State v Bradley Cooper 4-26-11

[Albert]

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.

The only issue I have with this post is the use of "methodical manner". It seems to me that those with this thought pattern use any method to discount BC involvement while at the same time grasping at straws to prove anyone else is possibly involved. Methodical manner would at least question BC involvement, correct? Instead, with the same lack of evidence, the methodical manner type will raise suspicion of computer hacking, secret lover, police tampering, ineptness and corruption. The judge is biased, the ADA are in a rush to judgment, etc.

 

[Madeleine74]

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

Right from the defendant's mouth. No one can say he was misquoted. No one can say his statement was made up by inept/corrupt cops. He said what he said on video. His words.

 

[jrb0124]

Bottlecap nailed it.
It's funny that most criminal cases are solved with circumstantial evidence only. How many murders have eye witnesses or confessions?

Most criminal cases brought to court are not entirely circumstantial. They also involve one or more of the following: fingerprints, blood evidence, DNA evidence, material evidence (i.e. fiber, soil, soluables), transactions.

 

[SleuthinNC]

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.

Correct. That is the persons opinion and has been stated as opinion each and every time it is brought up.

 

[Madeleine74]

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.

Go back and listen to the question he was asked. It's very clear. He was asked 3 or 4 times, at least.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

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.

Sounds like double talk....or back pedaling to me...JMO. What about the word prove. How does that fit into your explanation?

 

[cody100]

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.

Yes I do and do not disagree on that. There are exceptions to every "Most of the time"

 

[Madeleine74]

Most criminal cases brought to court are not entirely circumstantial. They also involve one or more of the following: fingerprints, blood evidence, DNA evidence, material evidence (i.e. fiber, soil, soluables), transactions.

... and all of those things in your list are, by legal definition, circumstantial evidence.

 

[sunshine05]

In order to believe BC did it, all you have to believe is that he faked a phone call and left no trace of it. Since that is his job, that isn't hard to believe, IMO.

In order to believe that anyone else did it, you have to believe that a fairly large number of odd things inside the Cooper house happened, through sheer coincidence, at the same time that his wife was killed.

Now, back to lurking.....

Really? Cisco hired him to fake phone calls?

 

[jrb0124]

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.

You are ignoring the fact that the qualification and quality for proof beyond a reasonable doubt (pros) are much higher than for reasonable doubt itself (def).

You can't assign equal value or non-value.

 

[RaleighNative]

Most criminal cases brought to court are not entirely circumstantial. They also involve one or more of the following: fingerprints, blood evidence, DNA evidence, material evidence (i.e. fiber, soil, soluables), transactions.

You can still convict on circumstantial evidence. For example, Jason Young is one case about to go to trial where I believe it will all be circumstantial.

However, it's strong circumstantial evidence in that case.

In this case, the circumstantial evidence is extremely weak. The only piece of circumstantial evidence I find significant in this case is the google search. And that's in question....I'm very interested to hear more about that.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Go back and listen to the question he was asked. It's very clear. He was asked 3 or 4 times, at least.

I have listened to it many times. The answers he gave were correct answers to the question based on job function and how the system works. If you ask the question with the idea that you are going to catch him saying he knew how to spoof the call that is his alibi you may be expecting a different answer that wouldn't make sense in a benign questioning situation.

 

[jrb0124]

... and all of those things in your list are, by legal definition, circumstantial evidence.

You are correct, by legal definition yes, but its come to be referred to as forensic evidence to differentiate it as such.

 

[macd]

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.

Was there anything in the deposition where BC describes having or having VoIP installed in his house. Any other testimony about having VoIP installed in the house?

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Really? Cisco hired him to fake phone calls?

Really? Cisco (royal we) hired him to PROVE that it just can't be done.....er not unless you have the right equipment?

 

[Madeleine74]

I have listened to it many times. The answers he gave were correct answers to the question based on job function and how the system works. If you ask the question with the idea that you are going to catch him saying he knew how to spoof the call that is his alibi you may be expecting a different answer that wouldn't make sense in a benign questioning situation.

Except he wasn't asked how the system works. He answered a question that wasn't asked. And he kept answering the question as if that was what she asked. And that's why Alice Stubbs kept zeroing in on it, asking him if he personally knew how to initiate a remote call. She had him trapped right there and he wouldn't give a straight answer about his own capabilities.

I hope the prosecution plays this one minute snippet back for the jury during closing arguments. He slipped up and revealed his true intent there.

 

[kljohnson0458]

I for one am ready for this mornings continuation of the last witness yesterday. Good morning.

 

[cody100]

The only issue I have with this post is the use of "methodical manner". It seems to me that those with this thought pattern use any method to discount BC involvement while at the same time grasping at straws to prove anyone else is possibly involved. Methodical manner would at least question BC involvement, correct? Instead, with the same lack of evidence, the methodical manner type will raise suspicion of computer hacking, secret lover, police tampering, ineptness and corruption. The judge is biased, the ADA are in a rush to judgment, etc.

Who says the fence sitters are not talking all of those factors into their decision making and have questioned each and ever point and are still doing so. Now I believe the methodical statement is true and of course it is IMO. The very fact that someone is waiting until the evidence is completely presented indicates to me that they might be using methodical/scientific methods to come to a conclusion. IMO

 

[SleuthinNC]

Sounds like double talk....or back pedaling to me...JMO. What about the word prove. How does that fit into your explanation?

you are not being very specific about the word "prove" but I will assume that to be "Proving that it can't happen."

That fits into my explanation as proving that #1 can't happen.

He explained what he did in his job as simulating how the customer would use the system and answered question from that frame of reference.

And for the record using csim to generate a test call would not be considered initiating a call remotely since it is done directly on the router itself.

 

[macd]

At 12:06 in the
video depo BC says clearly that he was using Cisco VoIP on his home phone line and he installed it in the January or February of 2008. To do this he needed to have a router with an FXO port in his home.