State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[jrb0124]

I think if they go this way they should stick to the irate neighbor concept. If CPD were looking to plant evidence, it seems they'd plant some physical evidence and be done with it.

To me they are trying to pour water into an upside down bucket unless they can show the system WAS hacked and things actually altered, or produce the neighbor who did it.

I don't think they have to suggest tampering, there may have been no tampering.

I think they will show network intrusion (i.e. the real MAC of the device accessing) which then casts doubt on the integrity of all resources within that network.

 

[Madeleine74]

There's no proof Cooper had WEP security on his network before someone examined it. He could have just as easily have had WPA2 running and then changed it to WEP after the murder, to make it look less secure.

Using someone's wireless signal is not the same as accessing their computer. A person would still have to know how to hack into a computer and get through whatever security software might be blocking them.

And that said, I doubt anyone was using the Cooper wireless network and certainly not trying to hack into his laptop to plant incriminating Google searches. Talk about a stretch.

 

[otto]

Now the question is, which neighbor not only hated Brad enough to do this, but was savvy enough?

My husband knows the details of this case because I keep updating him, whether he wants me to or not. I asked him, if he was a juror, and this defense was presented to him, what would he think. LOL accurately represents his response. Surely, if this is what Kurtz is hanging Brad's future on, he's been figuring out who the "real killer" is because without proof a neighbor did this, they will be laughing in the jury room.

Reasonable doubt is what the jury needs, not proof. If they have reasonable doubt that Brad did the search (which zooms right into location of the body even though there's no prior search on any machine), they may wonder if one of the neighbors was crazed enough to hack in and plant some zooming evidence.

 

[MrsWendy]

In theory, one of the friendly neighbors may have decided that they had to help the police along a little with evidence ... and now we know how quick and easy it is to hack in and mess with the machine.

Perhaps. But the defense needs to do more than show that it's possible. They will need to prove that it was actually done.

For me, this is no different than the prosecution showing that it was possible for Brad to fake the 6:40 phone call but not proving that he did.

 

[otto]

There's no proof Cooper had WEP security on his network before someone examined it. He could have just as easily have had WPA2 running and then changed it to WEP after the murder, to make it look less secure.

Using someone's wireless signal is not the same as accessing their computer. A person would still have to know how to hack into a computer and get through whatever security software might be blocking them.

And that said, I doubt anyone was using the Cooper wireless network and certainly not trying to hack into his laptop to plant incriminating Google searches. Talk about a stretch.

Stretch or not, it looks like that is what defense lawyers are arguing.

Isn't that what the testimony just demonstrated ... that someone could hack into my computer and search maps, and that search would be buried somewhere on my machine history?

 

[jrb0124]

Using someone's wireless signal is not the same as accessing their computer. A person would still have to know how to hack into a computer and get through whatever security software might be blocking them.

Depends on the network and how its configured. You'd be surprised.

 

[ncsu95]

So nice to have a step by step tutorial for all the wanna be hackers!

You do realize this info is readily available, right?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGty4YW4UMM&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euEHOefRPe8&feature=related[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW0WRZoLUBk&feature=related[/ame]

and on and on and on

 

[Wyn]

Reasonable doubt is what the jury needs, not proof. If they have reasonable doubt that Brad did the search (which zooms right into location of the body even though there's no prior search on any machine), they may wonder if one of the neighbors was crazed enough to hack in and plant some zooming evidence.

I don't think this will give them reasonable doubt either. The operative term being "reasonable".

 

[LyndyLoo]

Defense is going to have convince at least one juror that a neighbourhood geek could get past these experts ( Brad's expertise) and not know anything about it, and that even the FBI couldnt find or identify any intrusions either??
No need to prove, only convince one that Brad is not so smart when it comes to computers systems...:waitasec:

Tomorrow should be very interesting indeed...wonder just how Boz Zell.. will handle the cross exam??

 

[ncsu95]

The distance would limit the pool of people who could do it in their houses, and I wonder if any in that 100 meter or so range were some of those involved in all the drama. Also, for purposes of the theory, it wouldn't have to be a neighbor I suppose as it could have been anyone with a motive who got their laptop close enough to do the deed - could be done while sitting in a car.

I haven't seen anything at all that would make me think this is in any way what happened, but they have shown it could, at least to the point of getting into the network.

You don't have to live within 100 meters. You just have to be within 100 meters. Easy enough to sit in a car with a laptop and do this. I'm not claiming it was done...just saying it is easy to do.


ETA: I realized after I hit send that you were basically saying the same thing.

 

[TXredhead178]

I think if they go this way they should stick to the irate neighbor concept. If CPD were looking to plant evidence, it seems they'd plant some physical evidence and be done with it.

To me they are trying to pour water into an upside down bucket unless they can show the system WAS hacked and things actually altered, or produce the neighbor who did it.

I agree. The problem with taking this tack is, to make it convincing, I think you'd have to show that whoever it was knew enough about BC's whereabouts / phone / other activity on 7/11 (and we're talking about what anyone would know on or before 7/16, when the computers were seized) so that they could plant evidence with a timestamp at which point BC was known to be in the office, and not out to lunch, not on a phone conference, etc. And on top of that, this individual would need to be so cunning about it, that this sort of tampering would not be detected by the FBI. I'm not even sure anyone at CPD knew the complete details of BC's 7/11 whereabouts by 7/16, let alone a neighbor with an axe to grind. I think it's a real long shot.

 

[jrb0124]

Perhaps. But the defense needs to do more than show that it's possible. They will need to prove that it was actually done.

I can't imagine they would have him up there as a witness just to show us it "can" be done. Remember, his testimony was slated for 6 hours. I think we're at the mid-point of this particular line of questioning.

 

[ncsu95]

I think if they go this way they should stick to the irate neighbor concept. If CPD were looking to plant evidence, it seems they'd plant some physical evidence and be done with it.

To me they are trying to pour water into an upside down bucket unless they can show the system WAS hacked and things actually altered, or produce the neighbor who did it.

I think it is the same mode the prosecution was in with the spoofed calls. Here is how it could have been done, so you can't take the 6:40 call from Nancy as being real. Well here is how easy it is to break into a wep protected network, and hear are modified files, so you can't believe the google search results.

 

[ncsu95]

There's no proof Cooper had WEP security on his network before someone examined it. He could have just as easily have had WPA2 running and then changed it to WEP after the murder, to make it look less secure.

Using someone's wireless signal is not the same as accessing their computer. A person would still have to know how to hack into a computer and get through whatever security software might be blocking them.

And that said, I doubt anyone was using the Cooper wireless network and certainly not trying to hack into his laptop to plant incriminating Google searches. Talk about a stretch.

And there was no proof he had an fxo card and cisco router in his house on the 12th. It's the same exact argument...just being made from the other side. If he was going to change it after the murder, why not change it to no security.

 

[sunshine05]

Perhaps. But the defense needs to do more than show that it's possible. They will need to prove that it was actually done.

For me, this is no different than the prosecution showing that it was possible for Brad to fake the 6:40 phone call but not proving that he did.

Kurtz said in opening statements (I know, I know, all lies) that JW would PROVE that BC's history files were altered. He didn't say "show how".

 

[Just the Fax]

I don't think this will give them reasonable doubt either. The operative term being "reasonable".

This what I mean about insulting the jurors intelligence.
The idea a neighbor somehow cracked into his Cisco computer to frame him is so far fetched, Kurtz may as well say it could have been some extraterrestrial being. :ufo:

 

[LyndyLoo]

I think it is the same mode the prosecution was in with the spoofed calls. Here is how it could have been done, so you can't take the 6:40 call from Nancy as being real. Well here is how easy it is to break into a wep protected network, and hear are modified files, so you can't believe the google search results.

But that is a double edged sword isnt it..IF a nosey neigh could do this..then why not Brad..as he was the one who would benefit from having an alibi by this same evidence..and how would the neighbour know that Brad even went to HT twice and what times in order to spoof activities on his computer..Dont think LE even knew about HT video as of July 16th..?? Let alone call logs of AT&T and other data info??? Kurtz better be careful just how he handles this expertise..IMO of course

 

[jrb0124]

This what I mean about insulting the jurors intelligence.
The idea a neighbor somehow cracked into his Cisco computer to frame him is so far fetched, Kurtz may as well say it could have been some extraterrestrial being. :ufo:

The defense doesn't have to suggest someone framed him, just that the integrity of the evidence was compromised. Pretty simple.

 

[ncsu95]

But that is a double edged sword isnt it..IF a nosey neigh could do this..then why not Brad..as he was the one who would benefit from having an alibi by this same evidence..and how would the neighbour know that Brad even went to HT twice and what times in order to spoof activities on his computer..Dont think LE even knew about HT video as of July 16th..?? Let alone call logs of AT&T and other data info??? Kurtz better be careful just how he handles this expertise..IMO of course

Yes they did. Their were reports on here that weekend about the HT visits.

 

[jrb0124]

Kurtz said in opening statements (I know, I know, all lies) that JW would PROVE that BC's history files were altered. He didn't say "show how".

Speaking of history files, I bet thats waht happened with NC laptop - BC was pulling up the history of sites she visited, which could be explained given the circumstances.