State v Bradley Cooper - 3/25/11

[johnfear]

GJ's in NC indict based only on probable cause....not a very high burden, thus pretty automatic.

Interesting someone told you the relatively swift arrest was due to extradition circumstances.

Right, but the for instance that was presented to me was an attempted rape case where the person who was alleging the attempt had changed her story.

There was no DNA, there was no interview of the other person, there were no witnesses of any kind. There were only her words in a police report.

The last page of the police report said: Closed/Unfounded. Four months later, same evidence, the charge was reopened by an ADA and TB'd. The basis for the Grand Jury indictment was the first two pages of the police report and the limited questioning of the complaining witness.

The charge was a mess and cost a lot of money to defend, but was a poor choice by an ADA who admitted "they had not interviewed anyone but the witness" (Including the detectives who consulted with the DA's office and a magistrate before kicking the charge the first time) Also a CPD case, btw.

That having been said, these are at least decent ADAs (Even Cummings for the haters out there) and I hope they are playing "save the best for last" and will have some awesome stuff in the wrap-up. They have what, a week or two left? Should be interesting to watch.

Also, NC uses the GJ in PLACE of the Probable cause hearing, not POST-PC, like most places. And it is largely a prosecution tool. I got the impression it is rarely abused, but that some things get stuck in front of it to move the case along.

 

[LyndyLoo]

How do we know Brad didn't erase the phone *before* he gave it to them?

This is why I get so compuzed...Between what we read, what Opening statements by both sides ( Not evidence) by what witnesses say and interpretations of bloggers..I just cant get a handle on what is truth and what is spin anymore :maddening:

IF this is true...How did NC call BC at early morning hours while jogging in bare feet (as it seems) since her jogging shoes were found at home???..BC in possession of said phone???..It surely does appear the defense is really trying to confuse things between allegations, proof by evidence, and testimony that has been so slow in coming in...:banghead:

This phone stuff is intriguing indeed..Cant wait for forensic computer expert to testify...That will help a bit!!

 

[carolinalady]

This is why I get so compuzed...Between what we read, what Opening statements by both sides ( Not evidence) by what witnesses say and interpretations of bloggers..I just cant get a handle on what is truth and what is spin anymore :maddening:

IF this is true...How did NC call BC at early morning hours while jogging in bare feet (as it seems) since her jogging shoes were found at home???..BC in possession of said phone???..It surely does appear the defense is really trying to confuse things between allegations, proof by evidence, and testimony that has been so slow in coming in...:banghead:

This phone stuff is intriguing indeed..Cant wait for forensic computer expert to testify...That will help a bit!!

The call the defense says she made to BC, was from the home phone and before he says she went jogging.

 

[LyndyLoo]

There's a letter on file where JA Young says the phone was wiped when he attempted to unlock. The subsequent s/w where another detective (he testified Thursday) reviewed it and no data was on the phone.

If phone contained no data..wouldnt the provider still have it for billing purposes etc?..I really find it incredible that any phone utilized how these people used them would contain NO DATA??..Someone had to have erased it before it was even taken into evidence..Hummm Wonder who that could be??? Could it be the last person who had possession of it??..Hummming again..Something just doesnt ring clear to me..Unlocking a phone does not remove all data :maddening:

 

[LyndyLoo]

The call the defense says she made to BC, was from the home phone and before he says she went jogging.

Okay..but didnt Brad do some stuff between his phone/Cisco Phone/Computer and Voice mail things i.e.> do alot of call forewarding things prior to this???..and didnt they live in the same house?? why would she call him?? He says she left at 7AM..tho didnt see her leave??? One of the kids didnt wakeup til 830AM..hummm..where was Brad??? Yikes this is getting so muddled:maddening:

Defense says..defense says alot of things..that is NOT evidence..thats why it is so important to get expert to explain these things...

 

[carolinalady]

If phone contained no data..wouldnt the provider still have it for billing purposes etc?..I really find it incredible that any phone utilized how these people used them would contain NO DATA??..Someone had to have erased it before it was even taken into evidence..Hummm Wonder who that could be??? Could it be the last person who had possession of it??..Hummming again..Something just doesnt ring clear to me..Unlocking a phone does not remove all data :maddening:

Doing a google search of "what happens when you enter incorrect password into blackberry 10 times" will tell you. It will wipe all data from the phone, including the password lock.

That's what JA Young did and that's what happened (it's a letter from him). We have no idea what was or wasn't on the phone before JA Young did that.

 

[SleuthinNC]

If phone contained no data..wouldnt the provider still have it for billing purposes etc?..I really find it incredible that any phone utilized how these people used them would contain NO DATA??..Someone had to have erased it before it was even taken into evidence..Hummm Wonder who that could be??? Could it be the last person who had possession of it??..Hummming again..Something just doesnt ring clear to me..Unlocking a phone does not remove all data :maddening:

The phone may or may not have had data prior to it being wiped by JY. We will probably never know because the only information we have is that it was wiped. There may be data in other locations but we have not seen anything to show that as of yet.

 

[SleuthSayer]

If phone contained no data..wouldnt the provider still have it for billing purposes etc?..I really find it incredible that any phone utilized how these people used them would contain NO DATA??..Someone had to have erased it before it was even taken into evidence..Hummm Wonder who that could be??? Could it be the last person who had possession of it??..Hummming again..Something just doesnt ring clear to me..Unlocking a phone does not remove all data :maddening:

One of the more baffling behaviors of a Blackberry is that if it is locked by a password, 10 wrong entries of the password will wipe the device clean. Seems like pretty much the opposite of what you would want to have happen.

So, I think that the suggestion is that the detective tried 10 times to guess the password and ended up erasing the whole thing. In his defense, I have a BB and never would have imagined that this would happen. But, it is. See here.

 

[carolinalady]

Okay..but didnt Brad do some stuff between his phone/Cisco Phone/Computer and Voice mail things i.e.> do alot of call forewarding things prior to this???..and didnt they live in the same house?? why would she call him?? He says she left at 7AM..tho didnt see her leave??? One of the kids didnt wakeup til 830AM..hummm..where was Brad??? Yikes this is getting so muddled:maddening:

Defense says..defense says alot of things..that is NOT evidence..thats why it is so important to get expert to explain these things...

I realize it's not evidence, but when you type that she is supposedly calling BC from a phone that's in the drawer in the house, while she's jogging, it's muddling things further. The phone records of BC's show a call from home at 6:40 (prior to when she supposedly goes jogging). Then, he's seen pulling into the HT parking lot 1 minute later.

And yes, there's a lot of phone activity that morning and I do find that odd. I'm patiently waiting for the phone experts to sort this out.

 

[gracielee]

There's a letter on file where JA Young says the phone was wiped when he attempted to unlock. The subsequent s/w where another detective (he testified Thursday) reviewed it and no data was on the phone.

I admit I'm not a techie person, but I do know where my 'history' of calls is in my cell phone. I understand that the detective said what ever he did would have erased everything on the phone, but do we know there was anything there to erase? Is there a way to tell that the phone had something on it to be erased?

 

[carolinalady]

One of the more baffling behaviors of a Blackberry is that if it is locked by a password, 10 wrong entries of the password will wipe the device clean. Seems like pretty much the opposite of what you would want to have happen.

So, I think that the suggestion is that the detective tried 10 times to guess the password and ended up erasing the whole thing. In his defense, I have a BB and never would have imagined that this would happen. But, it is. See here.

It's a security feature, just like what NC would've wanted to keep BC from getting to her information. Her atty was recommending she would keep important papers, passports locked up. So, I'm not surprised she utilized the password protection.

My understanding is you do get a warning before the data is deleted.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I think people either forget (or don't realize) that opening statements are NOT testimony nor are they evidence of anything. The judge told the jury that as well. A lot of jurors didn't take notes during the defense's opening (I was there that day in the courtroom). The defense can promise to show anything and everything, but that doesn't mean they can or will. And because what they say isn't evidence, it doesn't even have to match the actual evidence that is testified to. The defense is counting on people not remembering all they promised by the end of the trial.

BBM: Yes, the judge did advise the jurors that the opening statements are not evidence and cannot be taken as fact.

Thank you for pointing this out, SleuthyGal!

 

[carolinalady]

I admit I'm not a techie person, but I do know where my 'history' of calls is in my cell phone. I understand that the detective said what ever he did would have erased everything on the phone, but do we know there was anything there to erase? Is there a way to tell that the phone had something on it to be erased?

There was at least a password to erase. But, no, we'll never know b/c of what JY did.

 

[LaLaw2000]

True, up to a point.

The affidavits, depositions were taken under oath. They might or might not be admitted in the trial, but they have evidentiary value, given that the swearing in was just as valid as if the person rendering the material were on the witness stand. Note that I omitted news articles from my list as they have no evidentiary value, and could contain errors.

If we are going to declare that sworn statements have no evidentiary value because they were outside the court, we might as well pack up and go home now, and lock the courthouse on the way out. The same oath applies to the sworn legal statements, and a person can commit perjury on the stand, but we do these things to try to reach the truth.

Just had to tell you what a great post I think this is, CyberPro!!! It is the simple truth!

 

[SleuthSayer]

It's a security feature, just like what NC would've wanted to keep BC from getting to her information. Her atty was recommending she would keep important papers, passports locked up. So, I'm not surprised she utilized the password protection.

My understanding is you do get a warning before the data is deleted.

I understand the reason for password protection and that's exactly my point. Password protecting the phone should keep someone from either: 1) accessing your private data on the phone, 2) doing something malicious to the phone.

I would consider blowing away all of your private/personal data pretty darned malicious.

A kid could pick up the phone and in an attempt to play an exciting game of Brickbreaker, try guessing the password 10 times. The result is that the kid would blow away all of mom or dad's data.

 

[NCEast]

***snipped respectfully for space***

Hi John Fear and :Happybirthday:

I totally understand what you're saying (and that's a rarity for me here what with all this tech talk!:crazy but as well as gathering evidence, LE looks at everything objectively on the whole - which includes rulling out a person of interest such as a good alibi.

It probably comes down to statistics, as well, for domestic abuse. Here are a couple:

Women are much more likely than men to be victimized by a current or former intimate partner. Women are 84 percent of spouse abuse victims and 86 percent of victims of abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or girlfriend and about three-fourths of the persons who commit family violence are male.

http://www.endabuse.org/content/action_center/detail/754

Two-thirds of attacks on women are committed by someone the victim knows - often a husband or boyfriend.

*****

42% of murdered women are killed by their intimate male partners. 4,000 women are killed each year because of domestic violence.

Women are more often victims of domestic violence than victims of burglary, muggings, or other physical crime combined.

http://dso.uncc.edu/women/TBN_Web/stats.html

I had another link (which I can't find right now) that ups the above 42% to included acquaintances of the victim.

Thank you so much for posting these stats.
LE always looks at the spouse or domestic partner first in this type of case....not to say they didn't examine other evidence but their zeroing in on Brad was pretty much typical MO for all law enforcement in the early hours/days of an investigation.

 

[carolinalady]

I understand the reason for password protection and that's exactly my point. Password protecting the phone should keep someone from either: 1) accessing your private data on the phone, 2) doing something malicious to the phone.

I would consider blowing away all of your private/personal data pretty darned malicious.

A kid could pick up the phone and in an attempt to play an exciting game of Brickbreaker, try guessing the password 10 times. The result is that the kid would blow away all of mom or dad's data.

Hopefully the warning that one more incorrect password attempt would erase the phone would stop the kid from doing that.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I understand the reason for password protection and that's exactly my point. Password protecting the phone should keep someone from either: 1) accessing your private data on the phone, 2) doing something malicious to the phone.

I would consider blowing away all of your private/personal data pretty darned malicious.

A kid could pick up the phone and in an attempt to play an exciting game of Brickbreaker, try guessing the password 10 times. The result is that the kid would blow away all of mom or dad's data.

Now this is something I recall hearing..that it was Nancy's practice to lock up items in her car..carrying her car key while jogging..so snoopers could get at it??..Is this something I dreamed or imagined?? I also heard she hid a spare key in the garage..did maybe Brad find it in his cleanfeast of said garage?? so just maybe her phone wasnt locked, and Brad deleted..then locked which you can do if phone is open..cant you?...

Since no data was retrieved from her phone whether calls or texts and contact lists etc..Calls and texts could be obtained via the phone service provider..no?..

 

[carolinalady]

Now this is something I recall hearing..that it was Nancy's practice to lock up items in her car..carrying her car key while jogging..so snoopers could get at it??..Is this something I dreamed or imagined?? I also heard she hid a spare key in the garage..did maybe Brad find it in his cleanfeast of said garage?? so just maybe her phone wasnt locked, and Brad deleted..then locked which you can do if phone is open..cant you?...

Since no data was retrieved from her phone whether calls or texts and contact lists etc..Calls and texts could be obtained via the phone service provider..no?..

BBM

That is where the defense contends that the 11 month delay in notifying them that the data was wiped has hurt them. They said that it longer than the "data retention policy" of the phone company.

We'll have to wait to see what defense does on cross.

 

[NCEast]

I admit I'm not a techie person, but I do know where my 'history' of calls is in my cell phone. I understand that the detective said what ever he did would have erased everything on the phone, but do we know there was anything there to erase? Is there a way to tell that the phone had something on it to be erased?

I'm getting confused now. Even if the info on the phone was erased, wouldn't the phone company for the cell still show the calls in the records that were shown in court the other day?