State v Bradley Cooper 4-26-11

[DB in FV]

Sweet mother of god we're all screwed if this is how some people wear their critical thinking caps.

Why? If we knew he had access to a gun, and NC was shot, but we couldn't find the gun he'd still be a strong suspect. Why isn't it the same with the computer equipment?

Am I remembering wrong or was there a totally wiped desktop computer in the house?

 

[Cheyenne130]

re: the google maps, I believe the defense still has an expert witness to call specifically for this (?)

Without any further testimony, we're looking at a hung jury at the minimum. If another expert witness can cast doubt on the google maps, or the defense continues to make inroads in spreading suspicion and pointing out CPD tunnel vision...acquittal.

Regardless of how you personally feel about BC (G/NG), common sense should at this point tell you that a guilty verdict from this jury is out of the question IMO. If not, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

They already had an expert witness testify and he was completely wrong. Based on the logic I'm seeing, all the defense has to do is find someone who will testify to the opposite of the state witness and they cancel each other out, reasonable doubt, the guilty walk. Is that justice?

 

[Madeleine74]

Bottlecap nailed it.

If I got a dollar each time the BII side used words like 'feel', 'believe', 'don't believe', 'gut', I could retire by the end of this case.

"I believe CPD was inept and they focused too fast on Brad Cooper..."
"I think Brad Cooper was too smart to do that..."
"Something about that witness makes me feel that s/he ...."

These are the same beliefs which foster the illusion that circumstantial evidence is not evidence. It's funny that most criminal cases are solved with circumstantial evidence only. How many murders have eye witnesses or confessions?

I'd say the theme song should be that old dirge, "Feelings... (nothing more than feelings)"

 

[Madeleine74]

As for the remote 6:40am call, Brad himself tripped up on this.

Go back and listen to his deposition when Alice Stubbs asks him if he has the ability to initiate a remote call.

He throws out huge and obvious slip before recovering and changing his answer. "...we try to prove that it can't happen..." when asked if he can initiate a remote phone call.

 

[Bottle Cap]

My personal fave is the belief that BC couldn't have done it because nobody would leave their wife mostly naked in a ditch. It's been stated over and over as it it's fact or logic. It's a feeling.

 

[cody100]

The BDI and BII folks will never agree on how they reach their conclusions. CE is based often on opinions, often biased and skewed observations, feelings, guesses, and gut feelings so I find it rather amusing that BDI group want to criticize the BII folks for using similar methods to come to their conclusions. I admit that CE also includes situations, opportunities, and means/methods. But, I too would be wealthy if I got a $1 for every time I heard those "feeling" words from the BDI.

Then there are the Fence sitters who are still evaluating evidence in a methodical manner. None of the three categories are more right or more wrong than the other=====just different viewpoints.

 

[RaleighNative]

My personal fave is the belief that BC couldn't have done it because nobody would leave their wife mostly naked in a ditch. It's been stated over and over as it it's fact or logic. It's a feeling.

That's been referred to over and over again by the BDIers. I obviously missed that one. Did several people state this, or was it one opinion?

I'm on the BII side right now, but I do agree that is a ridiculous argument. It's certainly not all of us saying that.

 

[kantoo]

re: the google maps, I believe the defense still has an expert witness to call specifically for this (?)

Without any further testimony, we're looking at a hung jury at the minimum. If another expert witness can cast doubt on the google maps, or the defense continues to make inroads in spreading suspicion and pointing out CPD tunnel vision...acquittal.

Regardless of how you personally feel about BC (G/NG), common sense should at this point tell you that a guilty verdict from this jury is out of the question IMO. If not, you're setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

As someone who is watching this trial with no background information before this trial started, i'm going to give my point of view as if i was on the jury.

All the tawdry behavior is like having gnats flying around your face, irritating but meaningless.

The one AHA for me was the google map.

I don't place much confidence in eyewitnesses accounts.

So i still don't know how i would vote yet, but the google map makes me lean toward guilty.

So the defense needs to produce someone to change my mind about the google map

 

[LAWsy_ME]

As for the remote 6:40am call, Brad himself tripped up on this.

Go back and listen to his deposition when Alice Stubbs asks him if he has the ability to initiate a remote call.

He throws out huge and obvious slip before recovering and changing his answer. "...we try to prove that it can't happen..." when asked if he can initiate a remote phone call.

I wonder if trying to prove remote calls can't happen was part of his old job description, or his new job description, using the royal WE....i might add.

 

[cody100]

My personal fave is the belief that BC couldn't have done it because nobody would leave their wife mostly naked in a ditch. It's been stated over and over as it it's fact or logic. It's a feeling.

Actually profilers would indicate loved ones don't usually leave a body mostly naked but rather clothed. This is not feeling but a fact. Now, this fact doesn't eliminate BC from doing it. IMO

 

[Bottle Cap]

Actually profilers would indicate loved ones don't usually leave a body mostly naked but rather clothed. This is not feeling but a fact. Now, this fact doesn't eliminate BC from doing it. IMO

Which is what makes it a feeling.

If you really want to use statistics to back that up, then it would be fair to use statistic about domestic homicides too. Is it?

 

[SleuthinNC]

I wondered about this too - it was cleared up yesterday. Defense requested a DNA test multiple times, was refused by CPD.

Youngest daughter was not (and has not been since) in the custody of BC when the information of the Oct 2005 'sexual encounter' where 'intercourse was started' came to light in 2009.

Youngest daughter may very well be JP's child. Go to any site which calculates due date, enter the encounter date -14 days (per the norm) and see what the result is.

NC would have had to try within two days plus or minus of the couch episode with JP, and even if they (NC/BC) did - still no guarantee.

Paternity of the youngest has now become significant, given the suspicion hanging over JP after yesterday's bizarre sequence of testimony and recorded interviews.

Given the circumstances and evidence, I think the possibility of JP being the bio father is much greater than the possibility of BC spoofing a call.

If he is the father, that changes the dynamic of the case tremendously. If I were the CPD/pros, I too would refuse the test if I had any doubts about the result.

We also know that BC was out of town 2-3 days prior to and including the day of the encounter.

 

[Bottle Cap]

That's been referred to over and over again by the BDIers. I obviously missed that one. Did several people state this, or was it one opinion?

I'm on the BII side right now, but I do agree that is a ridiculous argument. It's certainly not all of us saying that.

It was one opinion, but agreed with in the sense of what profilers say. The person who has this opinion has stated it twice since I've been here, and is a very vocal BII.

 

[cody100]

Which is what makes it a feeling.

If you really want to use statistics to back that up, then it would be fair to use statistic about domestic homicides too. Is it?

That comes straight out of a profiler's class. Have you ever had classes in profiling before?

 

[Madeleine74]

I wonder if trying to prove remote calls can't happen was part of his old job description, or his new job description, using the royal WE....i might add.

You have to listen to what he says after that slip up.

He says, "we try to avoid it happening. It's not something a typical customer would ever try to do."

This is his 2nd answer to Stubbs asking, "Have you ever had an occasion to INITIATE a call from a remote location?" The first answer was his slip up about trying to prove it can't happen.

Stubbs asked him about 4 different times if he personally knew how to initiate a remote call and he used every blocking tactic he could to not answer it directly. Including "we", "if a customer had the right software."

Don't take my word for it. Go listen to it.

12:08pm on this video depo.

 

[kantoo]

Actually profilers would indicate loved ones don't usually leave a body mostly naked but rather clothed. This is not feeling but a fact. Now, this fact doesn't eliminate BC from doing it. IMO

i don't think brad or nancy would consider the other one a "loved one". i think they extremely disliked, perhaps hated each other.

 

[Bottle Cap]

That comes straight out of a profiler's class. Have you ever had classes in profiling before?

No I haven't. Do you understand my point, though, that if you're going to use one set of "MOST of the times", then you should be able to use another set just as easily. Most of the times, when a woman dies in the midst of a nasty separation, it's her partner that did it. Statistically speaking.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

You have to listen to what he says after that slip up.

He says, "we try to avoid it happening. It's not something a typical customer would ever try to do."

This is his 2nd answer to Stubbs asking, "Have you ever had an occasion to INITIATE a call from a remote location?" The first answer was his slip up about trying to prove it can't happen.

Stubbs asked him about 4 different times if he personally knew how to initiate a remote call and he used every blocking tactic he could to not answer it directly. Including "we", "if a customer had the right software."

Don't take my word for it. Go listen to it.

12:08pm on this video depo.

I remember....it is a telling moment....and hard to explain that one away.

 

[RaleighNative]

It was one opinion, but agreed with in the sense of what profilers say. The person who has this opinion has stated it twice since I've been here, and is a very vocal BII.

It's true that is what profilers say. But that doesn't mean BC is innocent, and I haven't heard that from people on the forum.

I read these books years ago which were excellent on profiling if you're interested. I believe they were called something like Mindhunter by John Douglass?

Anyone have the exact titles and authors. Very interesting read for those of us interested enough to post on W/S!

 

[SleuthinNC]

As for the remote 6:40am call, Brad himself tripped up on this.

Go back and listen to his deposition when Alice Stubbs asks him if he has the ability to initiate a remote call.

He throws out huge and obvious slip before recovering and changing his answer. "...we try to prove that it can't happen..." when asked if he can initiate a remote phone call.

He was actually talking about 2 different things.

1. can somebody off network use a Cisco IP Phone to place calls. Basically hacking in.

2. Can a user of a Cisco IP Phone system use their phone from anywhere. Yes as long as they are connected to the network.

There weren't any lies in there. It sounded more like he was trying to interpret what she was really asking in the question.