State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[gracielee]

There is so much going on with the case I don't even know where to begin. She originally said the nanny took her and kidnapped her and lied to detective and waited 30 days to tell anyone she was missing, the entire time she was stealing money from her parents, her friends and shopping, getting a tatoo that said the "good life" (in english) , drinking and smoking pot and partying like she just won the lottery. She has never ever admitted to be a part of her death and definitely never said it was accidental. She is pleading NG.

Yeah, I know most of the details like those, I just always felt like she put the child in the trunk of her car while she partied, drugged her, perhaps put some duct tape around her mouth so if she woke up she wouldn't be heard in the trunk, and then something happened. Either the child got too muc chlor., or perhaps she vomitted and aspirated because of the duct tape, etc. I never felt like it was intentional. I have no complusions with casey frying, but I couldn't work out an intentional homicide in that one in my mind. If casey wasn't a consummate liar, she maybe could have pled to an accidental killing IMO. What do you think? If it's not to be discussed here during this break, feel free to message me. I just can't miss the JY trial here. So many crimes, so little time.

 

[sunshine05]

Since Kurtz asked about how one identifies the origin of a cookie file through subpoena, it should be interesting if we someday learn who created that file.

 

[macd]

I don't think it matters. What matters is that he, nor anyone else, should have been able to access the email archives. You can't simply assume it was BC. It might have been. But he shouldn't have had the opportunity to since it was in police custody.

Just so everyone is clear on what police custody is in this case.

The entire house was sealed.
BC left the computer plugged in, turned on, and connected to Cisco.
Everything in the house, including the computer, were as BC left it.
So, the computer was as BC left it for 27 hours.

It would have been better if the computer was powered off immediately at that time, but it wasn't. It was left as BC left it.

 

[gracielee]

gracie - how is duct taping accidental?

I replied to the other post about that. Don't want to repeat it, because I don't want to get in trouble for off topic..... Read what I wrote to the OP. :seeya:

 

[jrb0124]

If computer was on, VPN connected, and email program running then the .pst file would be updated every time an email was received.

If computer was on (it was for a period after 'possession' by LE)

If the .pst was altered only within the 27 hours following possession (no evidence/testimony to this)
If email program was running (no evidence/testimony to this)
If email was set to auto-check/IMAP (no evidence/testimony to this)


That's 3 "Ifs" you would need to prove (not assume), no just a matter of 'if the email program was running....".

 

[Amster]

Bradley has nothing to whine about....after all, he was reading all of Nancys' e-mails. Probably monitoring her phone calls and text messages, also.

 

[misstibbs]

If computer was on, VPN connected, and email program running then the .pst file would be updated every time an email was received.

someone called me out for misstating the evidence yesterday and that was not my intention.

However if the laptop was in LE custody how could it establish a VPN connection to Cisco without intervention from Brad? There is NO WAY that LE would know how to do that. A VPN connection is not going to remain active indefinitely...it would time out. I can see how the laptop could find a wireless network that was available but it could not establish a VPN connection on it's own into Cisco. If Cisco IT wanted to push something to it's users it would only push to users on the Cisco network...it's not going to figure out what other computers are powered on and set up a VPN connection to them...Cisco IT cannot even do that...

can anyone help me understand how the evidence presented yesterday does anything other than suggest that Brad tampered with his own computer after it was in LE custody?

 

[unc70]

Looks like no one else at WS is likely to be reading their postings in this trial as a witness.

Would not say it is "Inconceivable". I learned from Vizzini and this trial.

 

[AnotherSleuth]

How many rebuttal witnesses the state is expected to bring? I'd like to get my life back too

 

[macd]

someone called me out for misstating the evidence yesterday and that was not my intention.

However if the laptop was in LE custody how could it establish a VPN connection to Cisco without intervention from Brad? There is NO WAY that LE would know how to do that. A VPN connection is not going to remain active indefinitely...it would time out. I can see how the laptop could find a wireless network that was available but it could not establish a VPN connection on it's own into Cisco. If Cisco IT wanted to push something to it's users it would only push to users on the Cisco network...it's not going to figure out what other computers are powered on and set up a VPN connection to them...Cisco IT cannot even do that...

can anyone help me understand how the evidence presented yesterday does anything other than suggest that Brad tampered with his own computer after it was in LE custody?

See post #165

 

[Amster]

Baby Caylee had duct tape over her little nose and mouth.....

 

[ncsu95]

Just so everyone is clear on what police custody is in this case.

The entire house was sealed.
BC left the computer plugged in, turned on, and connected to Cisco.
Everything in the house, including the computer, were as BC left it.
So, the computer was as BC left it for 27 hours.

It would have been better if the computer was powered off immediately at that time, but it wasn't. It was left as BC left it.

Just so everyone is clear as well. The police were responsible for that house and the evidence in it once they seized it. Anything that happened on that computer after they seized it is the responsibility of CPD. Just because they chose not to follow proper protocol with regards to computers doesn't change that fact.

 

[unc70]

someone called me out for misstating the evidence yesterday and that was not my intention.

However if the laptop was in LE custody how could it establish a VPN connection to Cisco without intervention from Brad? There is NO WAY that LE would know how to do that. A VPN connection is not going to remain active indefinitely...it would time out. I can see how the laptop could find a wireless network that was available but it could not establish a VPN connection on it's own into Cisco. If Cisco IT wanted to push something to it's users it would only push to users on the Cisco network...it's not going to figure out what other computers are powered on and set up a VPN connection to them...Cisco IT cannot even do that...

can anyone help me understand how the evidence presented yesterday does anything other than suggest that Brad tampered with his own computer after it was in LE custody?

The disk was also connected to a computer later without a writeblock and things were written to the disk then.

 

[Shadow722]

someone called me out for misstating the evidence yesterday and that was not my intention.

However if the laptop was in LE custody how could it establish a VPN connection to Cisco without intervention from Brad? There is NO WAY that LE would know how to do that. A VPN connection is not going to remain active indefinitely...it would time out. I can see how the laptop could find a wireless network that was available but it could not establish a VPN connection on it's own into Cisco. If Cisco IT wanted to push something to it's users it would only push to users on the Cisco network...it's not going to figure out what other computers are powered on and set up a VPN connection to them...Cisco IT cannot even do that...

can anyone help me understand how the evidence presented yesterday does anything other than suggest that Brad tampered with his own computer after it was in LE custody?

Anybody with a laptop in range of BC's home wireless network could possibly access that computer. And that's the problem. The CPD left vital evidence BC laptop, open for manipulation/tampering.

It is far easier to ascertain spoilage/tampering on a computer than finding who did the tampering.....

 

[unknown403]

Actually, he is a Durham Police Department detective that is part of a government task force. But he is DPD. And we know about the goings on in Durham and some of their recent history.

This from WRAL- An FBI investigator testified Wednesday that he found evidence that, on the day before NC disappeared, photos of the area where her body was later found were accessed on her husband's laptop computer

and

CP (edited), a Durham police detective assigned to the FBI's Cyber Task Force, said that multiple aerial photos were accessed from Google Maps on BC's laptop computer at 1:15 p.m. on July 11, 2008, while he was at work

Look not trying to get into anything, i just wanted to point out that this guy could easily have been testifying the opposite way if nothing was found. If the FBI can trust him IMO he is a solid resource, they do not affiliate with just anyone.

 

[borndem]

I wouldn't be too interested in that blow by blow account. :innocent:

hwow:



:Bennymonkey:

:tmi:

:censored:

 

[SleuthinNC]

someone called me out for misstating the evidence yesterday and that was not my intention.

However if the laptop was in LE custody how could it establish a VPN connection to Cisco without intervention from Brad? There is NO WAY that LE would know how to do that. A VPN connection is not going to remain active indefinitely...it would time out. I can see how the laptop could find a wireless network that was available but it could not establish a VPN connection on it's own into Cisco. If Cisco IT wanted to push something to it's users it would only push to users on the Cisco network...it's not going to figure out what other computers are powered on and set up a VPN connection to them...Cisco IT cannot even do that...

can anyone help me understand how the evidence presented yesterday does anything other than suggest that Brad tampered with his own computer after it was in LE custody?

If BC was running a hardware VPN client on his router (which is the most likely scenario since he had a Cisco IP Phone at home that would need to remain connected) he would not have to authenticate that VPN on every login from home and the VPN tunnel would not time out.

 

[unc70]

Just so everyone is clear on what police custody is in this case.

The entire house was sealed.
BC left the computer plugged in, turned on, and connected to Cisco.
Everything in the house, including the computer, were as BC left it.
So, the computer was as BC left it for 27 hours.

It would have been better if the computer was powered off immediately at that time, but it wasn't. It was left as BC left it.

And to be clear, after that someone unknown connected the disk to another system with using a writeblock and things were written to the disk at that time. No indication what was written. To the best of my recollection.

 

[Skittles]

They came back live, then judge released them until 12:20 while he deals with another issue.

 

[happy2binNC]

WRAL is reporting that the defense has rested its case.