State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaryFrom NJ said:
As much as I hate to say this, but don't you think JY did a bit of lying himself when he basically said he didn't know what a sim card was; or that he "accidentally" deleted everything off the phone?? I hate to say he was a LIAR, but I personally think he didn't tell the whole truth.

I don't think a lot of the "friends" were liars per se, but just that they stated things on how they wanted them to be seen / heard but not truly in the way they actually occurred. Again, a bit of embellishment.
Click to expand...

In my mind, once you start embellishing, especially in a case like this, you are lying. When you change the facts to get an outcome that you want, it is a lie. I agree Young lied also.
 
Cheyenne130 said:
There was no way to wipe from that phone who was called at what time and date and what number called in at what time and date. They have the duration of the calls incoming and outgoing. The have the numbers to and from for text messages. The "deletion of the phone to cover up evidence that BII" is so far out there they may as well ask Elvis what he thinks. MOO
Click to expand...

It was a smartphone, you have no clue what was on her calendar, what text messages may have said, what pictures she had. They also did not subpeona the detailed records of her phone which would have allowed us to know where she was when she received or made calls. You can't say there was no evidence on that phone.
 
Bottle Cap said:
I have a sneaking suspicion that when this is all over, should there be a NG verdict, a certain someone is going to be reading all this and snickering smugly to himself at all the people who are so very ready to defend his honor. In true psychopath style, he'll view everyone as quite gullible and not nearly as smart as he is.
Click to expand...

I understand there are people that think he's innocent, and they are entitled to that opinion, but I think most pointing to a NG verdict are doing so because the prosecution hasn't proven guilt. I've read numerous posts over the past couple of weeks about how all of the CE is just too coincidental and how it can only point at Brad, but take the guilt-colored glasses off for a minute and think if JP was on trial here. You don't think the police could uncover a ton of insinuating evidence that could sway people to think he was guilty?

He lied numerous times about their Halloween encounter, he had a conversation with NC about paternity concerns, they started talking again in the months/weeks leading up to her death, he knew her jogging routes, etc. There may not be any hard evidence against JP, but there's not any against Brad, either.

Just because the police centered on the likely suspect and made a quick arrest without slam-dunk evidence doesn't mean he was the only suspect. That's why we're even talking about a NG verdict the night before closing arguments. If LE and the DA office had truly done their homework, this lingering gray cloud of doubt wouldn't be stationed above the Wake County courthouse.
 
Cheyenne130 said:
I thought that the search warrant that everyone keeps referring to that was after the phone was wiped was for the memory card (not sim card) in the phone.
Click to expand...

Tell us why first they waited until August to look at the cell phone that they had since the day she turned up missing? Second tell us why they did not get a search warrant before they even started playing with the cell phone? Third, tell us why protocol on handling the cell phone was not followed?
 
Danielle59 said:
It was a smartphone, you have no clue what was on her calendar, what text messages may have said, what pictures she had. They also did not subpeona the detailed records of her phone which would have allowed us to know where she was when she received or made calls. You can't say there was no evidence on that phone.
Click to expand...

We must be watching two different trials because I saw cell tower evidence of where she was when she sent/recieved calls. The records were subpoeaned. Maybe the defense didn't make a big deal because it didn't help their case.
 
Cheyenne130 said:
So what is your final evidence analysis of this "watermark"? How did it come to be an invalid "watermark" and explain to the populace exactly what this invalid "watermark" means in terms of a google cookie. TIA
Click to expand...

What ever CC was about to testify to when the pros objected so loudly and ferociously that I nearly wet myself and I am pretty sure Kurtz meowed at.

I didn't even know where they were going. Some of it got in, but it didn't make sense.
 
Cheyenne130 said:
I disagree. The prosecution proved plenty. Many didn't want to acknowledge and prefer to accept the defense version of non-evidence. MOO
Click to expand...

As opposed to the prosecution version of non-evidence?

Look at this, it's a rug. Do you recognize this rug as the one from the Cooper home? Yes? Ok just checking, nothing to see here.

look at this "hair" from the trunk of BC car. Now look closely, this is going to be fascinating. We have determined that this particular hair...is a fiber from the trunk lining.

Now here we have something substantial. We found green vegetable matter on the tire. (lots of discussion here about how this could prove she vomited avocado salad) Yes now if you look closely you will see...a blade of grass!

We observed BC with scratches on his neck! Upon further investigation they were determined to actually be rub marks, no broken skin. move along nothing to see here.

We know BC killed NC and there was a struggle in the foyer because JA told us the ducks were missing. Well now we all know how that turned out don't we. Cummings summed that up quite eloquently.

BC was mean mean mean. He took NC off all the bank accounts. Pay no mind to the fact that she chose not to get an account of her own. She was trapped.

and on and on and on...
 
Cheyenne130 said:
Only one claimed "tampering". The other claimed "spoilage" which he said is because the computer was not powered down in the first minute after the home was secured and before the search warrant was served. (Like they really could have gone in and touched that computer before the search warrant was served. The defense would have LOVED that because then they could have had ALL the computer evidence thrown out.)
Click to expand...

You have no clue if they looked at the laptop or not, you just want to believe they didn't. There was evidence that emails were read after it was in CPD custody when they were talking about that spoilage. Can you explain that?
 
Danielle59 said:
Tell us why first they waited until August to look at the cell phone that they had since the day she turned up missing? Second tell us why they did not get a search warrant before they even started playing with the cell phone? Third, tell us why protocol on handling the cell phone was not followed?
Click to expand...

First tell me why you think I could answer those questions? Do you think I'm a member of the prosecution team?
 
Cheyenne130 said:
When did those "indications of tampering" occur? Do you think Brad tried to delete those files but wasn't successful?
Click to expand...

Were you watching the trial? The indications of tampering were while it was in the custody of the CPD.
 
johnfear said:
And I that you are not infuriated by Boz Zellinger's interactions concerning the technology in this case.

And to you and Maddy, I say respectfully:

Why did the prosecution not make it very clear for us and bring in a single Google representative capable of the following:

1) That is our watermark. The invalid time stamps are an error that occurs sometimes when _________.

2) This search occurred from Cisco Building __________ at IP address ________ from __________ MAC address.
Click to expand...
The traffic would have been routed to Google. So, in the exceptionally unlikely case that they are storing data about every search, they certainly wouldn't have a MAC address.
 
Danielle59 said:
You have no clue if they looked at the laptop or not, you just want to believe they didn't. There was evidence that emails were read after it was in CPD custody when they were talking about that spoilage. Can you explain that?
Click to expand...

No. Because I have no idea what you're talking about.
 
johnfear said:
What ever CC was about to testify to when the pros objected so loudly and ferociously that I nearly wet myself and I am pretty sure Kurtz meowed at.

I didn't even know where they were going. Some of it got in, but it didn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Who is CC? (You lost me.)
 
Cheyenne130 said:
That's not true. Too much time elapsed to recover the actual text of the text messages. Detailed phone logs are available for a long time. Heck, as the account owner Brad could go online and look at the phone records. It would give all of the info that I presented.
Click to expand...

She was correct, it was too late to retrieve the information. Brad's records on line would not have shown her text messages on her phone, the details of them. Also, the police for some reason unknown, did not subpeona the detailed records of her phone, why? By the time that CPD told the Defense about deleting all the information it was too late to get the detailed records, the detailed records would have included all the cell tower information. Brad's online account would not have ever shown that information.
 
Danielle59 said:
Were you watching the trial? The indications of tampering were while it was in the custody of the CPD.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was. Did Brad still have access through the VPN while that computer was on the VPN Cisco network for those 27 hours? Is that why he called SH, another Cisco employee with VPN access in order to have a place to stay? Maybe??
 
Brad's behavior showed consciousness of guilt in everything he did from the moment NC went missing. The cleaning, not talking to her parents, not talking with the police, not showing emotion, not attending all the memorials, not acting like a husband that had a missing wife. He will be found guilty because of his behavior not the computer evidence. The state of his marriage will not be lost on the jurors. I
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 156 more.
Total: 3,382 (members: 157, guests: 3,225)

Online statistics

Members online
157
Guests online
3,225
Total visitors
3,382
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,460
Messages
18,024,977
Members
229,657
Latest member
nikishaF
Back
Top