State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[SleuthinNC]

I heard that they were both delivered together in the same box. He signed for them and dated the box...Jan. 8/2008. He should have brought the box to court I guess.

They definitely were not delivered in the same box. They would have been in individual boxes.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Which he said he would return as soon as his 2800 came in. With the inventory control the way it was, why is it implausible that BC brought it back just like he said he would when his 2800 came in a week or so later?

Heck, BC could have sold it and this witness/Cisco would have been none the wiser without this trial. That chat session tells us absolutely nothing about what happened to that 3825 beyond the day of the chat.

I believe we still have two other Cisco employees to testify in rebuttal. My guess is that this is a foundational witness to testify to how and when the 3825 came to be in Brad's possession at his house.

 

[macd]

I have a legal question while we're on break. I'm not being snarky or trying to start the necklace is/isn't debate again. If the SA has an expert enhance the video and sees a necklace how would he introduce the enhanced image? Wouldn't the expert have to testify and wouldn't that expert have to be on the witness list already? Even if they could get a clear picture I don't see the point in introducing it because the necklace has been found. Just wanted to know how they would get it in.

It would clearly be within the scope of rebuttal. It was presented in the defense case in chief.

The question before the judge would be to weigh probative value vs. potential prejudice.

I think it's extremely probative. It relates to a theory that both sides have proffered: whether a necklace is always worn or not.
Potential prejudice is minimal. Defense has had access to the video for a long time.

 

[gracielee]

Okay, I was hesitant to post this because it may fan the fire. This info could be used by both sides of the fence here, the BDIers and the BIIers.

Not stating any particular company here. However, people in asset recovery at large technical companies recover $1 million+ worth of equip. per month...each person.

So on one side, it's not shocking that an $11K piece of equip would pass around employees. On the other side, it could also be argued this is why it took Cisco so long.

There is also the 'yet one more coincidence' involving brad cooper, IMO.

 

[ncsu95]

I disagree - it shows that the last record of that router was it leaving the building with Brad.

If the router then appears to be logging on to the Cisco network, or being accessed via BC's laptop - then it will continue to show us a whole lot of information.

And FYI - Cicso should be able to say when the invoice was paid - invoices don't get paid (even internal req's) without confirmation of delivery. So - that should confirm receipt of both routers in January.

I'm not arguing against the testimony. But there were no records of equipment leaving the building at all other than a chat session saying he borrowed one. But as the witness testified, there was no logging for equipment being taken or returned.

 

[jrb0124]

And FYI - Cicso should be able to say when the invoice was paid - invoices don't get paid (even internal req's) without confirmation of delivery. So - that should confirm receipt of both routers in January.

I agree. I'm surprised there was no documentation re: PO date, shipping, payment offered by the pros aside from screen shots of an inventory management webpage.

 

[Madeleine74]

Something (be it a piece of computer equipment or anything else) isn't 'missing' until one goes to look for it and isn't able to find it. THEN it takes on the label of 'missing.' One may find it or one may never find it.

Greg M. wasn't looking for that 3825 router until someone asked him to. He looked. He can't find it. He found reference to it in a chat log with BC. He found the box for it. It's not in the lab, it's not in any of the 3 storage closets he/his group uses.

Thus, it's missing.

 

[sunshine05]

Wasn't expecting this witness.

 

[gracielee]

Damn, just about to say 'do you detect his australian accent'? But my phone rang.

 

[RaleighNC]

Loving his accent!

 

[Danielle59]

He is saying he and JA moved the furniture at 7 am, but JA testified she did not even get out of bed until 8am. Someone is not telling the truth.

 

[jrb0124]

Conspiracy now involves:

- CPD
- Wake County DA and all their ADAs
- All NC friends and family
- All of Cary, NC
- Cisco RTP
- Durham (because one guy who worked with the FBI is a member of DPD and you know, Nifong used to be the DA there, so everyone who lives or works in Durham is corrupt)
- Possible Cisco Chicago, Cisco San Jose

yep. The whole world is out to get Mr. Cooper.

Who's "conspiracy" theory are you commenting on?

There is a difference between conspiring (would involve all these entities colluding) and the concept that one or more could have mishandled evidence - intentionally or not - independent of one another.

I don't there are any posters suggesting that group you mention acted in unison, and I think its both disingenuous (and suggestive of a lack of understanding) to say so.

 

[jrb0124]

He is saying he and JA moved the furniture at 7 am, but JA testified she did not even get out of bed until 8am. Someone is not telling the truth.

Kurtz just called him on it - he was unaware his wife testified they were both in bed at 8 AM.

 

[metafizik]

Kurtz: one router could have several MAC addresses because of the ports on it?
Witness: not sure
Kurtz: 3825 has 50 separate ports can it not?
Witness: not sure opf specs
Kurtz: 3825 can have 50 different MAC addresses can it not?
Witness: not sure

Kurtz: are you aware of specific order number? (for router)
Witness: no
Kurtz: if rec'd from manufacturer date is listed as Sept 2008 for the particular rotuer you are referring to...that would indicate the router is not inventoried until September would it not?
Witness: no idea what rec'd date would be, box we found had delivery date of January 2008

hrmm....

Who is this witness? If he is a Cisco employee he sure is playing dumb. Obviously every interface will have a unique MAC address.

 

[SleuthinNC]

FYI no such thing as a PXE firewall.

Carry on

 

[kljohnson0458]

Kurtz just called him on it - he was unaware his wife testified they were both in bed at 8 AM.

Just in general, who's not to say that they woke at 7, JA said we need to move the furniture, NC is coming to paint. They could have been lying in bed talking. I don't find this at all earth shattering.

 

[cityslick]

Just in general, who's not to say that they woke at 7, JA said we need to move the furniture, NC is coming to paint. They could have been lying in bed talking. I don't find this at all earth shattering.

Talking in bed awake for an hour? Were the kids not awake?

 

[RaleighNC]

Who is this witness? If he is a Cisco employee he sure is playing dumb. Obviously every interface will have a unique MAC address.

there are lots of Cisco employees who might not know that.... as this would be outside of their area of expertise, but they may be very technical in other areas.

 

[fran]

From a juror's standpoint, IMHO, the hour's difference on when the Adams got up on that Saturday, isn't going to be a big deal. Seven or eight is early for a Saturday morning, no matter which way you say it.

JMHO
fran

 

[SleuthinNC]

Who is this witness? If he is a Cisco employee he sure is playing dumb. Obviously every interface will have a unique MAC address.

Maybe he really doesn't know and that's why he did no pass the CCIE.