State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[Danielle59]

Originally Posted by Danielle59
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

I didn't prove your point, you are just disregarding what could have happened otherwise because it doesn't fit your scenario. There is nothing in evidence that the mouse was not moved which makes the 10 minutes PW protection irrelevant.

 

[Danielle59]

Originally Posted by Danielle59
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?

And I am sure the FBI was correct about the PW protection, that does not make my scenario not possible, if you move the mouse the PW protection does not engage. Are you saying that they discussed my scenario during testimony? If they didn't then I was accurate in all that I said above being possible. I know you just don't want to accept any alternatives, but your snarkiness does not make me wrong or you accurate.

 

[otto]

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.

I hope we're not in the realm of everyone connected with the case is corrupt. We have a gang of neighbors convinced that they solved the case before anyone knew there was a murder. Police admitted that they have no proof that a call was spoofed ... so that pretty much means it's non-evidence. The moon might fall from the sky tonight, but there's no proof ... equally irrelevant. We have to take the word of the FBI that the zip code image was zoomed. 41 seconds isn't long enough for someone to choose a place to put a body ... so where is the earlier search where he's picked the place?

 

[otto]

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.

That's a very good example of police tampering with electronic evidence.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I hope we're not in the realm of everyone connected with the case is corrupt. We have a gang of neighbors convinced that they solved the case before anyone knew there was a murder. Police admitted that they have no proof that a call was spoofed ... so that pretty much means it's non-evidence. The moon might fall from the sky tonight, but there's no proof ... equally irrelevant. We have to take the word of the FBI that the zip code image was zoomed. 41 seconds isn't long enough for someone to choose a place to put a body ... so where is the earlier search where he's picked the place?

Isn't it a possibility that he physically chose the site as in visited that area in person and then looked on the map because he wanted to see the aerial view?

 

[ncsu95]

Interesting..as at that point Nancy was only missing..not found yet?..Do you have a link to that?..maybe it was the following weekend?? Not sure they would even be investigating Brad's activities at that point in time??? :waitasec:....or they would have seized his phone, computer back then??

I was 1 day off....it was posted in the very first thread in this forum at 6:10 am on 7/15 by momto3kids. She obviously had some information which was wrong (and there were banning galore for anyone that challenged her if I remember correctly), but it looks like the police did know about the trips and had the footage that weekend. You can find her post here.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67337&page=8

 

[TXredhead178]

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?

According to testimony, seized computers should not be powered off in the normal way, but by removing power sources/batteries and by a trained professional. Otherwise evidence could be compromised (if, say, the owner of the computer set the hard drive to wipe itself upon power-down/reboot). Why that took as much time as it did in this case, I don't know and haven't heard, but I'm sure even if this was done as early as 3:45am, there would be those who would still take issue with the 10-hour time lapse between the time the crime scene sealing and search warrant execution. I believe someone has already taken issue with a mere 10-minute lapse in the time this computer would take to automatically password lock due to inactivity.

 

[Maja]

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

Believe BC's work computer, at his office at Cisco, is where the history reflects he did a search of the area on (7.11.08) where NC's body was found on 7.14.08.

There was yet another computer at the home where someone (more likely BC) did searches for museums, plane tickets, and children's cartoon programs was done on 7.12.08.

Is this right?

 

[Danielle59]

It's a terrible habit. I catch myself doing it all the time.

They say here "so." or "anyhow." I hate it too.

 

[Danielle59]

I agree re office vs home sec. difference -- but I just can't imagine someone working in a Cisco or similar business (like many of us who know the dangers of hacking) and not being just naturally security-conscious. He certainly wouldn't want his unfriendly neighbors having any teeny tiny chance of breaking into anything he had online, so surely, Shirley, he would have had it wrapped up in some decent kind of protocol, protection, etc., etc.

Unless his harddrive was encrypted he was vulnerable.

 

[SleuthinNC]

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

A very good candidate.

 

[Just the Fax]

I didn't prove your point, you are just disregarding what could have happened otherwise because it doesn't fit your scenario. There is nothing in evidence that the mouse was not moved which makes the 10 minutes PW protection irrelevant.

So Brad was logged on and within 10 minutes CPD jumped on and started to use his computer to perform a google map search with a bogus time stamp:waitasec:

 

[Danielle59]

I just have to say, I don't think HP lied about the earrings or the pictures. She is not a jewelry manufacturer nor a jeweler. Nancy had a pair of earrings similar to hers and she assumed the backs would be the same. This makes her guilty of assuming things.

As far as the "pictures of Nancy wearing the necklace" thing goes, I interpreted that to mean "Don't send pictures of Nancy taken from the back" or "Don't send pictures of Nancy where she is wearing a winter jacket zipped up to her neck."

Mr. Kurtz had Nancy's earrings, showed them to her while she was on the stand and she admitted she was mistaken. Maybe I'm wrong.

She stated the issue about the screw back earrings as fact, if she was assuming she should not have stated it as fact, she lied.

 

[ncsu95]

Believe BC's work computer, at his office at Cisco, is where the history reflects he did a search of the area on (7.11.08) where NC's body was found on 7.14.08.

There was yet another computer at the home where someone (more likely BC) did searches for museums, plane tickets, and children's cartoon programs was done on 7.12.08.

Is this right?

Not exactly. It was a laptop that he used at work and took home with him. And there were also home computers. But the laptop with the search was seized in the home.

 

[Just the Fax]

I was 1 day off....it was posted in the very first thread in this forum at 6:10 am on 7/15 by momto3kids. She obviously had some information which was wrong (and there were banning galore for anyone that challenged her if I remember correctly), but it looks like the police did know about the trips and had the footage that weekend. You can find her post here.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67337&page=8

I heard she knew a bag boy at the store.

 

[otto]

Isn't it a possibility that he physically chose the site as in visited that area in person and then looked on the map because he wanted to see the aerial view?

41 seconds just doesn't seem long enough. He's thinking about murdering his wife and presumably he's carefully checking possible areas to put a body. This should not be a quick, random thought during a premeditated murder. All we have connecting Brad to the location where Nancy was found is a 41 sec zip code map search that FBI say zoomed directly to the correct location where she was found and then end of search. I don't find that realistic.

 

[Danielle59]

Interesting..as at that point Nancy was only missing..not found yet?..Do you have a link to that?..maybe it was the following weekend?? Not sure they would even be investigating Brad's activities at that point in time??? :waitasec:....or they would have seized his phone, computer back then??

They had a secret "security detail" on him from the first day under the guise of protecting the family. They followed him everywhere, even told how many bags of groceries he carried into the house including a small melon and some flowers. Det. Young testified about it.

 

[Just the Fax]

41 seconds just doesn't seem long enough. He's thinking about murdering his wife and presumably he's carefully checking possible areas to put a body. This should not be a quick, random thought during a premeditated murder. All we have connecting Brad to the location where Nancy was found is a 41 sec zip code map search that FBI say zoomed directly to the correct location where she was found and then end of search. I don't find that realistic.

How about the 32 sec 6:40AM 'call".
That seems way too long for a simple green juice order.
I don't find that realistic.

BTW, how would you know what is normal behavior for someone planning to kill their wife?

 

[Just the Fax]

They had a secret "security detail" on him from the first day under the guise of protecting the family. They followed him everywhere, even told how many bags of groceries he carried into the house including a small melon and some flowers. Det. Young testified about it.

Secret:waitasec:

 

[kljohnson0458]

I know I post and seems noone listens but this is my thought process. It is totally believable that someone could use their wireless network if not protected. I don't think BC would do that. We have three computers on Suddenlink network and if we do anywhere with our laptops we can pick up anyone's network connection if it isn't secured. I do NOT believe given BC's IT experience he would have that at his home. Noone sat outside his house and did a search of Fielding Drive or suicide by strangling. Kurtz is totally digging for what he can and I think the jurors know that. If I take my lap top to a campground or a hotel it picks up networks available for connection and most usually you have to have a password given to you by where you are staying to get the "best" connection. JMO

Seems to me that is trackable and the CPD sure wouldn't be googling Fiedling drive. They hadn't found her yet. I am so going to just read and not post my aggravated posts but this Jay guy seems he knows all this stuff but Brad Cooper has access he wouldn't.