State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not necessarily in his possession. He could have accessed it through his VPN tunnel from home.

Nope. The log has an ethernet address.
If it knows the MAC address, it was connected directly via ethernet.
 
This is so interesting to watch. It's more interesting than a lot of the actual trial.
 
How can this Chris Frye now be allowed to examine the forensic evidence from the laptop when the Def. Witness could not.
 
There are online tools to decode mac addresses.
Defense (and us sleuths) have access to that.
 
So in other words, you don't really care about the truth of the matter? Brad said he was asleep at 9:30 pm. at the latest, and didn't arise before 4:00 a.m., yet there are increasingly numerous reports of Brad being on computer/s during that time period.

Please re-read my previous posts where I said I hope all of this information is heard (including the defense expert that was not allowed). I'm simply talking procedure here...I don't see how this is rebuttal testimony at this point. Again, in an effort to search for the truth, I hope this is allowed and he changes his mind and allows the defense expert.
 
i suspect that this router issue is as follows:

they have the requisition where BC ordered this equipment for the lab. Since it's Cisco's equipment, then they have the MAC address they shipped to fulfill their own internal order.

if the MAC address transits itself as part of the VPN logon (i.e. this computer is logging on via this router - both MAC's sent) this this is a critical piece of information and brings another smoking gun, IMO.

This, also IMO, would bring the jury back to guilty.
 
Judge wants to release jury for the week, court will hear Mr Frye w/o jury. Frye will not testify today (but he can't make it MON).

Cummings: we have other witnesses that fall one behind another but we can't do any one out of sequence with out the rest.

-jury to be released.
 
Sincere question. Shouldn't the State have had this info before they brought the case to trial? I do want all the evidence, but if this was "all on the computer" as Boz keeps stating, why didn't they have all this ready before they brought it to trial? Perhaps if they had produced such evidence to begin with, the State would have had a much stronger case and not have made a big deal about things like necklaces and ducks.
 
i suspect that this router issue is as follows:

they have the requisition where BC ordered this equipment for the lab. Since it's Cisco's equipment, then they have the MAC address they shipped to fulfill their own internal order.

if the MAC address transits itself as part of the VPN logon (i.e. this computer is logging on via this router - both MAC's sent) this this is a critical piece of information and brings another smoking gun, IMO.

This, also IMO, would bring the jury back to guilty.

If that is the case, it seems the file would be full of that information...not just a single instance.
 
Sounds like if he gets to testify at all, it won't happen until Tuesday.
 
Is Greg M "suspiciously thirsty guy?" If so, the court will need a brief recess to bring in extra water.

Nope... he is the one that the defendant said was his best friend at work, during his depo.
The witness (GM) found that kinda flattering (or something like that) when he heard the defendant had said that that about him.

GM also went to lunch and walked out of work that night with the defendant on Fri, July 11th

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9404332/#/vid9404332
 
How can this Chris Frye now be allowed to examine the forensic evidence from the laptop when the Def. Witness could not.

He's being asked to read on entry in one log.
The entry is about a network connection to a Cisco box.
 
Blacked out since it's a motion to suppress. Probably won't get to hear any of it.
 
He's being asked to read on entry in one log.
The entry is about a network connection to a Cisco box.

And I bet the defense won't be allowed to cross this guy using other entries from the log, because they aren't pertaining to Cisco. So, the prosecution can bring up one entry in a log, without introducing all the other logs the defense has wanted to put in, without the defense be allowed to rebut any of it.

And how is this possibly rebuttal?

And Jay Ward had the same job as Chris Fry. And he wasn't allowed to read any entries from any logs. Not even the logs FBI provided.
 
Nope. The log has an ethernet address.
If it knows the MAC address, it was connected directly via ethernet.

This is grossly inaccurate. VPN tunnels, specifically Cisco VPN tunnels I use on a daily basis, which operate at layer 2, specifically includes the MAC address of clients on the network you are joining over the VPN tunnel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
1,569
Total visitors
1,765

Forum statistics

Threads
599,763
Messages
18,099,261
Members
230,920
Latest member
LuLuWooWoo
Back
Top