State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe you've forgotten that Brad professed to *love* HM. Still in Jan. 08, Brad told Nancy he was in love with HM.

His affidavit says he never said that, one of her friends testified to that and we know how many of their testiments have been proven incorrect. They didn't have a real affair, unless you want to call NCs night nekkid on the couch with JP an affair too.
 
The prosecution's timeline only makes sense if BC was something like batman and if you watch a lot of condensed courtroom drama (in my head).

I don't think someone of his skillset (even with lies being a "skill") could pull the entire thing off in under 12 hours and not leave but a few hints by themselves.

I think the google search is probably a series of honest mistakes. It was probably something that BC googled the day he was informed of a body find. Cary police used some amateur technique to prove it and ruined or spoiled the hard drive of the Thinkpad.

It being on 7/11 is too convenient. I think DCC thought it was too convenient and the Pros went to great strides to hide the rest of the information there. (I know, only the defense is allowed to smokescreen)

Couple that with Howard Cummings "honest responses and excited utterances" towards the end of the trial....

There are entirely too many things that do not make the clearcut "If____ then ____" that everyone wants it to be. This whole case makes me sick. I go back and forth and am sick that NC may not get any justice (nor her family) and then I go back and forth that we might convict someone for being an ________ (expletive here) that isn't a murderer but appears to be.

It's never clean "if_____then_____" unless the perp confesses. It is the job of the defense to obfuscate. They did what I considered to be an "eh" job of that but obviously others here bought it hook, line and sinker. It remains to be seen if the jury was so swayed.

I still am AMAZED that anyone (and especially those of you with computer skills and knowledge) have been bowled over with the defense muddy water computer stuff.
 
The real corruption started in Canada. When Garry R got a phone call during a funeral that his daughter was missing..and he turned to his wife and said this story is not going to have a happy ending!
 
What is the poll supposed to be:

1) Whether you think he's guilty
2) Whether you think that the prosecution proved that he was guilty
3) What verdict you think that the jury will return

?

Checking the wording of both polls, it's just asking more/less binary question #1. [ WS is currently @ 32% of 104 NG, Twitter is holding steady @ 82% of 386 NG ].

#2 is a different question, (but I suspect, if asked, would trend the same way, and if anything higher % of NG. Several comment that he's probably guilty, but concede they would have to vote NG if on jury)

#3 is also a different question (and would have different response choices), and the answer is ultimately the only one that really matters.

If jury folks are more like those responding to the WS folks, then, initial straw poll that they will do tomorrow could be 4 against 8, NG. If jury folks are more like the "140 chars or less set", then tomorrow's straw poll will be 9 against 3, NG.

Probably it will be somewhere in between those two points... given the JFF (jury fatigue factor), I think whatever side takes initial majority will probably have good footing, but in the end, it only takes 1.
 
His affidavit says he never said that, one of her friends testified to that and we know how many of their testiments have been proven incorrect. They didn't have a real affair, unless you want to call NCs night nekkid on the couch with JP an affair too.

he confessed in counseling that it was a two year affair and that he was in love with HM...that is when Nancy found out her marriage was beyond repair
 
also, why did no one call Google into this?

You telling me Google could not clarify that search for the pros?
Google says that it gets several hundred million searches per day. Let's call it an even 2 million. So, in the time between 7/11/2008 and now, they would have had about 1.97 trillion searches. Doesn't seem practical to save info about every one of those searches perpetually.
 
I need to see a point by point assertion to answer that question.

Death is a messy business, doesn't it bother anyone that there is no forensic evidence of a crime scene?

That the trunk was dirty, not show room clean as some have stated, but no evidence of her being moved in it? Not even fiber from a bedspread as I have heard on this site?

That they did not pull up the floor boards in the foyer to look for bodily fluids between the boards where you can't clean since that is what we are supposed to believe is the crime scene?

Doesn't it bother anyone that the tire tracks at the location she was found were too narrow for either of their vehicals?

Then there is the issue of the foot prints at the scene, not castable, but being smaller than his foot?

That a condom found near the body was dismissed.

That JA didn't want anyone else to speak to the police without going through her?

That JA called her Friday night knowing she was at a party to ask her to come to her house?

That no one else knew about her plans to supposedly paint at JA's on Saturday morning, yet we are supposed to beleive that she told all her friends all her plans?

That the Lopez guy remembered having a specific conversation about NC saying she had plans to jog on Satruday morning, then suspiciously changed that recollection after talking to his wife, and assuring the CPD that 100% of his recollections were correct but that one?

All the lies by JA in her affidavit and to the police, such as BC never attended his children's bday parties, that he never cared for the children, and the lies go on and on?

That HP stated as fact that NCs earrings were screwbacks when they were not?

Doesn't it make you wonder about all the testimony that has now been proven as false, such as the necklace never being taken off, the ducks not being missing, BC not calling NC while she was on vacation the week before, and so on?

That CPD erased her blackberry and before they even had a SW?

That CPD didn't request detailed records on her cell phone and then waited to late to tell anyone about the erasure until it was too late to get better detailed records?

That the CPD didn't tell anyone about the erasure for so long?

That CPD will not release the chain of evidence records on the laptop?

That the securing of the laptop was so out of protocol? That it even started the FBI agent when he learned of that?

That NC had not contacted her divorce attorney in months? Yet we are supposed to believe her leaving him was imminent?

That a man's children were taken from him before he was even supposedly considered a suspect? If we are to believe the CPD testimony?

That a man was arrested on gossip evidence?

That JP was not investigated? Especially considering his interview we heard with the CPD?

That there is no proof of her calling the realtor and saying she had to find something immediately, yet she also did not call her attorney?

That she, NC, supposedly said she was unable to open a bank account but Mrs. C was?

That the husband was the only one zero'ed in on while no one else was even investigated?

That despite 2.5 years to investigate that much evidence was not collected until the end of last year, for example, soil samples? Soil samples that were then compared to shoes that did not seem to be worn that day?
 
It's never clean "if_____then_____" unless the perp confesses. It is the job of the defense to obfuscate. They did what I considered to be an "eh" job of that but obviously others here bought it hook, line and sinker. It remains to be seen if the jury was so swayed.

I still am AMAZED that anyone (and especially those of you with computer skills and knowledge) have been bowled over with the defense muddy water computer stuff.

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.

How hard and expensive would that have been? Or is Google covered by National Security as well.

If there was not something hinky about it THEY would have, in light of all the other screw ups in this case.

Do you have anything that can combat that for me? I am open to it.
 
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.

How hard and expensive would that have been? Or is Google covered by National Security as well.

If there was not something hinky about it THEY would have, in light of all the other screw ups in this case.

Do you have anything that can combat that for me? I am open to it.

Why didn't the defense? We were told (rumor) that the defense had a google expert on their witness list. Did he not tell them what they wanted to hear?
 
If there is any tampering on that computer in that 27 hour period, I believe it was done by Brad.

Here's a conspiracy for everyone that is so accusatory of the police. How did Brad come to be staying with SH? Were they best buds? I went back and listened again and SH indicated that Brad called him indicating he needed a place to stay. SH worked for Cisco but he was not that technologically adept according to his testimony. But he did work from home, for Cisco. What a convenient coincidence for Brad. MOO

If you really think Brad hacked into his own computer why was it not even brought up by the State? He knew SH, their children knew each other, they were friends, the State had his car, so he went to stay with someone he knew who worked at Cisco. Cisco has thousands of employees in the area. Not everything is a convenient coincidence. You want him guilty so bad that you are making things that are normal into things that become nefarious. Who should he have stayed with?
 
Google says that it gets several hundred million searches per day. Let's call it an even 2 million. So, in the time between 7/11/2008 and now, they would have had about 1.97 trillion searches. Doesn't seem practical to save info about every one of those searches perpetually.

Horse feathers. I have seen it used in dozens of cases. They recently bragged about being able to do so.

Horse Feathers to google, not you, Sleuth. I think there would be some way to find it in the massive data mine they have going. (Again, that ship has sailed, but I am telling you guys, something crazy was going on with that Data and it was not that they thought Jack Bauer would be in danger nor kiddy *advertiser censored* manufacturers would suddenly glean useful information from someone in the computer forensics field seeing the method)
 
The same could be said about the prosecution in this case.

I disagree. The prosecution proved plenty. Many didn't want to acknowledge and prefer to accept the defense version of non-evidence. MOO
 
and also admitted 2 year affair! wonder why she hasn't been involved in any of the proceedings

There was no two year affair. They had an encounter twice, once in the closet and once in the car, it sounded like she serviced him both times.
 
Why didn't the defense? We were told (rumor) that the defense had a google expert on their witness list. Did he not tell them what they wanted to hear?

Even if they don't verify the search. Verify the watermark. Even the FBI couldn't do that.
 
If he was wanting to do anything with the computer, he had access to it up until 7/15. Why did he wait until CPD took over his house?

And, if they had followed protocol he wouldn't have been able to access the computer, even if you do suspect him.

And if we are to believe their Brad did everything, then Brad must have known the CPD were inept and not going to follow their own secret protocols. I am not sure how he knew that.
 
Do you know that he didn't do anything to the computer during the time he had access up until 7/15? I think the defense witness testified that the invalid timestamps were from 6/23 on. What files were deleted or in some way altered to cause all those invalid timestamps going back to June 23rd?

The expert said all the changes took place while the laptop was in the CPD custody. Do you have evidence that he did anything to after they had it in their custody? The burden of proof is on you since you are making the accusation.
 
Even if they don't verify the search. Verify the watermark. Even the FBI couldn't do that.

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
 
The expert said all the changes took place while the laptop was in the CPD custody. Do you have evidence that he did anything to after they had it in their custody? The burden of proof is on you since you are making the accusation.

What created those invalid timestamps from June 23rd on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
3,495
Total visitors
3,644

Forum statistics

Threads
592,613
Messages
17,971,749
Members
228,844
Latest member
SoCal Greg
Back
Top