State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Danielle59 said:
Who said they didn't know how to turn it off? I haven't seen that said anywhere on these boards. All I have seen, and said myself, based on testimony was that they left it on which did not follow protocol, and even the FBI agent was surprised when he heard that.
Click to expand...

I didn't say they didn't know how, I said they didn't know TO turn it off.
 
NCEast said:
I am experiencing the strangest things on here this afternoon. Some of the posts seem to be disappearing, there was a new page 33 a moment ago with a post....and it disappeared. When I refreshed, it took me back to page 32 and there is no page 33 now. Some of the posts that were on page 31 are now on page 32.
Click to expand...

I have had that too, where I read a post on one page, go to the next and I find myself reading the same posts for the first two or three, like more went on the last page.
 
3doglady said:
I don't know enough about computers to explain it. Since it was in LE's custody, it's on their back however it happened. We don't know that the file planted was the google map do we?
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about computers either, but some strange things were associated with that search. All files associated with it had invalid time stamps and the cursor file extensions had identical times for open and identical for closed hand and that would indicate a static file (unlike someone zooming in on a map) or an invalid file. The witness today corroborated JW's testimony that something was clearly wrong with these files. And when Kurtz questioned Det. Chappelle about them, he agreed the files had invalid time stamps and did not know the cause, but seemed uninterested in trying to figure it out.
 
SleuthinNC said:
I don't think the testimony is being relayed quite correctly. I thought he said the computer was still connected to the Cisco VPN which makes sense. He also said their was access to the computer via the VPN which again makes sense backups and security checks would run routinely if it was attached to the VPN. My understanding was that he said because this happened there was spoilage of the evidence. That does not mean the same thing as saying the tampering came through the VPN.
Click to expand...

I took it that way. It seemed like he said the activity at that time came through the VPN because while listening I thought it was interesting and could narrow things down. (I will listen again though).

ETA: The videos aren't up yet, hopefully soon:).
 
LAWsy_ME said:
Here's a fact.....my duck theory, proposed before I saw the ducks , now doesn't fly, (about use of one of these ducks as a weapon)
and I am willing to say that now that I have seen a picture. I missed that somehow,
when my son came home from school. These are standing ducks, not sitting ducks.... :blushing:
and it would have to be a sitting duck and smaller to fit in the hand to work.
Like others pointed out, WE don't think so, and I agree! humbled but willing to move on with no shame and willing to laugh at myself. :floorlaugh:
Click to expand...

I do get where you were going though. Her neck did not look like other necks I've seen from either manual or ligature strangulation. Remember the images of JonBenet's neck?
 
NCEast said:
I don't think we received any guidance.
Thank you for your nice reply, you are probably right.
Click to expand...

I received some "guidance" via PM. My post last night was deleted as clearly outside the TOS. The mod was professional about it and I'm not banned, but I do apologize to the mods for making more work for them.
 
Next thing you know we will see an image of Nancy Grace on a pancake pointing to the initials BC in syrup.

Things are really starting to get a little far-fetched.
 
sunshine05 said:
I took it that way. It seemed like he said the activity at that time came through the VPN because while listening I thought it was interesting and could narrow things down. (I will listen again though).
Click to expand...

I am thinking nosy Cisco folks poking through to A) get rid of proprietary information and B) poke around and see if they could find some evidence FYI.

I had been thinking undocumented "forensic preview" ala J Ice.

Now I am thinking nosy Cisco.

And note that the conspirators mysteriously jumped to the necklace being there, but "delicate and unseen". So, let's see if the CPD and THE PROS missed it if we can get some more websleuth time on the trial feed, however, I am thinking that the necklace not being objected to as being seen in the pictures (by the cops or by the pros) would probably do more to bolster the inept claims. No?
 
calgary123 said:
I received some "guidance" via PM. My post last night was deleted as clearly outside the TOS. The mod was professional about it and I'm not banned, but I do apologize to the mods for making more work for them.
Click to expand...

Sometimes our emotions get the best of us, I've had it happen too. So happy you were not banned. I like you!
 
iucpa said:
Here's an interesting comment from a July 16, 2008 story that, if true, shows police truly were zeroed in (incorrectly, we now know) on BC early on:

I work with someone who said her best friend was down at the police station yesterday getting her P.I. license. She mentioned to one of the guys there, "You guys have some action going on in Cary, huh?" He nodded. She said, "I think the husband did it." To which he replied, "We know who did it."

The police are carefully crafting their case. It is important that they be able to put this person away, and in the meantime they cannot damage their case, so they must be tightlipped and protective of their information. It doesn't mean they don't know anything. In fact, the family probably knows everything they know, and did not want Brad at that news conference. If he is guilty, and they know it, they could not stand to be in the same room as him, faking solidarity. I think that is why he was not there. The family did not want him there. But the police can't tell us that.
Click to expand...

Link please
 
Will WRAL put up Mr. Mucucci's (sp?) testimony since it was voir dire, or whatever it was?
 
johnfear said:
I am thinking nosy Cisco folks poking through to A) get rid of proprietary information and B) poke around and see if they could find some evidence FYI.

I had been thinking undocumented "forensic preview" ala J Ice.

Now I am thinking nosy Cisco.

And note that the conspirators mysteriously jumped to the necklace being there, but "delicate and unseen". So, let's see if the CPD and THE PROS missed it if we can get some more websleuth time on the trial feed, however, I am thinking that the necklace not being objected to as being seen in the pictures (by the cops or by the pros) would probably do more to bolster the inept claims. No?
Click to expand...

I don't think Cisco. The cookie associated with the search had a watermark(?)on it. Kurtz indicated that a cookie can be traceable through the search engine companies so I wonder if it will come out. He specifically talked about the cookie being traceable TO the computer it originated FROM. And the witness confirmed it. There is something very strange about the files associated with the google map search.

Why are you thinking Cisco? I find it unlikely they would mess with (what was then) police evidence.
 
gracielee said:
The prosecution would NOT question it until they had time and their own equipment to exam the image closely. As someone else pointed out, the picture the defense used on their own website to dispute the existence of the necklace, actually did have the necklace on it.
Click to expand...

They have had this evidence. It wasn't just given to them today.
 
sunshine05 said:
I don't know anything about computers either, but some strange things were associated with that search. All files associated with it had invalid time stamps and the cursor file extensions had identical times for open and identical for closed hand and that would indicate a static file (unlike someone zooming in on a map) or an invalid file. The witness today corroborated JW's testimony that something was clearly wrong with these files. And when Kurtz questioned Det. Chappelle about them, he agreed the files had invalid time stamps and did not know the cause, but seemed uninterested in trying to figure it out.
Click to expand...


I understand that something strange went on with the computer. I just don't think LE was interested in doing much of anything which was my original point I guess. With all the screw ups they have had I just find it hard to believe they are computer savvy enough to plant a file.
 
I am joining in here late. Is there a link with the documents and autopsy report that I could reference. Thank you all, for being thinkers and analysts and people who want to get to the truth, from all walks of life! Salut! Prayers to the family and friends....
 
ncsu95 said:
They have had this evidence. It wasn't just given to them today.
Click to expand...

While the prosecution is provided the pieces of evidence the defense is expected to present at trial, the defense is NOT required to tell the prosecution their theory of the crime. They are required to give the prosecution the tape from Harris Teeter, among the thousands of other pieces of evidence. They aren't required to say 'we are going to use these few seconds here to dispute the existence of a necklace.'
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 3,581 (members: 193, guests: 3,388)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
3,388
Total visitors
3,581
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,851
Messages
18,035,486
Members
229,808
Latest member
ZeroLosses
Back
Top