State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[NCEast]

Appears to be visible to me in the second and third photos.

Even if it's moot at this place in the trial, I hope the prosc. has done the same thing with the video as you guys have in trying to find the necklace. Good work.

 

[ncsu95]

I love that moment in that movie.

Yeah, but now you have created a problem. I can't help but read your post in the voice of Antonio Banderas.

 

[zenreaper]

I do have to head out shortly, so will just say regarding Brad's guilt or innocense..that the triers of fact (jurors) are just like us guys..some maybe use the KISS (keep it simple stupid) thought processes then others who need something hard to hang on to and yet others who look at the whole picture...
I am not trying to be argumentative..but really in truly, just because I believe Brad did this, and do feel evidence has been shown no one else could have done this..or had motive to do this..Nothings really shows that she actually went jogging that morning...(those pesky shoes could be the linch pin for some jurors)....

Banging chests of lying neighbours, friends then claiming rush to judgement, then claiming poor investigations....Put it aside then and look at the evidence..shoes (2 left shoes missing)...known computer/voip gear missing/ cleaning frenzy, lack of report of her missing and so on..will likely be enough for some..not necessarily all...

I keep saying, it is always up to the jury to decide..not myself nor any of you as to whats really important..as we (the royal we) run on emotion, and instincts..Facts can be spun, or restated and interpreted by us..Fact is ..It will the Jurors who decide..

With that I off like a dirty shirt...Catch ya all later :seeya:

What is REALLY scary about this opinion is that the "evidence" that is listed as the reasoning is SO false.

 

[johnfear]

Yeah, but now you have created a problem. I can't help but read your post in the voice of Antonio Banderas.

I can do an avatar screengrab of Kurtz and Daniels if that will give you better choices.

(I, too, read my posts before publishing in the voice of Antonio Banderas...and sometimes Elmer Fudd)

 

[sunshine05]

FYI - JA talking about the necklace and how NC never took it off, and also her discussion of the ducks and sticks that were there on the 11th.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9274055/#/vid9274055
(Ducks and sticks at approx 5:30-6:42)

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9273562/#/vid9273562
(necklace at 31:00-32)

 

[johnfear]

What is REALLY scary about this opinion is that the "evidence" that is listed as the reasoning is SO false.

Can someone PLEASE tell me where to find either a reporting of the two left shoes or see video on it? I swear I am seeing it quoted here that it was still in play and that it had been ruled out as a size thing or that it was irrelevant.

TIA.:maddening:

 

[kljohnson0458]

Can someone PLEASE tell me where to find either a reporting of the two left shoes or see video on it? I swear I am seeing it quoted here that it was still in play and that it had been ruled out as a size thing or that it was irrelevant.

TIA.:maddening:

Eye_believe can probably tell you. He seemed to be so totally enthralled in her autopsy. Why?

 

[otto]

I'm not seeing the necklace

No amount of messing with vibrance, contrast, levels, curves, channels or anything else seems to bring out anything that looks like a necklace.

 

[skaylie693]

I'm here for Nancy, the murder victim in this case. I believe Bradley killed her. Sneaky tactics employed by the defense that get shot down by the judge make me VERY happy. Justice for Nancy. Remember her??

I'm here for Nancy, the murder victim in this case as well. I'm believing more and more that Bradley did not kill her. Sneaky tactics employed by the prosecution that get don't get shot down by the judge make me sad that this is the condition of our court system today. Justice for Nancy. Of course we remember her. Let's make sure we get justice by having the right one pay the price. Whether that's Bradley or someone else....

 

[zenreaper]

Now, I work in computers (not NEARLY at the level BC and those folks do). I have said from the start that the time stamps and other stuff was just a computer glich.

But I think what is happening is that we are looking SO deep into the computer stuff that we are missing the BASICS of networking. Now most of us have a home network, either wired or wireless (I have both). And MOST of us that use wireless, use the commercial WPA or WPA2 security. In other words, you have the stuff YOU put on your network, and if a friend comes over with a laptop, or with a WiFi phone, they try to connect, it asks for a password, you give them the alph-numeric code you set up when you installed the router.

Now, in order to believe that BC accessed the PC while it was in evidence, you have to believe that a POLICE STATION, with a lab specifically designed for computers, also has a COMPLETELY UNSECURED wireless network. Now many places of business have mulitple wireless networks for different uses. They might have a highly secured one for company business, a lighter secured one for personal employee use, and an OPEN one for the general public (such as in becoming more common in bars and books stores, etc). But I would doubt a POLICE station would have an OPEN network. What would be the reason? SO that perpetrators could surf the net while awaiting booking?

Now, ON my network (I have one private network), I can see who is CURRENTLY connected, and who HAS connected and has permission to connect again, etc. I would think that a POLICE STATION would have something similar.

People seem to be talking about this "Cisco VPN" like it is a MAGIC connection, but while you CAN make a secure connection over the Cisco VPN, you STILL have to have the network connection to the PC in the first place. Its not like an astronaut could take the PC to the moon, turn in on, and someone in Miami, working for Cisco, can access it.

 

[Maja]

I'm not seeing the necklace

No amount of messing with vibrance, contrast, levels, curves, channels or anything else seems to bring out anything that looks like a necklace.

That's one angle...

 

[3doglady]

[/ATTACH]

Otto,

I think this is where some posters see the necklace(someone correct me if I'm wrong). In the first photo there is a faint dark line leaning to the right side of NC which would work since you can tell by her shoulder she is leaning that way. Sorry for my poor drawing skills in the second picture. Hope this helps.

 

[cityslick]

That's one angle...

The point is who you are going to put on the stand that's going to say conclusively there is a necklace there? In those photos you posted earlier, there may be a necklace there, but I can't be 100% certain. I don't even know if I'm 50% certain.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Now, I work in computers (not NEARLY at the level BC and those folks do). I have said from the start that the time stamps and other stuff was just a computer glich.

But I think what is happening is that we are looking SO deep into the computer stuff that we are missing the BASICS of networking. Now most of us have a home network, either wired or wireless (I have both). And MOST of us that use wireless, use the commercial WPA or WPA2 security. In other words, you have the stuff YOU put on your network, and if a friend comes over with a laptop, or with a WiFi phone, they try to connect, it asks for a password, you give them the alph-numeric code you set up when you installed the router.

Now, in order to believe that BC accessed the PC while it was in evidence, you have to believe that a POLICE STATION, with a lab specifically designed for computers, also has a COMPLETELY UNSECURED wireless network. Now many places of business have mulitple wireless networks for different uses. They might have a highly secured one for company business, a lighter secured one for personal employee use, and an OPEN one for the general public (such as in becoming more common in bars and books stores, etc). But I would doubt a POLICE station would have an OPEN network. What would be the reason? SO that perpetrators could surf the net while awaiting booking?

Now, ON my network (I have one private network), I can see who is CURRENTLY connected, and who HAS connected and has permission to connect again, etc. I would think that a POLICE STATION would have something similar.

People seem to be talking about this "Cisco VPN" like it is a MAGIC connection, but while you CAN make a secure connection over the Cisco VPN, you STILL have to have the network connection to the PC in the first place. Its not like an astronaut could take the PC to the moon, turn in on, and someone in Miami, working for Cisco, can access it.

This is all very good information but the theory is that the computer was tampered wit while under the control of CPD still inside of BC house.

 

[otto]

[/ATTACH]

Otto,

I think this is where some posters see the necklace(someone correct me if I'm wrong). In the first photo there is a faint dark line leaning to the right side of NC which would work since you can tell by her shoulder she is leaning that way. Sorry for my poor drawing skills in the second picture. Hope this helps.

Compared to the image of her wearing the necklace, I think that's assumes the chain is longer than it is. Let me see if I can do a comparison.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Now, in order to believe that BC accessed the PC while it was in evidence, you have to believe that a POLICE STATION,

People seem to be talking about this "Cisco VPN" like it is a MAGIC connection, but while you CAN make a secure connection over the Cisco VPN, you STILL have to have the network connection to the PC in the first place. Its not like an astronaut could take the PC to the moon, turn in on, and someone in Miami, working for Cisco, can access it.

(snipped portions to deal with two points)

I believe that the access is believed to have happened during the 27 hours that the computer was still on the network in Brad's house. At that point it was technically in police custody even though they had done nothing with it.

 

[sunshine05]

More JA necklace testimony. This is discussion of her statement in Oct. 08, I believe it would have been after the autopsy so it was known the necklace was not found with her. She states that she is certain that NC never took it off from the time she received it in 10/07 until the time of her death and then gives several instances when she had it on, including the night of the party. So add this to my thread from last night about how much of an impact JA has had on this case.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9273562/#/vid9273562

Start at around 44:00 to approx 47:00.

 

[RR0004]

Unless you lived with BC, you don't know what his "normal" behavior is with regards to things such as laundry, cleaning, or anything else done on a day to day basis in that house. Yet that hasn't stopped people in here or in the trial from talking about his actions being things he doesn't really do. You have no idea. The only person that would know is dead.

Well I have lived in pretty much the same situation and I can tell you that I doubt very much he would be doing HER laundry.
I am very willing to look at the evidence. I can see mistakes made on both sides-prosecution and defense. I am worried that the prosecution has failed to make their case. But, I can weigh evidence and still conclude that I believe BC was responsible for Nancy's death...and no amount of bullying will change that for me. Healthy dialogue is so much more productive. I am always open to that.

 

[3doglady]

Compared to the image of her wearing the necklace, I think that's assumes the chain is longer than it is. Let me see if I can do a comparison.

Problem I had with that is trying to adjust for the different angle of NC's neck and body.

 

[3doglady]

The point is who you are going to put on the stand that's going to say conclusively there is a necklace there? In those photos you posted earlier, there may be a necklace there, but I can't be 100% certain. I don't even know if I'm 50% certain.

Hopefully their image is better than ours. I think someone said earlier that we are looking at a video of a video.