State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[WolfpackWoman]

Originally Posted by fran

OK, we get it. LE messed up and the phone was empty.

What's the point of this testimony again?

JMHO
fran

That it was intentional, and not just an "oops" moment that Young testified to.

[cassius]

Originally Posted by Hartzy34

This guy seems to be one of those awkward, techie geeks but clearly knows his stuff. When he's trying to explain something his brain seems to be one step ahead of his words. I find that a lot in 'techie geeks' who are trying to speak in layman's terms. Might explain some of his ineptness.

according to his testimony, he's about 8 years ahead of everyone else!!

[fran]

Originally Posted by LAWsy_ME

Talking directly to the jury.....isn't this against rules of how to testify.

I'll ask my daughter. She does this. I THOUGHT they were supposed to make a connection to the jury when they're testifying as an expert.

JMHO
fran

[gracielee]

Originally Posted by LAWsy_ME

Talking directly to the jury.....isn't this against rules of how to testify.

No, he can and should turn and address the jury when he testifies, but he isn't supposed to engage them in a back & forth discussion, question them, the way JW did. My curiousity was that this expert isn't more knowledgable about common court room terminology and procedures, LIke just now, 'objection, non responsive to the question'. Usually experts are so well trained in courtroom testimony. They know how to avoid hearsay rules, how to answer succeintly, etc.

[Danielle59]

Originally Posted by NCEast

Night of July 11 BC had a router LE never found.

I find that highly suspect, the FBI had 2.5 years to make note of this and they jsut do it this week, and it is not even in evidence yet, all that has happened is that BZ stated it before the jury as if though it was truth, that was underhanded, he was testifying and that is not appropriate.

[cody100]

Originally Posted by Danielle59

Not saying they don't read it, I don't know, but I think someone from here sent it to the Prosecution.

I think some of the BDI'ers would love to be able to testify in this case, but if they can at least get some acknowledgement from the Prosecution they feel like they are a part of it.

Someone said it should be sent to the judge. I remember the discussion. So, you might be correct. I have no idea whether JW actually posted here, or who sent it to the judge or prosecution.

[Danielle59]

Originally Posted by macd

Another smoking gun. Sounds like an FXO supportable router was present before the spoof call, and missing after.

BZ didn't slip testimony in saying that an FXO supportable router was present, he said a router. Unless I totally misunderstood, but bottomline, that was inappropriate of BZ to say before the jury, he is not an expert witness.

[fran]

What is the purpose of this testimony?

The phone is blank.

Cannot be used by the pros.

Cannot be used by the def.

So?
fran

[carolinalady]

Originally Posted by Danielle59

BZ didn't slip testimony in saying that an FXO supportable router was present, he said a router. Unless I totally misunderstood, but bottomline, that was inappropriate of BZ to say before the jury, he is not an expert witness.

Jury wasn't present during arguments.

[less0305]

Originally Posted by Wyn

Local on craigslist, meet and pay cash. Stop by the flea market at the fair grounds, pay cash. Pretty easy.

I've bought on ebay and mailed a money order.

[lib's mom]

Originally Posted by Danielle59

BZ didn't slip testimony in saying that an FXO supportable router was present, he said a router. Unless I totally misunderstood, but bottomline, that was inappropriate of BZ to say before the jury, he is not an expert witness.

He wasn't testifying. The jury wasn't in the room.

[johnfear]

Originally Posted by less0305

I've bought on ebay and mailed a money order.

Again, it all leaves a trail (searches on ebay, searches on craigslist, etc.) hence the lack of either: 1) follow up by the cops or 2) finding of anything significant.

[gracielee]

Ben Levitan appears to be in his 'nancy grace guest' mode rather than his solemn courtroom expert witness mode.

[RaleighNative]

Originally Posted by less0305

I've bought on ebay and mailed a money order.

They testified serial numbers matched...this was definitely NC's mobile phone.

[kljohnson0458]

I can see this witness causing a bit of a ruckus come Cross. Very knowledgeable and rambles on and on like he's lecturing but knows his stuff. I think he will be obviously testy with Zell.

[ohiogirl]

Finally I can hear the questions.

[foltster]

Originally Posted by macd

This post says that 10 incorrect password attempts will wipe a blackberry.
http://www.bbgeeks.com/blackberry-gu...ckberry-88202/
So, if BC knew this, and entered the wrong password in 9 times, the next attempt by Cary PD will have wiped the phone.

The phone is extremely explicit when before it wipes the data. In big letters it says something to the effect "All information will be wiped" and then has you confirm this by typing out the word "blackberry" in an ominous looking box.

There is no mistaking this phone was wiped and whoever did it was very aware of what was going on at the time.

[fran]

This, IMHO, is a complete waste of time.

JMHO
fran

[jrb0124]

Originally Posted by fran

What is the purpose of this testimony?

The phone is blank.

Cannot be used by the pros.

Cannot be used by the def.

So?
fran

Not sure where this will end up eventually, but bo far, improper handling and custody of evidence (the phone) has been highlighted.

Remember, he examined the phone twice - we're hearing only about the first time.

[raisincharlie]

Originally Posted by fran

What is the purpose of this testimony?

The phone is blank.

Cannot be used by the pros.

Cannot be used by the def.

So?
fran

Smoke and mirrors ? Gotta say something ? The point seems to me an attempt to impeach Detective Young and what he supposedly did with respect to the phone. I see a red herring, smell it too.

[macd]

Originally Posted by Danielle59

BZ didn't slip testimony in saying that an FXO supportable router was present, he said a router. Unless I totally misunderstood, but bottomline, that was inappropriate of BZ to say before the jury, he is not an expert witness.

The jury was out at the time.
Defense brought objections to two future witnesses: the bird-man (rebuttal witness) and recall of cisco employee to testify to recently found VPN records.
BZ just argued against the objections.

[Danielle59]

Originally Posted by gracielee

LOL, you'ze gettin' robbed? just teasin'. IEEE is one of the professional organizations most engineers belong to. Recognized internationally. Perhaps JW could add that to his resume?

The IEEE is for electrical and electronics engineering, a civil engineer, for example would not likely belong to it.

[LAWsy_ME]

Perhaps Boz will ask on cross about what knowledge this witness can reveal about *who* may have done all this *work* with the phone.

eta: If there is no knowledge of *who* did the work.....does nothing to help the defense IMO

specifically, *who* has the sledgehammer.

[Hartzy34]

Originally Posted by johnfear

Again, it all leaves a trail (searches on ebay, searches on craigslist, etc.) hence the lack of either: 1) follow up by the cops or 2) finding of anything significant.

No search on ebay or craigslist...just google maps

[AnotherSleuth]

Originally Posted by fran

This, IMHO, is a complete waste of time.

JMHO
fran

Agree. It's not adding anything to what we already know. Hey Defense, where's the meat???