State v Bradley Cooper 4-26-11

[otto]

@48 Minutes: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9494914/#/vid9494914

Prosecution enters 2007 cell phone tower evidence, defense objects because it's not the right year, Judge overrules.

The murder happened in 2008. The judge is probably assuming that if the towers were there in 2007, they were still there in 2008. I don't think the expert Levitan ever answers whether any cell phone tower connections are legitimate. In fact, he either conveniently or inconveniently doesn't have his notes. Imagine if the medical examiner, an expert, showed up for court without his notes (just in case he forgot a detail). That is what the cell phone expert did. He forgot his notes and when he was baffled, he was not able to dazzle with briliance.

He was in fact a belligerent witness, wasn't he? Or was it the prosecutor that was belligerent? Or Both. The prosecutor is typically held to a higher standard, but apparently not in North Carolina.

How about that!

 

[momof7]

I just wanted to say thank you to everyone for posting their thoughts and what is going on with the trial. I am stuck in a hotel in PA for work and not able to see the witnesses. I hope to catch up on Fri once I am back home but for now, I will be able to read the threads. Hopefully, one of these days will be shorter than expected and I can see some of the testimony.

Thanks again..!

Kelly

 

[otto]

Previous testimony is available here: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9491600/

 

[momof7]

Previous testimony is available here: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9491600/

Hopefully I will not be as tired tonight as yesterday! I attempted to start watching but I was having a hard time. Thanks for keeping me up to speed! Internet connection here is not as strong as I am used to!

Kelly

 

[Madeleine74]

With 7 kids how could you not be tired? :biggrin:

 

[KellyCrash]

I didn't realize the questions about the cell towers was being avoided, but that makes total sense. I just thought he was being anal about the map not being accurate. He said when looking at the Google map that he couldn't tell if it was a tower or not & that Cary didn't like having towers and they were getting decommissioned all the time so he pretty much refused to answer any cell tower questions. Never hit me that he was avoiding that line of questioning. I thought the expert sounded great at first, but when the State got a hold of him I lost some respect for him. Especially over the Court Order thing. He should have made arrangements to have that cell phone delivered to the CPD. Kurtz should have made sure he complied with that. I'm sure it doesn't make much difference, but I think it makes him look bad. & Then the pictures of the blackberry. He had testified that it was one that looked just like NC's, but was a test phone and then Kurtz reminded him it was NC's phone with his SIM card. Then him saying his memory isn't what it used to be? The State clearly rattled him.

 

[Madeleine74]

This is current info, thus not showing what existed in July 2008, but here is a map showing all the cell towers in the Cary area.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I didn't realize the questions about the cell towers was being avoided, but that makes total sense. I just thought he was being anal about the map not being accurate. He said when looking at the Google map that he couldn't tell if it was a tower or not & that Cary didn't like having towers and they were getting decommissioned all the time so he pretty much refused to answer any cell tower questions. Never hit me that he was avoiding that line of questioning. I thought the expert sounded great at first, but when the State got a hold of him I lost some respect for him. Especially over the Court Order thing. He should have made arrangements to have that cell phone delivered to the CPD. Kurtz should have made sure he complied with that. I'm sure it doesn't make much difference, but I think it makes him look bad. & Then the pictures of the blackberry. He had testified that it was one that looked just like NC's, but was a test phone and then Kurtz reminded him it was NC's phone with his SIM card. Then him saying his memory isn't what it used to be? The State clearly rattled him.

It is very interesting in light of the fact that this was the man standing in front of the camera vigorously shaking his head "NO" when the AT&T man was showing the jurors how a cell tower works and how a signal can be picked up from the various sides. Then interestingly in his testimony yesterday he gave the example of the woman who was found to not be involved in some crime because according to pings, she and the other woman, the victim of a crime, were never on the same side of the tower. I just found that slightly ironic after the way he reacted during the AT&T testimony.

 

[gritguy]

At this point, why think BC is guilty? I still see a lot of points against the state's case as well made, and also that the defense has done a good job of introducing evidence counter to the state's theory (jogging eyewitnesses). The case could go either way, IMO.

But, here's why I believe.

BC was the only person known to have a clear financial benefit from NC's death.

BC was the only person known to have a conflict laden relationship with NC.

BC, so far as known, was insulted and challenged only by NC.

BC was the only person known to be with NC at or around the time of her death.

BC acted counter to his normal routine the morning of the murder, and consistent with activities that would minimize evidence (extreme cleaning spree of certain areas of the house - floors but not mess - and laundry). The method of death is such that it might not produce much evidence anyway.

BC had evidence on his computer of having looked at the place where NC would be dumped. I think to disregard this you must believe the computer was tampered with, though I don't understand the other technical objections to this evidence.

BC's deposition contained various lies and told a story of the morning of the murder that was highly unbelievable, IMO. The deposition, to me, is the best evidence against BC. I watched it twice and both times came away thinking this guy is a complete liar and is guilty of murder.

 

[gritguy]

On the defense expert to discuss the MFT, I think that could have been solved by the defense agreeing to provide relevant materials to the prosecution and not calling the expert until the end of the week. The MFT stuff may all be red herring, but I think someone should have been able to discuss it from the defense standpoint.

 

[ncsu95]

This is current info, thus not showing what existed in July 2008, but here is a map showing all the cell towers in the Cary area.

Thanks. But unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't show towers where the prosecutors diagram showed. Almost all of these are east of US 1, with the exception of the 1 by Wake Med and 1 near US 1 at Regency. Doesn't show any near HS road, but does show 1 down in Holly Springs / Fuquay area.

 

[filesman]

@48 Minutes: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9494914/#/vid9494914

Prosecution enters 2007 cell phone tower evidence, defense objects because it's not the right year, Judge overrules.

The murder happened in 2008. The judge is probably assuming that if the towers were there in 2007, they were still there in 2008. I don't think the expert Levitan ever answers whether any cell phone tower connections are legitimate. In fact, he either conveniently or inconveniently doesn't have his notes. Imagine if the medical examiner, an expert, showed up for court without his notes (just in case he forgot a detail). That is what the cell phone expert did. He forgot his notes and when he was baffled, he was not able to dazzle with briliance.

He was in fact a belligerent witness, wasn't he? Or was it the prosecutor that was belligerent? Or Both. The prosecutor is typically held to a higher standard, but apparently not in North Carolina.

How about that!

WOW - I guess I am just a novice, but should a Judge "assume" anything - Wonder how he would have ruled if the defense had presented the witness and the prosecution had objected?? I am sorry, but this judge seems to rule in favor of the prosecution alot. When in the world would they not present evidence for the correct year? This trial is very crazy, the more I see of it, the more I know that I would not want to be accused of a crime in Cary, NC. I think Brad did it, but I am not convinced... And the more I hear of the happenings of the trial I keep scratching my head. Just my opinion

 

[cityslick]

At this point, why think BC is guilty? I still see a lot of points against the state's case as well made, and also that the defense has done a good job of introducing evidence counter to the state's theory (jogging eyewitnesses). The case could go either way, IMO.

But, here's why I believe.

BC was the only person known to have a clear financial benefit from NC's death.

BC was the only person known to have a conflict laden relationship with NC.

BC, so far as known, was insulted and challenged only by NC.

BC was the only person known to be with NC at or around the time of her death.

BC acted counter to his normal routine the morning of the murder, and consistent with activities that would minimize evidence (extreme cleaning spree of certain areas of the house - floors but not mess - and laundry). The method of death is such that it might not produce much evidence anyway.

BC had evidence on his computer of having looked at the place where NC would be dumped. I think to disregard this you must believe the computer was tampered with, though I don't understand the other technical objections to this evidence.

BC's deposition contained various lies and told a story of the morning of the murder that was highly unbelievable, IMO. The deposition, to me, is the best evidence against BC. I watched it twice and both times came away thinking this guy is a complete liar and is guilty of murder.

I don't disagree with anything you posted. A post was made last night though (I believe from FullDisclosure) that listed out a lot of things that BC would of had to do that morning to get to the point we are at now and when you look at that list from objective point of view, you start to realize that for the search evidence to be the only hard evidence against him, a whole lot of stuff needed to break just right for him.

Again, I think he's guilty, but I agree with you that the defense has been very effective in showing reasonable doubt.

 

[Danielle59]

Thanks. But unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't show towers where the prosecutors diagram showed. Almost all of these are east of US 1, with the exception of the 1 by Wake Med and 1 near US 1 at Regency. Doesn't show any near HS road, but does show 1 down in Holly Springs / Fuquay area.

The other problem is that they didn't obtain the cell tower information for Nancy's cell phone so there was nothing to compare her usage to in regard to what tower was used.

 

[macd]

Please remind me, where in the house was the necklace found?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Thanks. But unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't show towers where the prosecutors diagram showed. Almost all of these are east of US 1, with the exception of the 1 by Wake Med and 1 near US 1 at Regency. Doesn't show any near HS road, but does show 1 down in Holly Springs / Fuquay area.

The map is interesting in light of the fact that the witness tried to infer that there were no cell towers in Cary. The map does give a disclaimer that not all towers have to be registered so not all towers are shown on the map. Even with that, you don't know which of those are towers used by AT&T subscribers.

 

[RaleighNative]

I don't disagree with anything you posted. A post was made last night though (I believe from FullDisclosure) that listed out a lot of things that BC would of had to do that morning to get to the point we are at now and when you look at that list from objective point of view, you start to realize that for the search evidence to be the only hard evidence against him, a whole lot of stuff needed to break just right for him.

Again, I think he's guilty, but I agree with you that the defense has been very effective in showing reasonable doubt.

Not sure if you may be referring to what I posted last night while I was quite exhausted...but here it is for anyone who may want to read...

This kind of thing is where I have an issue. If BC is guilty, he's brilliant. He somehow:

1) Killed NC without any evidence left in the home (and not to be graphic, but death is messy)
2) For a guy who did not care about a clean house, he became the world's best clean-up guy.
3) He somehow managed to make a call from the home to himself, but left no trace whatsoever of how he routed this call.
4) He went to the grocery store twice seeming completely cool and collected.
5) In spite of a neighborhood where everyone seemed nosy, and it being a weekend where people were up late/at a party, no one noticed him putting a body in the trunk and leaving young children in the middle of the night.
6) No one noticed him driving down a major road.
7) He removed the license plate so not to be traced...yet no one noticed a car without a license plate.
8) Again, no one saw BC furiously cleaning out the garage, removing and reattaching license plates
9) Now he was planting stuff on NC's mobile...even though he had no training or experience in mobile technology.
10) He was able to hand over the mobile immediately to LE, and magically predicted a detective would continually (10X!) put in the wrong code and wipe the phone.

It just doesn't pass the sniff test....

 

[dramamama]

FYI, don't know if this has been shared before, but here is a link that lists every wintess, theday they testified, and which parts of the video:

http://frictionpowered.wordpress.com/file-cabinet/nancy-cooper-murder-trial/

 

[Skittles]

And we're live.

Witness arrives with his own beverage.

 

[cityslick]

Not sure if you may be referring to what I posted last night while I was quite exhausted...but here it is for anyone who may want to read...

This kind of thing is where I have an issue. If BC is guilty, he's brilliant. He somehow:

1) Killed NC without any evidence left in the home (and not to be graphic, but death is messy)
2) For a guy who did not care about a clean house, he became the world's best clean-up guy.
3) He somehow managed to make a call from the home to himself, but left no trace whatsoever of how he routed this call.
4) He went to the grocery store twice seeming completely cool and collected.
5) In spite of a neighborhood where everyone seemed nosy, and it being a weekend where people were up late/at a party, no one noticed him putting a body in the trunk and leaving young children in the middle of the night.
6) No one noticed him driving down a major road.
7) He removed the license plate so not to be traced...yet no one noticed a car without a license plate.
8) Again, no one saw BC furiously cleaning out the garage, removing and reattaching license plates
9) Now he was planting stuff on NC's mobile...even though he had no training or experience in mobile technology.
10) He was able to hand over the mobile immediately to LE, and magically predicted a detective would continually (10X!) put in the wrong code and wipe the phone.

It just doesn't pass the sniff test....

Yup that's it, sorry I was wrong on the poster. :seeya: