State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Correct. And the defense said during opening statements that Cisco searched everyone of their networks and found no indication that this had taken place.


The same defense lawyer who was chided by a judge today for making false claims...for chasing rabbits. A judge who told the jury to disregard his comments about Pearson's story changing specifically. Kurtz also made this claim in his opening.

I believe zero of what Kurtz says. Too many false claims already on his part, more to come I suspect.
 
Too bad Nancy didn't have a video cameras installed in the house after she found out Brad was cheating on her. Then maybe we'd have answers to all of our questions. As it is, we may never know.
 
How do you know it was a false claim by the defense? I think the Pearson thing was confirmed already by other witnesses. I was actually in the courtroom, and didn't hear anything about a false claim. They simply said he couldn't bring up Pearson because it would be hearsay, since Pearson himself hasn't testified yet.

I do have a suggestion, if there are things the defense (or prosecution) has mislead anyone on, lets make a running list of them, so that we can see if they're cleared up later, or just plain wrong.

Also--this is my first post to websleuths! But I've been following the case pretty regularly, and just found this site. I found the posts by SleuthyGal to be a lot more informing than any media reports I saw for yesterday's testimony. Thanks for that!
 
Since somebody mentioned the dress, maybe someone can help me with this.

I was watching BC's depos again last night (sue me, I'm an insomniac.) These were the custody depos from October. Alice Stubbs asks BC what color NC's dress from the 7-11 bar-b-que was. He says blue, or, wait for it...ORANGE!

BC is really, really, worried about that dress, IMO. So far that dress has been blue, black and orange, according to him.
 
The same defense lawyer who was chided by a judge today for making false claims...for chasing rabbits. A judge who told the jury to disregard his comments about Pearson's story changing specifically. Kurtz also made this claim in his opening.

I believe zero of what Kurtz says. Too many false claims already on his part, more to come I suspect.

In his opening, he was free to say pretty much anything, and then some (ya think?)
The good news is the length of this trial will make his opening a very distant (painful )memory.
 
...snip...
I'm not ready to throw in the towel and say the prosecution has bumbled nor that all they have is 'could'ave or should'ave.'
...snip...

Yeah, I agree. It's premature to assume the prosecution has nothing else at all (we know they must), but it is still somewhat unclear whether they indeed have smoking gun / ace spaces / nuke / wmd / whatever. Though to me, it seems reasonable to hold this until near the end, so not overly surprised they haven't unloaded just yet (setting the stage).

My other thought is that politically (putting justice aside for the moment) ... losing this case would really leave a mark (and not just a scratch on the back of the neck kinda mark...) Surely several (CW+CB+others) know that better than anyone. Lots of media (and much much more to come (see SGs post about Dateline producer being in the courtroom this week, etc...). DA never wants to lose, but this one is in the 'somewhat more visible' category...

Given that... you either have the ace... OR... for some crazy reason you don't... then wouldn't you make sure you have your most polished prosecution team in place at all times (hiring Perry himself you need to)...

Still seems reasonable to think they've got something key. (faked fax call seems more reasonable than easy-to discredit-voip spoof)...

Maybe someone in the discovery site neighborhood saw a white BMW come and go that early morning... would be a little surprising even if no one did.
 
The VOIP calls may prove to be another non-starter if they can't prove he DID spoof those calls. Being 'able to' spoof the calls doesn't prove that he did do it (even though I believe he did).

Spoofing a call is altering the calling party number, ie., the caller id. This would show as a call from X on the called party phone, however the landlline would not have a call detail record for this call. I am certain that the provider for the landline has call detail records for local calls. Therefore, I believe, that the call from the landline must have been done via the redial function. Remember that BC claims to have called his cell phone from the landline in order to locate his cell phone. After this any redial will call his cell phone. Being inclined one could construct a device that will depress the redial button based upon a timer expiring. If this is the case, and it is possible, then this would be very hard to prove that BC made the call himself from the landline. The difficulty is removed from proving this if the call detail record for the landline and the cell phone show different durations for the call. BC would terminate the call from his cell phone, the landline phone would see be offhook, duration incrementing and at some short time later the landline would play reorder tone (fast busy). I tried this on my home phone and the duration of the call on the landline kept incrementing. I think the call detail records may become very important to this case.
 
How do you know it was a false claim by the defense? I think the Pearson thing was confirmed already by other witnesses. I was actually in the courtroom, and didn't hear anything about a false claim. They simply said he couldn't bring up Pearson because it would be hearsay, since Pearson himself hasn't testified yet.

I do have a suggestion, if there are things the defense (or prosecution) has mislead anyone on, lets make a running list of them, so that we can see if they're cleared up later, or just plain wrong.

Also--this is my first post to websleuths! But I've been following the case pretty regularly, and just found this site. I found the posts by SleuthyGal to be a lot more informing than any media reports I saw for yesterday's testimony. Thanks for that!

Check WRAL twitter from the courtroom this am - were they lying ?

Even the N & O has an article about the confrontation between Judge Gessner and Kurtz.

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/18/1062932/examiner-discusses-finding-of.html
 
I think the call detail records may become very important to this case.

Great point Albert - thanks.... some subtle difference like that (indicating the 'system' terminated/timed-out the call at the home, vs person could indeed be telling... CDR records (and the details within them) could very well be significant.
 
There was a confrontation in the courtroom, and things got very heated very quickly. The judge did say he was tired of the rabbit trails, or rabbit holes, or chasing rabbits, something of that nature. But nothing was ever accused of being misleading. I do believe that tweet was either purely incorrect, or the reporter was just confused. The entire discussion centered around the admissibility of hearsay evidence of a witness who has NOT testified yet. No one ever claimed the question itself was not an accurate statement.
 
The same defense lawyer who was chided by a judge today for making false claims...for chasing rabbits. A judge who told the jury to disregard his comments about Pearson's story changing specifically. Kurtz also made this claim in his opening.

I believe zero of what Kurtz says. Too many false claims already on his part, more to come I suspect.

He didn't accuse Kurtz of making false claims. He told him he could introduce that testimony/witness during his own case.
 
<snip>

Maybe someone in the discovery site neighborhood saw a white BMW come and go that early morning... would be a little surprising even if no one did.

Kurtz did ask of Mr. Boyer, man who found the body, if he saw the white BMW on the morning of July 12th. Mr. Boyer said no. Backstory, Mr. Boyer goes to church at 7 am on Saturdays aparently, said he left his house at 6:45 am - did not see Brad's car while leaving.
 
Spoofing a call is altering the calling party number, ie., the caller id. This would show as a call from X on the called party phone, however the landlline would not have a call detail record for this call. I am certain that the provider for the landline has call detail records for local calls. Therefore, I believe, that the call from the landline must have been done via the redial function. Remember that BC claims to have called his cell phone from the landline in order to locate his cell phone. After this any redial will call his cell phone. Being inclined one could construct a device that will depress the redial button based upon a timer expiring. If this is the case, and it is possible, then this would be very hard to prove that BC made the call himself from the landline. The difficulty is removed from proving this if the call detail record for the landline and the cell phone show different durations for the call. BC would terminate the call from his cell phone, the landline phone would see be offhook, duration incrementing and at some short time later the landline would play reorder tone (fast busy). I tried this on my home phone and the duration of the call on the landline kept incrementing. I think the call detail records may become very important to this case.

I'm still thinking that a call from the fax program on his computer is the easiest and likely if he did kill Nancy. If he did arrange for a call, it would have been better if he had actually been in the store and had someone witness him on the phone. He received the call while he was still in the car. If it was a call from a fax program, that annoying sound would be on the sending end and it wouldn't be good for someone to overhear that! I will be looking forward to the testimony from the phone records and phone expert. (Hopefully it's not some undercover phone police guy.)
 
There was a confrontation in the courtroom, and things got very heated very quickly. The judge did say he was tired of the rabbit trails, or rabbit holes, or chasing rabbits, something of that nature. But nothing was ever accused of being misleading. I do believe that tweet was either purely incorrect, or the reporter was just confused. The entire discussion centered around the admissibility of hearsay evidence of a witness who has NOT testified yet. No one ever claimed the question itself was not an accurate statement.




Gessner rebuked Kurtz saying, "You have left the perception with the jury that someone has lied to this witness."


Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/18/1062932/examiner-discusses-finding-of.html#ixzz1H0FVzkge
 
Here's new evidence we haven't heard before:

"Prosecutors have spent much time eliciting information about a Naked Juice smoothie that Brad Cooper bought at the Harris Teeter the morning his wife was reported missing. Numerous times after Nancy Cooper's death and after her two young daughters went to live with her family in Canada, Harris Teeter records show bottles of Naked Juice were purchased."

"Neighbors have testified that Nancy Cooper would not have asked her husband to buy Naked Juice for the girls. Prosecutor Amy Fitzhugh tried to show this week that when Nancy Cooper and the children were in town, Harris Teeter store records show the purchase of more eight-packs of Juicy Juice apple juice."

When was this introduced???
 
Kurtz did ask of Mr. Boyer, man who found the body, if he saw the white BMW on the morning of July 12th. Mr. Boyer said no. Backstory, Mr. Boyer goes to church at 7 am on Saturdays aparently, said he left his house at 6:45 am - did not see Brad's car while leaving.

I don't know that that proves much of anything since we know where Brad was at 6:45 a.m. on that Saturday.
 
Gessner rebuked Kurtz saying, "You have left the perception with the jury that someone has lied to this witness."


Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/18/1062932/examiner-discusses-finding-of.html#ixzz1H0FVzkge

Based on the discussions going on while this was happening, I got the impression that this is actually true. That the witness WAS lied to, and that was the reason the question was asked to begin with. But I'm really not sure. I just don't believe the report was entirely accurate. I am ready for all the public witnesses though, so we can go back and look at these things!
 
I don't know that that proves much of anything since we know where Brad was at 6:45 a.m. on that Saturday.

I know, not much since there is video of his where abouts, but it was asked and answered, drama.
 
Based on the discussions going on while this was happening, I got the impression that this is actually true. That the witness WAS lied to, and that was the reason the question was asked to begin with. But I'm really not sure. I just don't believe the report was entirely accurate. I am ready for all the public witnesses though, so we can go back and look at these things!

Me to on the public witnesses. :D
 
I know, not much since there is video of his where abouts, but it was asked and answered, drama.

To me that just shows misleading questions by the defense. It has nothing to do with the crime, the victim or the defendant but he asked the nonsense question of the witness anyway. Sort of like asking the UC officer about the call to his cell while he was on his second trip to HT. This witness has nothing to do with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
140
Guests online
2,251
Total visitors
2,391

Forum statistics

Threads
592,515
Messages
17,970,192
Members
228,791
Latest member
fesmike
Back
Top