State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand that. But if the VM was from someone that said they can't access the conferencing server, a test call like this to verify the service was running wouldn't be anything more than a quick call. Again, I'm just making suggestions based on my role, which is similar to what this guy said BC was in.

Regardless, these calls don't make any sense except for work related activities.

The Conferencing system was controlled by the IT system not the Alpha system. If there is an issue with the Conferencing system then the alpha team would not be involved.
 
Witness is not familiar with 'seizure time'. ???
 
this witness is just building a foundation for more interesting testimony from someone else....bring in the computer techs
 
The witness just said that all of the equipment they just discussed was not capable of generating the calls.

Correct, but does that eliminate the possibility that BC did not have such capable gear in his house on 7/12? Does this eliminate possibility that BC did not have access to such type of gear?
 
We've gotten enough foundation here to build a freaking skyscraper.
 
Witness is not familiar with 'seizure time'. ???

I think the seizure time is more a function of a phone company like AT&T or any of the Bell companies. I'm not surprised he didn't know what that was. I had no idea what it was until it was brought up in this case.
 
I still really like this witness. Same demeanor, no bias. Just answering the questions. I'm impressed.
 
Why is the def attorney talking so far away from the mic? Can the jury hear him?:confused:

fran
 
Correct, but does that eliminate the possibility that BC did not have such capable gear in his house on 7/12? Does this eliminate possibility that BC did not have access to such type of gear?

I am interested in the box that this witness described (can't remember the name) as allowing the end user complete access to the Cisco network - he made it sound like there was no softtoken required - and wonder if this allows such a high level of access that nothing would look like he was doing this remotely.
 
Correct, but does that eliminate the possibility that BC did not have such capable gear in his house on 7/12? Does this eliminate possibility that BC did not have access to such type of gear?


I got the impression that Kurtz had the witness read little ditty about that item was not capable of yadda yadaa yadaa..That does not mean when other items are added to that particular item that it is iimpossible..It appears that FXO item was pivetal for Brad to be able to manipulate calls...and guess what?? Dont think they ever found it either...wonder why it went awol???

I think direct exam pointed out very clearly there was 10 ways to achieve that goal..no?
 
I am interested in the box that this witness described (can't remember the name) as allowing the end user complete access to the Cisco network - he made it sound like there was no softtoken required - and wonder if this allows such a high level of access that nothing would look like he was doing this remotely.

Found this on the Cisco web site:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/netsol/ns855/index.html
 
Brad has been very helpful in his trial..and he does think he is quite brilliant..maybe he will take the stand
He must know he didn't do well in depos
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
2,512
Total visitors
2,642

Forum statistics

Threads
604,666
Messages
18,175,126
Members
232,784
Latest member
Abk018
Back
Top