State v Bradley Cooper 5-3-11
- Thread starter cityslick
- Start date
New Posts
-
TX - Four deaths in 2023 and five in 2022 in similar location of Lady Bird Lake, Austin
- Latest: whinewiththegravy
- Status
About 9:50am
NCEast
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 7
IIRC, around 9:50 or a few minutes before or after.
kljohnson0458
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 734
- Reaction score
- 0
Your synopsis of the 32 second call is quite good Kurtz. I'm glad you heard a recording of it. Pffffffft.
Palomine
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,291
- Reaction score
- 3
he has been on for about 45 mins which means break in about 15 mins
Here is my very rough trabscription so far for those who cannot listen right now:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
collect evidence, safeguard, come to conclusions based on fact - fundamental principles of law enforcement.
when rules followed crimes get solved, guilty arrested and convicted
when rules not followed, they fit facts to fit conclusion - innocent ppl charged w/crimes guilty walk free
a nightmare and threat to us us all - exactl what CPD has done
from moment JA called CPD and accused BC of having something to do w/NC disappearance, series of unstoppable events...innocent man's life dimished...guilty parties remained free...vengeance became the law of the day
justice sacrificed on the alter of vengeance
because BC and NC heading for divorce - BC immediately suspect
KL immediately asked BC what did you do?
GR immediately said to wife this will not end well
DD, CD, HP & rest jumped to conclusion BC must have killed NC from the moment the case started
JA held court in Coopers front yard w/i earshot of BC
In another time/age pitchforks, instead they came at him w/rumors gossip computer
synched stories by email, used teleconferencing to keep in touch
mark Twain - liecan make it halfway around the world before truth can put on its shoes
clicque created a mythology about BC and NC
CPD asked friends and neighbors about BC and NC, pattern of different statements - those who knew them longer were more truthful, others had divorce colored glasses (Brad did It) glasses
CPD interrogated BC in his home repeatedly, questions were not geared towards missing person investigation
prosecution bgan with interrogation who in their eyes already guilty
outcome predetermined..
no surprise clique spread stories through gossip, accepted as gospel by CPD - considered rumors and hearsay to be evidence
CPD filtered evidence as it came in so those things helpful to BC filtered out of reports, hurtful to BC left in reports
CPD from the start w/filter in place encourage NV friends to provide them w/more and more info, they asked the type of Q's which would elicit negative info
CPD/pros will tell you they do not have to prove every single fact or talk to every witness - unreasonable, perhaps our expectations to high? but this is not what we see here, we see an amazingly detailed investigation with a focus to specifically develop evidence on BC
used cunning navigation to avoid people and facts which did not fit their theory
In worst cases this type of investigation leads to 'virtual" justice, appears to be so but not
in order to prove BC killed NC police had to prove NC did not go jogging, that's what they set out to do
3 ppl testified NC had plans to exercise 7/12 RL, MH, CPD never spoke with oldest daughter did not ask her if she saw her mother
Did not follow up w/ppl who thought they saw NC jogging until much later (3 months+0
Even when they did follow up did not show pics of women, did not ask for women who were jogging to come fwd, simply dismissed witnesses as unrealiabel
Was not until cross of Dismukes that it even came out that a pair of Sauconys missing never recovered, and black jogging shorts
There is that pair of missing Sauconies, she is wearing those shoes in the turkey trot photo
CPD did not pursue these avenues because it didn't fit theit theory
CPD did not prove NC didn't go joggin - they cannot prove
Things that might have shown NG ignored
tire track at Fielding never cast or photographs
footprint near body never matched/casr
cigareete butt was not tested until weeks prior to trial but BC didn;t smoke so they dismissed
collected 6,100 larval specimens kept alive killed by left in airless locker never tested for scientific info
neglected to niterview oldest daughter though they have juvenile detectives to interview children
pros never subpeonaed google to tie evidnece to BC
they did not check cisco reouter logs to corroborate and show internet traffic (map)
blackberry - Det Young explained he followed instruction from AT&T rep over phone, put in PW wrong 10 times, after doing so get to a screen that quite clearly indicates in no uncertain terms 'last attempt' info will be erased on failure.
hard to imagine anyone - partucularly a detective at PD would bypass this screen when holding evidence of a homicide case
moreover prior to getting to this point CPD had rec'd letter telling them they had digital evidence on BB, its volitile, can be destroyed if not handled properly please handle w/care.
DNonetheless, DY (unqualified to examine) passed that scrren deleted all data.
SIm card also completely wiped? No explanation how it is all data on SIm card erased.
ben levitan explained same process required to separately erase SIm card..2 erasure processes, coudln;t have happened at the time Det Young said it did - when powered up no longer had ability to connect to tower, Sept was second time phone was examined by Det Thomas also made clear no experience w/cell phone forensics) no legitimate explanation for destruction of evidence in a homicide, other than it was destroyed intentionally to prevent info from getting out
we don;t know what was on BB, perhaps Dismukes does since he said "we got everything we need from it" it sat in his drawer for 2 weeks not in an evidence locker.
After Bb actually deleted, Det youn stated he told Det D he had deleted the BB, DD did not remember it that way just recalled a test of Det Y didn;t work, 10 months after deletion DY wrote letter about BB wipe, does not provide a detailed explanation just said he followed process and it wiped phone, yet Dy would have you believe even though he owns a BB he doesn't know what a SIm card is???
Clearly LE in 2011 LE has experience w/cellphones.
other things missing are photographs of things characterized as evidence today, talks about scratch marks but no photos? masqueraded as evidence why no photo documentation? hay? shoes under stairs/
They never tes routers in BC home or logs or ask Cisco to check for tampering
They did testing of BC computer for evidence of sppofed call - there was not evidence...that they looked for because it would indicate guilt,
never check Vm or txt on NC BB, or checked NC facebook, never searched for NC missing clothing but to go through house to look through clothing that remained there.
Did not analyze contents of vaccum bags, did not collect for analysis, didn;t question JP alibi, never tested stain on green dress, instead they were askingwitnesses like PG to keep info confidential.
When PG wrote back none of the equip could spoof a call they asked him to keep info confidential in 2008.
Told greenskeeper to keep psychic tip confidential.
Dismukes listed 16 names of ppl he had to follow-up with (ppl who might have seen NC) didn't do it until 3 months later.
they never followed up on the sightings of a van in 4 separate locations in the days surrounding NC missing...
Ignored NC GPS records from car because would not shed evidence vs BC
Ignored NC entanglements, not only ones she had but ppl interested in her that she was not interested in
Since CD made pass at her she told friends same with MM, these things generate strong emotional responses...worthy of follow-up, worthy of asking questions to get to the bottom of it.
Jp first interview 'casual relationshiup" second one admitted sexual contact.
In 2nd interview no cross exmainantion i.e.: about paternity, what about possibility? did youever discuss possibility? what was continuing relationships? why series of phone calls and the number of calls? why were you really angry at NC for saying something? you don't remember???
Things (JP) never followed up with.
CPD has allowed systematic tampering, aware ppl colluded on affidavits, aware DD had emailed friend and asked "who's side you on, if you help BC we are cutting ties'
This form of colllusion = extremely diluted info to PD
JA & JF discussed, coersion of CDitt, cut off after she said had nothing negative to say about BC as father.
Dismukes rec'd email fwd from HP where its clear she is specifically asking friends to find photos w/necklace, that is the kind of info that actually ensures skewed results.
At that point CPD on notice that those the pnly photos they would get, but as you can see in HT on 7/11 she is not wearing the necklace...means she had come from pool where she was w/HP and unless she took it off after the pool HP not being honest when she says NC was wearing it at pool.
RL, when he changed his story he went from "yes, she was going to jog" then he flipped it, wasn;t sure about that. imagine for amoment if the convo/change of story had gone in the other direction? i.e. he said in 2nd story 'oh she told me she was going joggin"...can you imagine the interrogation he would have gone through? instead it was a welcomed revelation on RL part, therefore subject to no scrutiny...even though Dismukes said after first interview 'i may have to contact your wife to go over a fe details"
Ref to "consistency is a good thing'
JA told MH "I don;t want you speaking to CPD unless through me"
over a period of time JA and HP primary contacts for CPD
You have been witness to absurd items masquerading as evidence, i.e. Dismukes: cleaning of dishes indicates homicide in house, never mentioned he sat on bed before photograph, also doesn;t mention before sending to SBI for testing.
They said memories don;t fade over time, pic of woman in bikini from 2001 somehow relevant to this trial?
JW was attacked for facebook page not questioned on testimony
they asked exterminator and realtor if they were aware of BC/HM affair, but did not ask if aware of NC affairs.
They have argued BC was controlling NC, tho you have heard she was going out regularly w/freidns where and when she wanted to come as go as she pleased.
parade of items remember BZ question w/no evidence value: tube top, tank top - not signs of an investigation, cosmetic applications to make investigation appear comprehansive when it was instread simply focused.
Found hay after a number of officers had tramped through.
marks claimed on BC though you have heard nothg from DD, CD, HP, JA, MH, MM, CC who all also saw BC on that day - you heard nothg from them re: scratches...by the way char as 'ribs" by DD later.
Dusmukes testified BC cleaning evidence of guilt, however later when DD testifies you heard him say aside from trunk cleaning no signifigance to cleaning in house - he posited NC thought he had not done enough cleaning.
Cleaning is proof husband trying to please wife, trying to get back in her good graces after he has upset her.
Arguing BC and NC doing on 7/11 char as "I hate Brad day", you heard BC never reatced in anger - simply ignored it...spent time with children, not agressive in any way.
CPD said trunk showroom clean, but SBI said 'slightly soiled"
You've heard about spoofed call at great lengthd, because if NC called BC at 6:40 their theory falls apart...you heard from Cisco, FBI...you heard he did not have the equipmentin his houise at that time..bottom line anyone has the capability to spoof a call...question is there any evidence? no there is not, that is the answer you have heard from all their witnesses to a man.
32 not match up with one aspect of spoof call
They checked every call made through a call center in the world through Cisco, none were Cisco related that could ave been spoofed
Absolutely nothing to indicate it was anything other than what it was - NC calling BC to pick up another item.
they say makes no sens why talk for 32 secs...but all of us understand that converstion "why no jiuce in house, why do I have to get groceries, anything else you would loike I don;t want to come back a third time"
theory 32 seconds is too long is absurd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
collect evidence, safeguard, come to conclusions based on fact - fundamental principles of law enforcement.
when rules followed crimes get solved, guilty arrested and convicted
when rules not followed, they fit facts to fit conclusion - innocent ppl charged w/crimes guilty walk free
a nightmare and threat to us us all - exactl what CPD has done
from moment JA called CPD and accused BC of having something to do w/NC disappearance, series of unstoppable events...innocent man's life dimished...guilty parties remained free...vengeance became the law of the day
justice sacrificed on the alter of vengeance
because BC and NC heading for divorce - BC immediately suspect
KL immediately asked BC what did you do?
GR immediately said to wife this will not end well
DD, CD, HP & rest jumped to conclusion BC must have killed NC from the moment the case started
JA held court in Coopers front yard w/i earshot of BC
In another time/age pitchforks, instead they came at him w/rumors gossip computer
synched stories by email, used teleconferencing to keep in touch
mark Twain - liecan make it halfway around the world before truth can put on its shoes
clicque created a mythology about BC and NC
CPD asked friends and neighbors about BC and NC, pattern of different statements - those who knew them longer were more truthful, others had divorce colored glasses (Brad did It) glasses
CPD interrogated BC in his home repeatedly, questions were not geared towards missing person investigation
prosecution bgan with interrogation who in their eyes already guilty
outcome predetermined..
no surprise clique spread stories through gossip, accepted as gospel by CPD - considered rumors and hearsay to be evidence
CPD filtered evidence as it came in so those things helpful to BC filtered out of reports, hurtful to BC left in reports
CPD from the start w/filter in place encourage NV friends to provide them w/more and more info, they asked the type of Q's which would elicit negative info
CPD/pros will tell you they do not have to prove every single fact or talk to every witness - unreasonable, perhaps our expectations to high? but this is not what we see here, we see an amazingly detailed investigation with a focus to specifically develop evidence on BC
used cunning navigation to avoid people and facts which did not fit their theory
In worst cases this type of investigation leads to 'virtual" justice, appears to be so but not
in order to prove BC killed NC police had to prove NC did not go jogging, that's what they set out to do
3 ppl testified NC had plans to exercise 7/12 RL, MH, CPD never spoke with oldest daughter did not ask her if she saw her mother
Did not follow up w/ppl who thought they saw NC jogging until much later (3 months+0
Even when they did follow up did not show pics of women, did not ask for women who were jogging to come fwd, simply dismissed witnesses as unrealiabel
Was not until cross of Dismukes that it even came out that a pair of Sauconys missing never recovered, and black jogging shorts
There is that pair of missing Sauconies, she is wearing those shoes in the turkey trot photo
CPD did not pursue these avenues because it didn't fit theit theory
CPD did not prove NC didn't go joggin - they cannot prove
Things that might have shown NG ignored
tire track at Fielding never cast or photographs
footprint near body never matched/casr
cigareete butt was not tested until weeks prior to trial but BC didn;t smoke so they dismissed
collected 6,100 larval specimens kept alive killed by left in airless locker never tested for scientific info
neglected to niterview oldest daughter though they have juvenile detectives to interview children
pros never subpeonaed google to tie evidnece to BC
they did not check cisco reouter logs to corroborate and show internet traffic (map)
blackberry - Det Young explained he followed instruction from AT&T rep over phone, put in PW wrong 10 times, after doing so get to a screen that quite clearly indicates in no uncertain terms 'last attempt' info will be erased on failure.
hard to imagine anyone - partucularly a detective at PD would bypass this screen when holding evidence of a homicide case
moreover prior to getting to this point CPD had rec'd letter telling them they had digital evidence on BB, its volitile, can be destroyed if not handled properly please handle w/care.
DNonetheless, DY (unqualified to examine) passed that scrren deleted all data.
SIm card also completely wiped? No explanation how it is all data on SIm card erased.
ben levitan explained same process required to separately erase SIm card..2 erasure processes, coudln;t have happened at the time Det Young said it did - when powered up no longer had ability to connect to tower, Sept was second time phone was examined by Det Thomas also made clear no experience w/cell phone forensics) no legitimate explanation for destruction of evidence in a homicide, other than it was destroyed intentionally to prevent info from getting out
we don;t know what was on BB, perhaps Dismukes does since he said "we got everything we need from it" it sat in his drawer for 2 weeks not in an evidence locker.
After Bb actually deleted, Det youn stated he told Det D he had deleted the BB, DD did not remember it that way just recalled a test of Det Y didn;t work, 10 months after deletion DY wrote letter about BB wipe, does not provide a detailed explanation just said he followed process and it wiped phone, yet Dy would have you believe even though he owns a BB he doesn't know what a SIm card is???
Clearly LE in 2011 LE has experience w/cellphones.
other things missing are photographs of things characterized as evidence today, talks about scratch marks but no photos? masqueraded as evidence why no photo documentation? hay? shoes under stairs/
They never tes routers in BC home or logs or ask Cisco to check for tampering
They did testing of BC computer for evidence of sppofed call - there was not evidence...that they looked for because it would indicate guilt,
never check Vm or txt on NC BB, or checked NC facebook, never searched for NC missing clothing but to go through house to look through clothing that remained there.
Did not analyze contents of vaccum bags, did not collect for analysis, didn;t question JP alibi, never tested stain on green dress, instead they were askingwitnesses like PG to keep info confidential.
When PG wrote back none of the equip could spoof a call they asked him to keep info confidential in 2008.
Told greenskeeper to keep psychic tip confidential.
Dismukes listed 16 names of ppl he had to follow-up with (ppl who might have seen NC) didn't do it until 3 months later.
they never followed up on the sightings of a van in 4 separate locations in the days surrounding NC missing...
Ignored NC GPS records from car because would not shed evidence vs BC
Ignored NC entanglements, not only ones she had but ppl interested in her that she was not interested in
Since CD made pass at her she told friends same with MM, these things generate strong emotional responses...worthy of follow-up, worthy of asking questions to get to the bottom of it.
Jp first interview 'casual relationshiup" second one admitted sexual contact.
In 2nd interview no cross exmainantion i.e.: about paternity, what about possibility? did youever discuss possibility? what was continuing relationships? why series of phone calls and the number of calls? why were you really angry at NC for saying something? you don't remember???
Things (JP) never followed up with.
CPD has allowed systematic tampering, aware ppl colluded on affidavits, aware DD had emailed friend and asked "who's side you on, if you help BC we are cutting ties'
This form of colllusion = extremely diluted info to PD
JA & JF discussed, coersion of CDitt, cut off after she said had nothing negative to say about BC as father.
Dismukes rec'd email fwd from HP where its clear she is specifically asking friends to find photos w/necklace, that is the kind of info that actually ensures skewed results.
At that point CPD on notice that those the pnly photos they would get, but as you can see in HT on 7/11 she is not wearing the necklace...means she had come from pool where she was w/HP and unless she took it off after the pool HP not being honest when she says NC was wearing it at pool.
RL, when he changed his story he went from "yes, she was going to jog" then he flipped it, wasn;t sure about that. imagine for amoment if the convo/change of story had gone in the other direction? i.e. he said in 2nd story 'oh she told me she was going joggin"...can you imagine the interrogation he would have gone through? instead it was a welcomed revelation on RL part, therefore subject to no scrutiny...even though Dismukes said after first interview 'i may have to contact your wife to go over a fe details"
Ref to "consistency is a good thing'
JA told MH "I don;t want you speaking to CPD unless through me"
over a period of time JA and HP primary contacts for CPD
You have been witness to absurd items masquerading as evidence, i.e. Dismukes: cleaning of dishes indicates homicide in house, never mentioned he sat on bed before photograph, also doesn;t mention before sending to SBI for testing.
They said memories don;t fade over time, pic of woman in bikini from 2001 somehow relevant to this trial?
JW was attacked for facebook page not questioned on testimony
they asked exterminator and realtor if they were aware of BC/HM affair, but did not ask if aware of NC affairs.
They have argued BC was controlling NC, tho you have heard she was going out regularly w/freidns where and when she wanted to come as go as she pleased.
parade of items remember BZ question w/no evidence value: tube top, tank top - not signs of an investigation, cosmetic applications to make investigation appear comprehansive when it was instread simply focused.
Found hay after a number of officers had tramped through.
marks claimed on BC though you have heard nothg from DD, CD, HP, JA, MH, MM, CC who all also saw BC on that day - you heard nothg from them re: scratches...by the way char as 'ribs" by DD later.
Dusmukes testified BC cleaning evidence of guilt, however later when DD testifies you heard him say aside from trunk cleaning no signifigance to cleaning in house - he posited NC thought he had not done enough cleaning.
Cleaning is proof husband trying to please wife, trying to get back in her good graces after he has upset her.
Arguing BC and NC doing on 7/11 char as "I hate Brad day", you heard BC never reatced in anger - simply ignored it...spent time with children, not agressive in any way.
CPD said trunk showroom clean, but SBI said 'slightly soiled"
You've heard about spoofed call at great lengthd, because if NC called BC at 6:40 their theory falls apart...you heard from Cisco, FBI...you heard he did not have the equipmentin his houise at that time..bottom line anyone has the capability to spoof a call...question is there any evidence? no there is not, that is the answer you have heard from all their witnesses to a man.
32 not match up with one aspect of spoof call
They checked every call made through a call center in the world through Cisco, none were Cisco related that could ave been spoofed
Absolutely nothing to indicate it was anything other than what it was - NC calling BC to pick up another item.
they say makes no sens why talk for 32 secs...but all of us understand that converstion "why no jiuce in house, why do I have to get groceries, anything else you would loike I don;t want to come back a third time"
theory 32 seconds is too long is absurd.
MountE
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
- Messages
- 736
- Reaction score
- 9
I am absolutely convinced of it at this stage!
He started around 9:50.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Brad cleaned to please Nancy.
Know what would have pleased Nancy? The $300 she kept ASKING FOR on Fri 7/11/08. She called him a bunch of times. THAT was what she was unhappy about. THAT is what she told her friends about at the party. Why didn't Brad ever get that $300 on Friday or Saturday???
Know what would have pleased Nancy? The $300 she kept ASKING FOR on Fri 7/11/08. She called him a bunch of times. THAT was what she was unhappy about. THAT is what she told her friends about at the party. Why didn't Brad ever get that $300 on Friday or Saturday???
Palomine
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,291
- Reaction score
- 3
his cleaning would have been more convincing to me if he cleaned his pillow case and sheets!!!
I bet he breaks down the stuff from the ME, bug expert, geologist, etc.
CrimeAddict
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 793
I have been convinced they read, take some advice and also plant people on here.. without a question..
But if the pros were really taking our statements seriously, they would not have Cummings doing closing today.
LaLaw2000
Louisiana
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2008
- Messages
- 12,516
- Reaction score
- 1,815
That's right. Cannot imagine what Trenkle will speak about.
*On a side note, I am not at all impressed with Kurtz argument. JMO
I rewatched his opening this past weekend and the trial played out almost to the letter to what he stated in his opening.
kljohnson0458
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 734
- Reaction score
- 0
He is stretching on this google search. He can never take that from anyone's mind.
- Status