watch the ducks, start the weekend early. Anyone want a beer or some wine?

WHAT??!! You know where the ducks are? Well, why didn't you tell Mr. Cummings before now??

:floorlaugh:

As for me, I'll be sitting on the beach in Emerald Isle. Have a nice, relaxing weekend everyone!!

 

[macd]

Defense expert was not allowed to testify to the contents of the hard drives. He was not allowed to read from any event log, because he wasn't an expert.

So, how is it now, one week later, that the reading of event logs doesn't require an expert's knowledge?

Play fair for both sides Judge. This isn't it.

JW testified a lot on the contents of the hard drive as a networking expert and as a security expert. He was only precluded from testifying on forensic contents, like the MFT, on the hard drive.

The system log about a network connection to a router is to rebut the networking expert testimony given by JW. I think it is on point.

 

[macd]

JRB,

To go further with your line of thought, BC made two trips to HT. The Pros contention is that the spoofed call "failed" the first time, making the second trip to HT necessary to complete the allusion of NC being home.

So he had to reprogram the router to initiate a correct spoofed call, and this NOT visible in a router log???? There is some serious funny business going on, that is NOT of BC's making.

The digital artifacts in the case are making less and less sense. And the more we learn the LESS likely BC did this crime.

I'm back on the NG side, sigh......

The router he used is in a dumpster somewhere, that's why the logs can't be found.

 

[metafizik]

Introducing new evidence that does not directly refute claims by the opposite party during rebuttal is also against the rules but it seems like will likely be allowed now... A bit of a double standard IMHO. Hopefully we will get some answer on it this afternoon.

I don't like how this is playing out at all. At this point I don't trust the prosecution team one bit. They know as it stands now their case has been shredded to pieces and now they are desperate. I wouldn't put any underhanded trick in the book by this bunch. Then again they might get the ruling they want and it will turn out like so much of their other so called evidence and not amount to anything except smoke and mirrors.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

JW testified a lot on the contents of the hard drive as a networking expert and as a security expert. He was only precluded from testifying on forensic contents, like the MFT, on the hard drive.

The system log about a network connection to a router is to rebut the networking expert testimony given by JW. I think it is on point.

The only thing he was allowed to testify to from the hard drive were things he would have had knowledge from on the hard drive--the CSA Logs, because he worked at Cisco. Nothing else. No event logs. No internet files. No $MFT. If this guy wants to testify to CSA Logs, go right ahead.