State v Bradley Cooper - 3/25/11

[SleuthinNC]

Regarding the defense claim that someone must have hacked into BC's home network and left incriminating evidence on his (work?) computer here's why that is simply not possible:

1. As a Cisco employee who works from home, Brad would be required to use proper security protocols, which includes using a protected network.

2. To access anything within the Cisco network from home, Brad would be going through yet another secure layer (called 'VPN'). This stands for 'virtual private network.' It's the standard used by companies to make sure everyone accessing the company network from outside the company is authorized and the connection is secure and protected.

3. Even if Brad did not get onto the Cisco servers at work early on 7/12 and only used his regular Internet connection at home, his Cisco laptop would have all kinds of special security software on it to make sure only an authorized user could get to it. It would require knowing a password to log on. My company uses a similar approach.

Therefore, if the prosecution can put someone on the stand to verify that Cisco employees are required to use secure wireless networks and confirm that there is special security software on all Cisco laptops, the defense will not be able to reasonably claim that someone hacked into Brad's computer. It simply did NOT happen.

Note: Brad said he was working in his office...this is the location he puts himself as he's 'bouncing around on the Internet, searching Google.' That means he was not using the Apple laptop downstairs.

Again why i believe the thinkpad focus is a diversion.

As far as being upstairs, a Macbook is pretty darn portable it is not a stretch to think he was using it and then brought it downstairs. Not to mention the Macbook was attached to an external hard drive.

Edit: just thought about it, the Macbook could have been downstairs and he could have still been using it while upstairs via remote desktop. His physical location doesn't tell us much.

 

[uncfan]

I'm intrigued about the trunk of the car. BC says he spilt gasoline there and cleaned it up. Did he say when this happened? Why did he have gasoline there? Weren't there photos of their yard showing high grass, suggesting no recent yard work? If he recently went to a gas station to buy gas in a portable container (usually <2gal), this might be traceable via credit card records.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Again why i believe the thinkpad focus is a diversion.

As far as being upstairs, a Macbook is pretty darn portable it is not a stretch to think he was using it and then brought it downstairs. Not to mention the Macbook was attached to an external hard drive.

Edit: just thought about it, the MACBOOK could have been downstairs and he could have still been using it while upstairs via remote desktop. His physical location doesn't tell us much.

The point is...Brad was on a secure network at home. His routers would also be secure. His wireless network was secure. He might have also had firewalls installed. He would not and did not leave that network open for public access. It would have been against his company's policy. It would have been counter to any tech engineer to do such a thing. It is unreasonable, IMHO, to think anyone could (or even would have) 'hacked' into that network AND taken control of one of his computers to do Google searches of the body dump site, leaving incriminating Google searches on any computer in that house. DID NOT HAPPEN.

I predict the prosecution will show Google searches on BC's computer which show him looking for places to dump NC's body on or around 7/11 - 7/12. I believe one of those searches will show the map of Fielding Dr.

And once they do that, there is simply no explanation that will point to these searches being innocent OR done by anyone else (for some strange reason).

 

[SleuthinNC]

The point is...Brad was on a secure network at home. His routers would also be secure. His wireless network was secure. He might have also had firewalls installed. He would not and did not leave that network open for public access. It would have been against his company's policy. It would have been counter to any tech engineer to do such a thing. It is unreasonable, IMHO, to think anyone could (or even would have) 'hacked' into that network AND took control of one of his computers to leave incriminating Google searches on any computer in that house. DID NOT HAPPEN.

A. that's assuming had a single network in the house, he clearly had more than one.

B. How do we know it is not a defense claim to again cause undo focus and time to be spent investigating the thinkpad while taking focus away from the more likely suspect computers.

Maybe they find out he was looking at her email. Is it more important to find out that he was snooping at email or that he had a complex system in place to actually place the morning calls? I would be much more swayed by the latter.

 

[SleuthyGal]

It's not the examination of the complex system...it will be the GOOGLE SEARCHES on either 7/11 or the early morning hrs of 7/12 looking for a dump site (to include a map of Fielding Dr).

The defense will try to say someone else hacked into BC's network and put these Google searches on one of his computers.

That assertion is ridiculous and, IMHO, will not work.

IF there were Internet searches that show someone was looking for a place to dump a body AND the search included Fielding Dr, it was Brad who did those searches. Period.

 

[cityslick]

The point is...Brad was on a secure network at home. His routers would also be secure. His wireless network was secure. He might have also had firewalls installed. He would not and did not leave that network open for public access. It would have been against his company's policy. It would have been counter to any tech engineer to do such a thing. It is unreasonable, IMHO, to think anyone could (or even would have) 'hacked' into that network AND taken control of one of his computers to do Google searches of the body dump site, leaving incriminating Google searches on any computer in that house. DID NOT HAPPEN.

I predict the prosecution will show Google searches on BC's computer which show him looking for places to dump NC's body on or around 7/11 - 7/12. I believe one of those searches will show the map of Fielding Dr.

And once they do that, there is simply no explanation that will point to these searches being innocent OR done by anyone else (for some strange reason).

I agree with you that if they find those searches were done in the early morning hours of 7/12, it'll be hard to explain that away. If they find searches were done on a much earlier date, the defense could use the explanation that they were looking at potential homes at The Oaks, especially if they have data on he actually visited websites specific to that subdivision.

 

[jumpstreet]

The murderer always misses something though, don't they? In cases like this, they always find evidence. I can't believe they ignored the shop vac after learning how clean the trunk was. Does that make any sense?

No it doesn't. I have a shop vac and that thing will suck anything up. My husband used to go over all our furniture prior to Christmas and it got every single cat hair.

Maybe the shop-vac is still sitting in the garage, and they can go check it now. Is the house still considered a 'crime-scene'?

 

[SleuthinNC]

It's not the examination of the complex system...it will be the GOOGLE SEARCHES on either 7/11 or the early morning hrs of 7/12 looking for a dump site (to include a map of Fielding Dr).

The defense will try to say someone else hacked into BC's network and put these Google searches on one of his computers.

That assertion is ridiculous and, IMHO, will not work.

IF there were Internet searches that show someone was looking for a place to dump a body AND the search included Fielding Dr, it was Brad who did those searches. Period.

I guess we will have to see what the evidence actually shows. So far the defense tactic has been to protest loudly on things that are relatively meaningless and to present outrageous claims (they didn't look at any evidence) to have the prosecution come back and prove they spent tons of time looking at things (lots of evidence presented with zero link of BC to the crime) and defense response is basically "oops, my bad"

The strategy has worked for them so far so it will be interesting to see if something is different here and there actually is some compelling evidence. I would love to see some.

 

[sunshine05]

In Kurtz's opening (I believe it was part 3) he talked about the network not being secure and he even said that BC gave his password out to neighbors so I don't think they are talking about his Cisco computer. He claims his witness will prove that CPD tampered with his files/history.

 

[JiminWilton]

I predict the prosecution will show Google searches on BC's computer which show him looking for places to dump NC's body on or around 7/11 - 7/12. I believe one of those searches will show the map of Fielding Dr.

Wasn't Fielding Drive a new road? Would Google have updated their map to reflect it?

 

[sunshine05]

Maybe the shop-vac is still sitting in the garage, and they can go check it now. Is the house still considered a 'crime-scene'?

There is someone else living in it. It was sold, I think in '09.

 

[sunshine05]

If we think he was so smart to be able to spoof a call, why would he be so stupid as to google a spot to dump a body? He had to know they would suspect him and see that. I will be surprised if it's something like that.

 

[SleuthyGal]

In Kurtz's opening (I believe it was part 3) he talked about the network not being secure and he even said that BC gave his password out to neighbors so I don't think they are talking about his Cisco computer. He claims his witness will prove that CPD tampered with his files/history.

Lie, lie, and more lies.

NO WAY did BC give out passwords to his network. NO.WAY. Sorry, that's just laughable. :floorlaugh:

And again, against his company's policy. He did not. I don't care what Kurtz said in his opening. His opening is NOT evidence and that's just another red herring. Sorry, not buying that garbage.

 

[SleuthyGal]

If we think he was so smart to be able to spoof a call, why would he be so stupid as to google a spot to dump a body? He had to know they would suspect him and see that. I will be surprised if it's something like that.

Smart people are not infallible. Smart people still do dumb things. And even dumb people occasionally do smart things. Think the IQ of everyone in jail is under 90? Think again.

 

[Just the Fax]

In Kurtz's opening (I believe it was part 3) he talked about the network not being secure and he even said that BC gave his password out to neighbors so I don't think they are talking about his Cisco computer. He claims his witness will prove that CPD tampered with his files/history.

It is true Kurtz said he had a password protected router and that the password was compromised. I use a VPN to access my company network from my work laptop, as well as any computer using remote desktop.

As far as Kurtz proving CPD (or anyone else) "tampered" with his files/history, I don't believe that for a minute. To do so would mean they added something incriminating and I don't think that happened.....not to say Kurtz won't try to say they did.

 

[rwesafe]

It's not the examination of the complex system...it will be the GOOGLE SEARCHES on either 7/11 or the early morning hrs of 7/12 looking for a dump site (to include a map of Fielding Dr).

The defense will try to say someone else hacked into BC's network and put these Google searches on one of his computers.

That assertion is ridiculous and, IMHO, will not work.

IF there were Internet searches that show someone was looking for a place to dump a body AND the search included Fielding Dr, it was Brad who did those searches. Period.

I did not get to see the last hour of the trial yesterday. I can't find anything about the hacking of BC's service or Google searches. Did they find something that I missed that would lead the defense to claim a hacking?

 

[Just the Fax]

Wasn't Fielding Drive a new road? Would Google have updated their map to reflect it?

Yes, ADS proved the new cul de sac was on the map in 2008.

 

[Just the Fax]

Maybe the shop-vac is still sitting in the garage, and they can go check it now. Is the house still considered a 'crime-scene'?

The house was cleared and sold long ago.

 

[sunshine05]

Also, my husband works for Cisco. We use Roadrunner. He said a modem comes in and has a Cisco Router that has 2 interfaces. One is for VPN and Cisco phone (VOIP) and the other is straight TWC and he puts a home router on there. That is what we use for home/personal. That one is not very secure because at times when I couldn't get on with our password, I was still online so I was on one of my neighbors networks temporarily.

He said that is how he does it, maybe some employees don't split it that way, but he likes to split work stuff from home and it also makes things faster on our personal computers.

I think I explained that right.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm intrigued about the trunk of the car. BC says he spilt gasoline there and cleaned it up. Did he say when this happened? Why did he have gasoline there? Weren't there photos of their yard showing high grass, suggesting no recent yard work? If he recently went to a gas station to buy gas in a portable container (usually <2gal), this might be traceable via credit card records.

The front yard was "manicured" according to testimony. So maybe he mowed the front but not the back.