State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

[RaleighNC]

As we've not seen any FBI computer testimony yet - and most of the things that they are talking about with VoIP - I am willing to bet that there some interesting things yet to be discovered with regard to the computer records.

If the defense is pointing to Brad's home network being hacked - I am willing to bet that in the discovery process, they know that the DA will be presenting damning evidence of activity that did take place on his home network (since they are setting up the "we were hacked" defense in opening statements.)

As good as this prosecution witness was - Kurtz's testimony neutralized a lot of it by driving home the point that it simply wasn't possible given the level of equipment found at his house (several days after the crime, mind you).

 

[sunshine05]

sorry to just barge in here - but could someone post what questions the judge asked the witness?

He asked:
1) Is this Cisco phone (which was in their house) capable of making a call forward/call waiting or other feature type calls, even though you don't have it from the cable company. He said "yes"

2) He asked if having a router w/o a FXO port was equivalent to having a car w/o a steering wheel? He said "no"

Then ADA asked another question, then Kurtz asked again if the auto call could be generated from the home w/o a router with an FXO port and he said "no".

 

[news247]

thanks, sunshine05!

 

[Albert]

The problem with this logic is that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. Using your analogy... suppose the murder was committed using .38 caliber bullets. But in his house the police only found a gun that uses .45 caliber bullets. Of course that does not eliminate the suspect since he could have used a different gun and then gotten rid of it. But it is up to the prosecution to prove that he did.

In this case, the defense pointed out that the FXO card could not be used with the router in his house. Yes, he could have used a different router. But the prosecution must prove that he did and so far they have not.

OK, I agree that the burden is still on the prosecution side. Now, with the TWC modem and the phone line that can connect to either a phone or to an FXO port. I wonder if TWC has any capability to see device activity on this phone line. I wonder if they can tell when a device is connected or disconnected, I wonder if they can tell what type of device may be connected to this phone line?

 

[news247]

and thanks to all of you who have posted updates - i have been reading here everyday, and you all are most helpful - thanks again.

 

[lunarmodule]

Someone correct me because I'm sure I'm wrong! The home phone itself could be set up to forward a call, correct? (i.e., not through the phone line but the phone itself). So is all he needs to do is set up a call to go to the landline, from either work number, cell, etc.? Would this appear to be a call dialed from the home phone or would it show up as a forward?

 

[raisincharlie]

This is what I take from the Cisco employees so far:

Brad did have the ability, access to appropriate tools, and authorization to
wipe a hard drive if he decided to do so. He did not however have any ability, access, or authorization to alter, interfer, interupt, or damage any proprietary Cisco server systems.

From today's testimony I get that:

a. Brad requested a Cisco FXO port in January

b. It is, was, common for Cisco employees, because of flexible work hours and ability to work from home, that there is a significant probabilty that the FXO port was at 104 Wallsburg Court at some time or the other because of this situation and his job requirements.

c. The FXO port device is no larger than a typical cell phone which could be stuffed in your pocket, pitched out a window or otherwise hidden from plain sight on very short notice.

d. From todays testimony I get that there are numerous ways to initiate a telephone call from a landline and that Brad being equal in training and job requirements to todays witness, would be equally as capable of figuring it out as this guy is.

e. I also get from phone records that it is not "normal" for Brad to be checking his voice mail 4 times in 16 minutes on a Saturday morning prior to 0700 let alone a Saturday morning when his wife disappears.

f. I also get that Brad had every potential of initiating that call from the landline in the house. He had a Samsung Blackjack in 2008 loaded with Windows Mobile 6.0 which was one of the operating systems capable of interfacing with opitions available to switch phone calls here there and yonder.

g. Brad did have the ability, access to appropriate tools through Cisco to route, transfer, and initiate phone calls from just about anywhere either through a phone or from his computer.


From previous testimony I get that Brad worked at home alot. I find it inconceivable to believe that there was not an FXO port available to him during all that working at home.

 

[Albert]

Someone correct me because I'm sure I'm wrong! The home phone itself could be set up to forward a call, correct? (i.e., not through the phone line but the phone itself). So is all he needs to do is set up a call to go to the landline, from either work number, cell, etc.? Would this appear to be a call dialed from the home phone or would it show up as a forward?

I don't believe the VTech phone had forwarding capability and the TWC record would show that that call was not originated from the VTech phone.

 

[Tipstaff]

Things seem to have gone missing from the Cooper house...could this include a router with FXO port in addition to BC's shoes, NC's 2 right shoes, ducks and sticks?

 

[Albert]

This is what I take from the Cisco employees so far:

Brad did have the ability, access to appropriate tools, and authorization to
wipe a hard drive if he decided to do so. He did not however have any ability, access, or authorization to alter, interfer, interupt, or damage any proprietary Cisco server systems.

From today's testimony I get that:

a. Brad requested a Cisco FXO port in January

b. It is, was, common for Cisco employees, because of flexible work hours and ability to work from home, that there is a significant probabilty that the FXO port was at 104 Wallsburg Court at some time or the other because of this situation and his job requirements.

c. The FXO port device is no larger than a typical cell phone which could be stuffed in your pocket, pitched out a window or otherwise hidden from plain sight on very short notice.

d. From todays testimony I get that there are numerous ways to initiate a telephone call from a landline and that Brad being equal in training and job requirements to todays witness, would be equally as capable of figuring it out as this guy is.

e. I also get from phone records that it is not "normal" for Brad to be checking his voice mail 4 times in 16 minutes on a Saturday morning prior to 0700 let alone a Saturday morning when his wife disappears.

f. I also get that Brad had every potential of initiating that call from the landline in the house. He had a Samsung Blackjack in 2008 loaded with Windows Mobile 6.0 which was one of the operating systems capable of interfacing with opitions available to switch phone calls here there and yonder.

g. Brad did have the ability, access to appropriate tools through Cisco to route, transfer, and initiate phone calls from just about anywhere either through a phone or from his computer.


From previous testimony I get that Brad worked at home alot. I find it inconceivable to believe that there was not an FXO port available to him during all that working at home.

Keep in mind that on 7/12 between 6-7am there were only 2 calls on this Alpha system and both of those calls were from BC checking VM. So, what was the need to check the VM a second time. I realize that it could be as simple to delete the VM he listened to on his first call. But it is obvious that the second call to VM was not due to a new voicemail message.

 

[raisincharlie]

sorry to just barge in here - but could someone post what questions the judge asked the witness?

I noticed the word "barge" in your post - just have to say it was pointed out today Cisco phones have Cbarg - or the ability to enter ongoing phone calls and listen, without talking others would not notice you were there, they would only hear a beep or click.

Seems to me at one time they had Cisco phones and Nancy wouldn't use them because of all the beeping and clicking. Jessica Adam was also aware of this information and pointed it out to LE. Seems that has been overlooked today, just wanted to throw it out there.

 

[SleuthinNC]

That was less exciting than I had hoped.

 

[johnfear]

I think they should allow the jury a "case exception" for websleuths.com. That would really boil this down to insanity.

I see we have a second member of the ADA staff joining us today. I am curious if you could answer me a question?

Is this Zellinger's leap from J6TF and Anti-gang pros to the next big thing? I think he would make an awesome DA and possibly a judge. I think he got stuck on a stinker of a case, but imagine if this case were ADA Fitzhugh and Cummings. We'd be here on the 4th of July hoping the State was going to wrap up.

 

[johnfear]

Keep in mind that on 7/12 between 6-7am there were only 2 calls on this Alpha system and both of those calls were from BC checking VM. So, what was the need to check the VM a second time. I realize that it could be as simple to delete the VM he listened to on his first call. But it is obvious that the second call to VM was not due to a new voicemail message.

I am thinking the Alpha system could have been his secret lover chat-line.

Seriously though, the alpha system at that time of day could be benign. He'd be checking on a project or possibly to someone he knew didn't have his cellphone number or maybe even to get the results of something he didn't want to ring through via cell or home line. (I.E. something he was keeping from Nancy)

Or maybe he was just checking to see if Seth and Howard were returning his texts via phone call? :floorlaugh:

 

[Albert]

I am thinking the Alpha system could have been his secret lover chat-line.

Seriously though, the alpha system at that time of day could be benign. He'd be checking on a project or possibly to someone he knew didn't have his cellphone number or maybe even to get the results of something he didn't want to ring through via cell or home line. (I.E. something he was keeping from Nancy)

Or maybe he was just checking to see if Seth and Howard were returning his texts via phone call? :floorlaugh:

Assuming his VoIP home phone was connected to the alpha system he simply could have checked his missed calls as this gives you a timestamp of when the call was received. He was at home at the time of the second call to vm, correct? He was upstairs in his home office at the time of the second call, correct?

 

[LaLaw2000]

Someone correct me because I'm sure I'm wrong! The home phone itself could be set up to forward a call, correct? (i.e., not through the phone line but the phone itself). So is all he needs to do is set up a call to go to the landline, from either work number, cell, etc.? Would this appear to be a call dialed from the home phone or would it show up as a forward?

Hi, lunarmodule! I suggested that very thing one night and got shot down on it.

JMO, but BC prefers something much more complicated ( to me) than that. I am no computer tech or cell phone tech!

 

[gbay]

This is what I take from the Cisco employees so far:

Brad did have the ability, access to appropriate tools, and authorization to
wipe a hard drive if he decided to do so. He did not however have any ability, access, or authorization to alter, interfer, interupt, or damage any proprietary Cisco server systems.

From today's testimony I get that:

a. Brad requested a Cisco FXO port in January

b. It is, was, common for Cisco employees, because of flexible work hours and ability to work from home, that there is a significant probabilty that the FXO port was at 104 Wallsburg Court at some time or the other because of this situation and his job requirements.

c. The FXO port device is no larger than a typical cell phone which could be stuffed in your pocket, pitched out a window or otherwise hidden from plain sight on very short notice.

d. From todays testimony I get that there are numerous ways to initiate a telephone call from a landline and that Brad being equal in training and job requirements to todays witness, would be equally as capable of figuring it out as this guy is.

e. I also get from phone records that it is not "normal" for Brad to be checking his voice mail 4 times in 16 minutes on a Saturday morning prior to 0700 let alone a Saturday morning when his wife disappears.

f. I also get that Brad had every potential of initiating that call from the landline in the house. He had a Samsung Blackjack in 2008 loaded with Windows Mobile 6.0 which was one of the operating systems capable of interfacing with opitions available to switch phone calls here there and yonder.

g. Brad did have the ability, access to appropriate tools through Cisco to route, transfer, and initiate phone calls from just about anywhere either through a phone or from his computer.


From previous testimony I get that Brad worked at home alot. I find it inconceivable to believe that there was not an FXO port available to him during all that working at home.

Brad ordered the FXO card in January. We heard from Hannah Prichard that the Cooper's homephone was set up on the VOIP phones in January. It makes sense he ordered it for his residence phone setup. Nancy hated the phones and I believe the home phone number went back to a normal landline in April. The equipment could have remained in the house. The prosecution asked at the end ..."If you were using VOIP as your residental phone line would you need the FXO card and router?" and Paul replied "yes". That to me implies that the FXO card and router where in the house January until April at minimum.

 

[grommet]

We've gotten enough foundation here to build a freaking skyscraper.

Hahaha - well played! :floorlaugh:

 

[raisincharlie]

Brad ordered the FXO card in January. We heard from Hannah Prichard that the Cooper's homephone was set up on the VOIP phones in January. It makes sense he ordered it for his residence phone setup. Nancy hated the phones and I believe the home phone number went back to a normal landline in April. The equipment could have remained in the house. The prosecution asked at the end ..."If you were using VOIP as your residental phone line would you need the FXO card and router?" and Paul replied "yes". That to me implies that the FXO card and router where in the house January until April at minimum.

I agree with you 100% on that one. Can't convince me that FXO port was not in that house and wasn't used for some reason in that house. This I think Mr. Zellinger should have drove home hard.

 

[Just the Fax]

Missed most of the trial today.
As expected, it looks like they showed he had the knowledge and capability to spoof the 6:40 call. If the case rested solely on this, Brad walks. Fortunately, there is a reasonable , believable possibility Brad rigged the call, so it should not be a stumbling block in deciding his guilt in the end.....after weighing all the evidence..