State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

[sunshine05]

Here are my thoughts on this afternoon's testimony, which is the first of the trial that I have listened to.

- I think it's safe to assume that there won't be smoking gun evidence on the computers or elsewhere to prove that he spoofed the call. The prosecution kind of tossed out a grab bag of possible ways that it could be done, much of which would probably be overwhelming for non-technical jurors. If they have definite evidence that proves that he spoofed the call, then they know how he did it and they [hopefully] would have limited the testimony to that one way instead of opening the fire hose on the jurors.

- It was puzzling why they discussed some of the options when, from what I've heard of other testimony, those options are impossible. And I also don't know why the defense didn't point that out in cross. E.g., they were discussing things like click-to-call, telnet, and various other things being done from his Blackjack. If any of those were done, there would be data access at 6:40 in the AT&T logs. It is my understanding that there were no data calls at that time, but that is just what I've read here. So, it seems that you can toss out all of the possibilities that require data access from the Blackjack at the time of the possibly spoofed calls.

- The discussion about the wireless VoIP phones seemed like a red herring too. The prosecution was careful in the way that he asked the question. He asked if those phones could be used "remotely" and Paul said "yes". But, he didn't ask anything about distance. The maximum range for 802.11g is measured in hundreds of feet, not miles. If the access point were outside and the phone outside, the best case distance is probably around 300ft. With the AP inside and the phone outside, less that that. Probably 150-200ft. So, Brad would have had to be within a football field distance from home to have used those phones to do it. Again, I don't know why the defense didn't point that out unless they are saving that kind of ammo for later or something.

- The voicemail stuff actually became less suspicious for me. When they started down that path and were talking about individual keys pressed, etc, I thought we were about to get something meaty. Like he wasn't really checking voicemail but was instead using some other fancy features of the system. But, when all was said and done, the keys pressed show that he was just checking and deleting voicemail and sending himself a test message.

Of course the 6 voicmail calls in 20 mins and the fact that he was doing it at that hour is suspicious in and of itself, but I was just surprised to find that as far as the Cisco access at least, he was in fact checking voicemail.

Thanks. Good summary. I'll bet the defense didn't even know that information about the maximum distance (I sure didn't).

I just listened again to the section on the 23 second limit for this type of automated call and it seems like the 32 second call was just about ruled out, although he didn't know anything about seizure times. Then they went on to discuss how no calls like this were found on any Cisco IT managed systems for the two clusters(??) during the time in question.

It seems pretty solid.

(It started at 44 minutes into the last recording of the day.)

 

[Tink56]

I don't think they are very large...here's an example...8" X 10"

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=router&cid=16362613695425164468&os=tech-specs

CORRECTION: The Cisco 3800 series IS bigger.

http://www.router-switch.com/cisco3825-p-257.html

 

[Cheyenne130]

Listen again. He said a number of times that the type of router required was different from those that he had seen photos of and those that were entered into evidence. Specifically, he said that the FXO that was purchased could go in a 28xx (2811, 2831, 2851) or 38xx router.

I'll admit that my listening was not 100% today but when Zellinger had up the picture of the Time Warner modem and asked how that would connect to the FXO port, no mention of router was made. It makes me wonder what the jury took away from this.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I don't think they are very large...here's an example...8" X 10"

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=router&cid=16362613695425164468&os=tech-specs

Sigh. I posted earlier a photo of a Cisco router exactly the minimum size of the one that Paul said would have been needed to use the particular FXO that Brad purchased in Jan. The post is here.

 

[sunshine05]

Not that I know of. But there are random senseless crimes all over the place. If this would have happened somewhere other than Cary I bet the police would have looked at other leads as well.
I lived in Raleigh and an innocent girl in my apartment complex was murdered by a stranger in the complex's gym for no reason at all. Random acts of violence by strangers happen all of the time

Like Chandra Levy.

Although in this BC case, I don't necessarily assume it was a stranger. I just don't think it was BC.

 

[sunshine05]

I'll admit that my listening was not 100% today but when Zellinger had up the picture of the Time Warner modem and asked how that would connect to the FXO port, no mention of router was made. It makes me wonder what the jury took away from this.

I think Kurtz summarized it succinctly at the end of the questioning. It was clear.

 

[less0305]

Not that I know of. But there are random senseless crimes all over the place. If this would have happened somewhere other than Cary I bet the police would have looked at other leads as well.
I lived in Raleigh and an innocent girl in my apartment complex was murdered by a stranger in the complex's gym for no reason at all. Random acts of violence by strangers happen all of the time

Random acts of violence by strangers do happen all the time, but then let's see how it narrows down for:
RAVBS on a victim who is going through a contentious divorce and custody dispute narrows the percentage somewhat.
RAVBS on a victim who had audible fight with husband whom she declared she hated on the night before narrows that percentage even more.
RAVBS on a victim who had just called a realtor about needing to move out ASAP narrows the percentage down a tad more.
RAVBS on a victim who was last seen by her hated husband would chip off a few more percentage points.
RAVBS on a victim whose husband didn't report her missing, but rather her friends did - deduction in percentage.
RAVBS on a victim whose husband hijacked her e-mail account to be forwarded to his own - minus some percentages.
RAVBS on a victim whose husband removed her from all access to joint funds except whatever allowance he deemed necessary - enough to keep her from "escaping" the hell hole she lived in narrows the field.
RAVBS on a victim who feels she needs to lock her bedroom door, push furniture in front of the door, sleep in a pair of jeans with her car keys in the pocket when she is in what should be the safest environment - her home would knock off a few percentage points.

With what we know so far, I could reduce the percentage chance of a random act of violence by a stranger on Nancy by - to use an old southern slang - a group (means a whole lot).

 

[LyndyLoo]

Acutally in the Lochmere area there I usually run on the sidewalks / running areas on the main drag of Lochmere Drive, etc, but also run on the many trails off of Lochmere drive which are much more isolated. Many runners in this area do this. So, in answer to your question - both isolated and more frequented areas.

Only problem with unknown mugger in an isolated jogging area would be the need to remove shoes, underwear, shorts, ponytail claps, yet NOT take her diamond earings??..and IF this was a mugging or rape..there would have been evidence of trauma to those vital area's which they could not determine apparantly due to decomp...But the BIG GUY did say Blow flys migrate to open area's when laying eggs..so you would expect colonies to her "private area,s" which there wasnt......only back of her head and the obvious facial orifices..I was trying to be as delicate as I could describing this..I apologise if it was offensive :-(

IIRC, I read somewhere that Cary in this particuar area wasnt a high crime zone..am I completely wrong?? TYIA

I think Brad somehow counted on having more time..and he prayed her remains wouldnt be found for longer period of time..BUT unfortunately..His brain thinking didnt consider emotional thinkings of her friends and LE..Too bad..Soo Sad :rocker:

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think Kurtz summarized it succinctly at the end of the questioning. It was clear.

I listened to that part and I would say it's not all that clear. I still came away with the impression that he could have done it but it was not proven that he had done it.

 

[raisincharlie]

I vote for dumping in a garbage dumpster outside of lifetime fitness or regency park or wendys right there next to the school.. when the girls were with him.. it was wrapped in a grocery bag in the car and he just got out and tossed it.. they were too small to know what he was doing.. just throwing something away.. Cisco did not keep track of their equipment and it didn't need to be signed out.. dude dumped it!

May I recommend that you watch this segment of Gilralt's testimony again, from 17 minutes through 21 and half or so.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9400209/#/vid9400209


His testimony makes it pretty plain that an FXO port could have been attached to the Time Warner modem to initiate the phone call. The photos are from Brad's home office and you will find the Time Warner modem is actually located in his home office. Seems to me the router issue is a non starter since Gilralt testified it could be accomplished this way. He also indicated it would show up on the Time Warner system as a phone call from the landline.

With that said, I vote for he pulled the FXO port and that is all he decided he needed to hide, dispose or whatever. While LE did not find the FXO port in the house, they also did not find it in his office at Cisco. Where is it I wonder.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I understood the witness this afternoon to say that the FXO was the only thing needed to make the call when looking at the equipment in the house. He testified that the FXO was about the size of a postcard and would fit in a pocket. Where was the necessity of the router introduced?

The FXO goes into the router. He talked about it and how the router could also run the call manager express, well Unified Communication Manager Express to be official. I think he specifically talked about 2800 series routers as an example.

 

[Maja]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3210710/#/vid3210710

In this video of the site where NC's body was found I finally got the answer as to whether the drainage ditch was dragged. I see here it was drained. The white cloth where the two men are standing: What is that for? I've attached an image. Does anyone know exactly where her body was found at the scene? Understand she was found head toward the ditch of water.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I don't think they are very large...here's an example...8" X 10"

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=router&cid=16362613695425164468&os=tech-specs

That is a netgear small consumer router. The FXO was for a large Cisco router. They are the size of a large pizza box, a little thicker and heavier.

 

[sunshine05]

They were. But, do you remember what we've got for a party time-line? I know BC left at 10ish to go read NC's emails, but do we know what Nancy's time was at the party?

I'm pretty sure DD said she arrived at around 6 with the kids because BC arrived about an hour later and left after an hour, around 8PM.

 

[Maja]

May I recommend that you watch this segment of Gilralt's testimony again, from 17 minutes through 21 and half or so.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9400209/#/vid9400209


His testimony makes it pretty plain that an FXO port could have been attached to the Time Warner modem to initiate the phone call. The photos are from Brad's home office and you will find the Time Warner modem is actually located in his home office. Seems to me the router issue is a non starter since Gilralt testified it could be accomplished this way. He also indicated it would show up on the Time Warner system as a phone call from the landline.

With that said, I vote for he pulled the FXO port and that is all he decided he needed to hide, dispose or whatever. While LE did not find the FXO port in the house, they also did not find it in his office at Cisco. Where is it I wonder.

@ Approximately 20:20 mark: FXO port about the size of a post card or cell phone and can fit in a pocket.

 

[SleuthSayer]

May I recommend that you watch this segment of Gilralt's testimony again, from 17 minutes through 21 and half or so.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9400209/#/vid9400209


His testimony makes it pretty plain that an FXO port could have been attached to the Time Warner modem to initiate the phone call. The photos are from Brad's home office and you will find the Time Warner modem is actually located in his home office. Seems to me the router issue is a non starter since Gilralt testified it could be accomplished this way. He also indicated it would show up on the Time Warner system as a phone call from the landline.

With that said, I vote for he pulled the FXO port and that is all he decided he needed to hide, dispose or whatever. While LE did not find the FXO port in the house, they also did not find it in his office at Cisco. Where is it I wonder.

You are misunderstanding what was said. It is true that you connect the FXO to the TWC cable modem. That is, the wire goes from the FXO card to the cable modem. But, the FXO has to be in some router.

It's like saying that your PC monitor attaches to a video card. That's true, but the video card has to be in a PC to be of any use.

This is an example of what everyone is referring to as the FXO looks like. As you can see, it is a card that has to go in some router. Paul testified that such a router was not part of what was removed from Brad's home. Of course that does not mean that it wasn't there on 7/12.

 

[SleuthinNC]

May I recommend that you watch this segment of Gilralt's testimony again, from 17 minutes through 21 and half or so.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9400209/#/vid9400209


His testimony makes it pretty plain that an FXO port could have been attached to the Time Warner modem to initiate the phone call. The photos are from Brad's home office and you will find the Time Warner modem is actually located in his home office. Seems to me the router issue is a non starter since Gilralt testified it could be accomplished this way. He also indicated it would show up on the Time Warner system as a phone call from the landline.

With that said, I vote for he pulled the FXO port and that is all he decided he needed to hide, dispose or whatever. While LE did not find the FXO port in the house, they also did not find it in his office at Cisco. Where is it I wonder.

The router is 100% required. The FXO card goes inside the router. A cable connects the FXO port to the Phone Line / TWC Modem. The FXO does not do anything on its own without the router.

 

[sunshine05]

I listened to that part and I would say it's not all that clear. I still came away with the impression that he could have done it but it was not proven that he had done it.

How? If you watch from 44 minutes on, everything is covered.

The call in question is on the TWC phone bill and the cell phone record. He didn't have the right router to do this, the call in question was too long and all of Cisco worldwide was checked and there is no record of an IT managed system call at that time.

This is critical to the state's case, so they *had* to try to show he *could* do it, but they failed to do so.

 

[Cheyenne130]

How? If you watch from 44 minutes on, everything is covered.

The call in question is on the TWC phone bill and the cell phone record. He didn't have the right router to do this, the call in question was too long and all of Cisco worldwide was checked and there is no record of an IT managed system call at that time.

This is critical to the state's case, so they *had* to try to show he *could* do it, but they failed to do so.

I disagree. Listening to all of it, the expert was unaware of seizure time. The expert had no idea what equipment Brad had in his house at 6 a.m. on July 12, 2008 so he couldn't testify to whether or not he had the right router. He testified that the call could have gone through a call manager that was not on the IT managed system. It was all answered in direct and the defense did not negate that.

 

[SleuthinNC]

And if you continue watching, the router is taken out of a box and the items are placed in line in the order that would be required to do this from Brad's home office. He acknowledges there was no FXO port on the router as it was but he also never says the router shown could not be equipped with a FXO port.

So I stand by my thought, it could have been done because he is talking about the equipment from Brad's home office and that it could be used with the Time Warner modem to make the call, the only thing missing is the FXO port, which as stated before was not found at the home, nor was it found in his office.

The FXO port could not be used in that router for 2 reasons:

1. The 871W Router does not support an FXO line card

2. The FXO line card in question is for a 2800 or 3800 series router.

It may be confusing, but those are the facts.