State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[RoughlyCollie]

I found out then that men, and kids, don't pay attention to many things.

I have been with my husband, here at home, for 1.5 hours. He has had a good look at me many times during conversations between the two of us.

I asked him what I am wearing. He said a purple long sleeved shirt with flowers on it, and jeans. I wore that shirt yesterday. Today I am wearing a gray sweatshirt. He said he got the jeans part right because he can see my legs from where he is sitting. I didn't wear jeans yesterday.

I knew that would happen.

 

[sunshine05]

It occurs to me as people point to CPD and say they did a horrible job, are inept, incompetent, etc, etc, that the DA allowed the case to go forward with an arrest after agreeing to take the case to the grand jury, 3 months after the murder. Contrast that with the Jason Young case, in which this same DA made the PD go back and do more investigating/digging and waiting for more evidence, for 3 years!

It really is a mystery to me that they arrested him with no evidence. I have never seen anything quite like this.

 

[CrimeAddict]

Everyone ready for tomorrow? I was going to run errands while my child is in preschool but I think I will be here watching closings.. I am pathetic!
I am not sure what will happen, but it should be a shocker and I agree with you guys, I think it will happen quick!

For those of you on my guilty side.. I am holding on to the fact that if he gets off then at least he served 2 1/2 years in jail, has no job, will probably have to move back to Canada and live with his parents and have to also live with his children knowing he stood trial for her murder.. doesn't sound like a fun life!

 

[RaleighNative]

I have been with my husband, here at home, for 1.5 hours. He has had a good look at me many times during conversations between the two of us.

I asked him what I am wearing. He said a purple long sleeved shirt with flowers on it, and jeans. I wore that shirt yesterday. Today I am wearing a gray sweatshirt. He said he got the jeans part right because he can see my legs from where he is sitting. I didn't wear jeans yesterday.

I knew that would happen.

LOL! My husband would be exactly the same!

 

[RaleighNative]

It occurs to me as people point to CPD and say they did a horrible job, are inept, incompetent, etc, etc, that the DA allowed the case to go forward with an arrest after agreeing to take the case to the grand jury, 3 months after the murder. Contrast that with the Jason Young case, in which this same DA made the PD go back and do more investigating/digging and waiting for more evidence, for 3 years!

Exactly....I don't understand it given this DA's history of not rushing to judgement, and not taking cases to trial until the State is confident they will win.

I've said this before, but I've always supported CW as DA...without any hesitation. However, based on this trial, I'll likely be changing my vote.

I'm so glad JY was FINALLY arrested and is going to trial. I am going to do my best not to follow the JY trial on this board, because it's way too addicting. But then again, I think JY will be a slam dunk case. So I don't think there will be much to debate.

 

[Madeleine74]

The other thing that occurred to me is the state must have been taken by surprise that the defense claimed planting of evidence. The reason I think they got caught off guard on this is because neither the DA nor the FBI nor the CPD thought anything was planted or changed or weird with any of the evidence...nothing to them that looked like someone tried to frame BC. CPD didn't do anything to that computer. The arrest wasn't contingent on that google search.

Only the defense was looking askance and trying to stir up crap--not even the FBI looked at BC's computer as something tainted.

That gives me some insight that nothing was done to BC's computer by anyone on the state's side. They probably had no idea there even could be a problem with any files. So they march forth with the case, confident in the evidence they have uncovered, no one planted anything to implicate BC and then they're confronted during trial with some crazy conspiracy theories and it appears people actually believe this stuff.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

The other thing that occurred to me is the state must have been taken by surprise that the defense claimed planting of evidence. The reason I think they got caught off guard on this is because neither the DA nor the FBI nor the CPD thought anything was planted or changed or weird with any of the evidence...nothing to them that looked like someone tried to frame BC. CPD didn't do anything to that computer. The arrest wasn't contingent on that google search.

Only the defense was looking askance and trying to stir up crap--not even the FBI looked at BC's computer as something tainted.

That gives me some insight that nothing was done to BC's computer by anyone on the state's side. They probably had no idea there even could be a problem with any files. So they march forth with the case, confident in the evidence they have uncovered, no one planted anything to implicate BC and then they're confronted during trial with some crazy conspiracy theories and it appears people actually believe this stuff.

Both FBI Agents Johnson and Chappell testified to knowing there had been a repeated claim of tampering in this case for well over a year.

 

[Palomine]

obviously the Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence to bring this to trial...
I am not a big fan of defense teams blaming the Police of tampering every time the defense has no evidence

 

[Madeleine74]

I mean before and right after the arrest, not when the defense started putting witness lists together. The google search was not even part of the evidence uncovered by Oct 27, 2008. I'd like to ask the DA what he saw at that time that gave him confidence and why he proceeded forward with the case. I'm sure he had his reasons and it's based on something.

 

[sunshine05]

The other thing that occurred to me is the state must have been taken by surprise that the defense claimed planting of evidence. The reason I think they got caught off guard on this is because neither the DA nor the FBI nor the CPD thought anything was planted or changed or weird with any of the evidence...nothing to them that looked like someone tried to frame BC. CPD didn't do anything to that computer. The arrest wasn't contingent on that google search.

Only the defense was looking askance and trying to stir up crap--not even the FBI looked at BC's computer as something tainted.

That gives me some insight that nothing was done to BC's computer by anyone on the state's side. They probably had no idea there even could be a problem with any files. So they march forth with the case, confident in the evidence they have uncovered, no one planted anything to implicate BC and then they're confronted during trial with some crazy conspiracy theories and it appears people actually believe this stuff.

Kurtz mentioned in his opening statements that 600+ files were altered while in police custody, so I don't think it was a surprise.

Can you not at least admit that they should have followed protocol and secured the computer properly immediately when entering the home?

How can you can call evidence of tampering/intrusion a crazy conspiracy theory? If you were on the other side of this - a defendant accused of a crime and your attorney found very strange things on your computer surrounding the incriminating evidence, would you tell your attorney to simply disregard it because you have 100% confidence in the police? Anyone/anytime/anywhere can be wrongly accused of a crime. We HAVE to have confidence that the system is fair, otherwise it's all a farce and they may as well just lock people up on hunches.

 

[Madeleine74]

That makes the Google search even more improbable as a planted piece of evidence. BC gets arrested Oct 27 '08. FBI hasn't even looked at his computer yet. What if the FBI never found the Google search? BC was arrested. The state (obviously) thought they had enough evidence to bring the case to trial. The Google search came up much later. The case wasn't dependent upon the Google search.

 

[RaleighNative]

The other thing that occurred to me is the state must have been taken by surprise that the defense claimed planting of evidence. The reason I think they got caught off guard on this is because neither the DA nor the FBI nor the CPD thought anything was planted or changed or weird with any of the evidence...nothing to them that looked like someone tried to frame BC. CPD didn't do anything to that computer. The arrest wasn't contingent on that google search.

Only the defense was looking askance and trying to stir up crap--not even the FBI looked at BC's computer as something tainted.

That gives me some insight that nothing was done to BC's computer by anyone on the state's side. They probably had no idea there even could be a problem with any files. So they march forth with the case, confident in the evidence they have uncovered, no one planted anything to implicate BC and then they're confronted during trial with some crazy conspiracy theories and it appears people actually believe this stuff.

BBM

Could you please explain how you believe the phone was wiped of all data?

1) LE says he "accidentally" wiped the phone itself by putting in the wrong code 10X and ignoring repeated warnings that the data would be wiped.
2) No explanation at all for the SIM card. And those cards are not deleted without something catastrophic.

I truly do not understand how someone is unable to believe police tampered with NC's phone and therefore tampered with the evidence in this case. How else did it happen? The state offered a shoddy explanation for the phone itself, and no explanation for the SIM.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think another thing the defense has on their side in regard to the Google search is that the only real rebuttal the prosecution had was this is super secret stuff and you have to be a qualified computer forensic expert to be able to read and understand the MFT output.

In the end, the jury got to see the MFT output, scroll through it, see the files and timestamps. If they don't feel it is super techno mumbo-jumbo it is going to look like an even bigger smokescreen and the prosecution was hiding something by not letting JW testify about it.

 

[sunshine05]

obviously the Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence to bring this to trial...
I am not a big fan of defense teams blaming the Police of tampering every time the defense has no evidence

It amazes me that anyone today could have 100% confidence that all police are honest all the time. How, in a case where it has been proven that a detective in the investigation destroyed police evidence that may have exonerated or at least given clues to other suspects, can anyone be shocked at the implication that computer tampering occurred? The evidence shows that it did. They are not making it up. Anyone who watched the testimony saw it with their own eyes. The state did not refute it. Even the FBI/Durham police acknowledged there are strange things with the files and had no explanation for them.

 

[less0305]

obviously the Grand Jury thought there was enough evidence to bring this to trial...
I am not a big fan of defense teams blaming the Police of tampering every time the defense has no evidence

Hate to tell you this but you'll be told that the Grand Jury is a joke and a farce and incompetent and crooked and a boatload of other stuff. It goes along with the conspiracy theories and I got slapped down when I brought up the same thing. I'm sorry, I believe in our justice system and in the grand jury, but others will be glad to tell you how wrong the grand jury is.

P.S. See.

 

[gracielee]

The State did argue first and third, today's testimony was third.

MY comment was in reference to 'closing arguments'. Not the case in chief & rebuttal. The state has the right to two closing arguments, defense one. It usually goes, state, defense, state. Apparently the state is opting for one closing, so the defense will go first, then the state having the final word.

 

[Bottle Cap]

BBM

Could you please explain how you believe the phone was wiped of all data?

1) LE says he "accidentally" wiped the phone itself by putting in the wrong code 10X and ignoring repeated warnings that the data would be wiped.
2) No explaination at all for the SIM card. And those cards are not deleted without something catastrophic.

I truly do not understand how someone is unable to believe police tampered with NC's phone.

How else did it happen? The state offered a shoddy explaination for the phone itself, and no explaination for the SIM.

At least the State offered up an explanation for the phone, the guy sat up there and took it like a man.

If I were an innocent defendent, I'd be on the stand too, telling the jury exactly where that router went and when. How the ducks got in a box. Where the shoes are, and what I was doing on my phone. I'd have an explanation for it if I were innocent and come what may, I'd be saying what it was no matter what got thrown at me in cross.

 

[Palomine]

MY comment was in reference to 'closing arguments'. Not the case in chief & rebuttal. The state has the right to two closing arguments, defense one. It usually goes, state, defense, state. Apparently the state is opting for one closing, so the defense will go first, then the state having the final word.

hopefully it will be only 4 hours long total!

 

[Madeleine74]

BBM

Could you please explain how you believe the phone was wiped of all data?

1) LE says he "accidentally" wiped the phone itself by putting in the wrong code 10X and ignoring repeated warnings that the data would be wiped.
2) No explaination at all for the SIM card. And those cards are not deleted without something catastrophic.

I truly do not understand how someone is unable to believe police tampered with NC's phone.

How else did it happen? The state offered a shoddy explaination for the phone itself, and no explaination for the SIM.

I believe BC did something himself to that phone. Either on purpose or by accident, but I believe the phone was compromised in some way even before McDreamy started inputting the wrong password, as instructed by the AT&T rep. I do not see any reason CPD would have wanted that phone to not give them any evidence. They wanted the info from that phone for their investigation. I think it was a f*up that it got wiped...perhaps helped by one BC.

Further, as of the day of arrest, CPD didn't have any info from NC's phone, so that phone didn't appear to factor into the decision to move forward with an arrest and indictment either.

 

[less0305]

BBM

Could you please explain how you believe the phone was wiped of all data?

1) LE says he "accidentally" wiped the phone itself by putting in the wrong code 10X and ignoring repeated warnings that the data would be wiped.
2) No explaination at all for the SIM card. And those cards are not deleted without something catastrophic.

I truly do not understand how someone is unable to believe police tampered with NC's phone.

How else did it happen? The state offered a shoddy explaination for the phone itself, and no explaination for the SIM.

Well, believe it because I don't believe the police intentionally or corruptly did anything to the phone. It was an accident pure and simple. Maybe Young didn't know all that he should have known, but I will not believe he wiped that phone on purpose or for some nefarious reason. Nah, didn't happen - and you can say over and over and over again, but it doesn't make the rest of the population believe it. No one, not one person knows what Bradleeee did to or with that phone in the time he had it.