State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[otto]

Oh, but Kurtz has indeed presented his suspects.

1- Hispanics
2- CD
3- JP

I'm sure he will suggest more.

I wish I could sit back and say that Brad is most likely guilty so he'll be convicted, but I can't. The problem is that this is only about the lawyers and who has the better argument. Right now, Kurtz is doing well in demonstrating that electronic evidence is not sound ... and the prosecution is relying on electronic evidence being the key point in conviction. Since it's possible that all the electronic evidence is beyond the jury, they may come down to looking at bad marriage = murder.

 

[Just the Fax]

I'm going to say again, all the RTP techies have shown up for this case because the dude worked at Cisco and they lived in Cary... so therefore, their interested in the technical aspect. My guess is, the jury, um, not so much.


~~~snipped



.

<<<:applause: >>>

 

[Danielle59]

How would CPD log into his PW protected computer to do an innocent search of the dump area:waitasec:

It was up and running when they secured the house, all they had to do was move the mouse and it would not have been protected by the password as the screen saver would not have come on. They could have then turned the screensaver off and it would not be password protected.

 

[raisincharlie]

So far, we've seen it is easy to get on a WEP network.

Next, the hacker will need to be lucky that:
1) the laptop is on
2) the laptop is connected to home network
Have the skill to:
1) defeat the cisco installed security software on the laptop.
2) know how to leave a TIF without a cookie without leaving a trace of unauthorized access

Bringing the popcorn for tomorrow.

Kurtz wants it both ways - CPD is too dumb to properly disconnect a computer and too busy framing Brad and totally inept at investigating a murder but smart enough to hack through that password and even know what the zipcode is to do a google search and then back date it so it looks like Brad did it right before lunch on the 11th. Figure that one out

 

[Just the Fax]

It was up and running when they secured the house, all they had to do was move the mouse and it would not have been protected by the password as the screen saver would not have come on. They could have then turned the screensaver off and it would not be password protected.

Guess you missed the FBI testimony?
I was there that day.

 

[Danielle59]

But they haven't proven that it was compromised have they? Just that is could have been?

It was actually compromised when they did not immediately secure it by turning it off as they were supposed to. THey could have looked at anything on it.

 

[TXredhead178]

It was up and running when they secured the house, all they had to do was move the mouse and it would not have been protected by the password as the screen saver would not have come on. They could have then turned the screensaver off and it would not be password protected.

Even if that were possible, don't you think an "innocent" searcher might concerned about a forensic exam detecting their activity, even if they tried to cover their tracks by altering dates?

 

[Just the Fax]

It was actually compromised when they did not immediately secure it by turning it off as they were supposed to. THey could have looked at anything on it.

Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.
The computer was set to a 10 minute PW protected unlock.

 

[Danielle59]

Guess you missed the FBI testimony?
I was there that day.

Regardless of the testimony of it being passsword protected, you have no idea because my understanding is that this was not discussed, if since BC was logged in to it when the CPD secured the house that you don't know if they didn't move the mouse so that the screensaver did not come on and cause the password feature to not engage. The FBI Agent was also under the impression that the laptop had been properly secured by turning it off, and he was surprised later to learn it had been up and running for 27 hours. The excuse for that being they were afraid it would corrupt data, what made the 27 hours magic? Why couldn't it have been turned off at 24 hours, or 1 hours, or 5 hours, why did they have to wait 27 hours, and what changed that date could not be corrupted at 27 hours if you want us to believe no one touched it during that time?

 

[sunshine05]

Even if that were possible, don't you think an "innocent" searcher might concerned about a forensic exam detecting their activity, even if they tried to cover their tracks by altering dates?

We will know more very shortly, hopefully tomorrow.

 

[Danielle59]

Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.
The computer was set to a 10 minute PW protected unlock.

And just because you keep saying that doesn't mean that the CPD did not touch and move the mouse which would cause the PW protection to not come on. The computer is not set up so that you have to re-enter your password every 10 minutes, it only comes on after NO activity in 10 minutes. If someone touched it before the 10 minutes occurred the password protection would not engage.

 

[Just the Fax]

Regardless of the testimony of it being passsword protected, you have no idea because my understanding is that this was not discussed, if since BC was logged in to it when the CPD secured the house that you don't know if they didn't move the mouse so that the screensaver did not come on and cause the password feature to not engage. The FBI Agent was also under the impression that the laptop had been properly secured by turning it off, and he was surprised later to learn it had been up and running for 27 hours. The excuse for that being they were afraid it would corrupt data, what made the 27 hours magic? Why couldn't it have been turned off at 24 hours, or 1 hours, or 5 hours, why did they have to wait 27 hours, and what changed that date could not be corrupted at 27 hours if you want us to believe no one touched it during that time?

Sorry, but I do indeed have an idea.
The FBI said the computer automatically locked within 10 minutes of non-use. To unlock and use the system, it would require Ctl Alt Del + PW.
What part of that is so hard to understand?

 

[less0305]

I wish I could sit back and say that Brad is most likely guilty so he'll be convicted, but I can't. The problem is that this is only about the lawyers and who has the better argument. Right now, Kurtz is doing well in demonstrating that electronic evidence is not sound ... and the prosecution is relying on electronic evidence being the key point in conviction. Since it's possible that all the electronic evidence is beyond the jury, they may come down to looking at bad marriage = murder.

Thank you - the circumstantial evidence will be what the jurors focus on, I think - and there's just so much of it along with the distinct probability that Brad spoofed the call and was the person who searched the dump site - and the distinct improbability that it would take an entire Village to set up Brad (starting with the entire CPD, the entire crime lab, a few rogue FBI, a large portion of the DA's office, all of Nancy's friends, a neighbor or two, and a corrupt judge). The jury knows the toilet needs a plunging and flushing.

 

[Just the Fax]

And just because you keep saying that doesn't mean that the CPD did not touch and move the mouse which would cause the PW protection to not come on. The computer is not set up so that you have to re-enter your password every 10 minutes, it only comes on after NO activity in 10 minutes. If someone touched it before the 10 minutes occurred the password protection would not engage.

10 minutes .
Thanks, you just proved my point

 

[sunshine05]

I'm not sure they can demonstrate to a level that will make it believable. It doesn't matter how many of us look at this witness or any other and say, "Yeah, that COULD have happened". It really only matters what the jury of 12 are willing to accept as reasonable. MOO

Exactly. And it's very similar (it seems at least so far) to trying to convince them that the call was spoofed with zero evidence. IMO, the computer hacking is just as believable (if not more so) than than the alleged phone call spoof. Especially when added to the other inconsistencies. This is a very interesting case.

 

[Danielle59]

Is it reasonable that any of the neighbors decided to mess with the computer ... one comes to mind right away. I don't know his name, but he's the guy that had quite the attitude on the stand, who I think swore a bit and who lived across the street. Is it reasonable that he, his wife and all her friends were convinced that Brad was guilty before the investigation started, and is it reasonable that this gang of neighbors matched their stories, covered for each other and gave police whatever they could to ensure that Brad was arrested? Is it then reasonable to wonder how far this gang of neighbors was willing to go to see their justice done?

After all the testimony we saw from the neighbors, I have no problem believing that they were willing to do whatever they thought necessary to have Brad convicted.

The guy that applauded when BC was arrested, I can't think of his name. His last name started with a D. He had hit on NC and grossed her out.

 

[TXredhead178]

Regardless of the testimony of it being passsword protected, you have no idea because my understanding is that this was not discussed, if since BC was logged in to it when the CPD secured the house that you don't know if they didn't move the mouse so that the screensaver did not come on and cause the password feature to not engage. The FBI Agent was also under the impression that the laptop had been properly secured by turning it off, and he was surprised later to learn it had been up and running for 27 hours. The excuse for that being they were afraid it would corrupt data, what made the 27 hours magic? Why couldn't it have been turned off at 24 hours, or 1 hours, or 5 hours, why did they have to wait 27 hours, and what changed that date could not be corrupted at 27 hours if you want us to believe no one touched it during that time?

Again, there was a time lapse between the house being declared a crime scene and the CPD obtaining a search warrant. BC also refused a consent search. From the time the scene was sealed off to the time the computers were seized, nothing should have been done to them, including powering them off. Seems like the CPD can't win either way on this with some people. Turn computers off off right away (before a SW is issued) and violate BC's rights ... wait to turn them off until they can be properly seized, and be accused of tampering. :banghead:

 

[Danielle59]

Even if that were possible, don't you think an "innocent" searcher might concerned about a forensic exam detecting their activity, even if they tried to cover their tracks by altering dates?

Who knows, I know a Blackberry was erased after a message came up saying if you do this again the device will be erased and they continued to do it again. As we now know the whole device was erased.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Again, there was a time lapse between the house being declared a crime scene and the CPD obtaining a search warrant. BC also refused a consent search. From the time the scene was sealed off to the time the computers were seized, nothing should have been done to them, including powering them off. Seems like the CPD can't win either way on this with some people. Turn computers off off right away (before a SW is issued) and violate BC's rights ... wait to turn them off until they can be properly seized, and be accused of tampering. :banghead:

According to testimony, the police showed up at his house and asked him to search at ~3:00 on the 15th. The police stayed in the house until BC left at 5:30. The house was then secured as a crime scene, with CPD continually on the scene. The search warrant was executed that night, and CPD was back in the house by 3:45am the next morning to perform the first search. They still waited until 8:30pm on the 16th to turn off the computers. What rights would have been violated by turning off the computer at 3:45am?

 

[otto]

The guy that applauded when BC was arrested, I can't think of his name. His last name started with a D. He had hit on NC and grossed her out.

Yah, that guy ... he's a good candidate.