State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[ncsu95]

Wow, wiped the phone but didn't call AT&T back for assistance trying to recover the data.

 

[gracielee]

What is so bad about this is that the defense attorneys sent a letter asking that this piece of evidence be handled with complete care. Yet it is the one item where the data was destroyed. Young admitted seeing the letter from the defense. This looks really bad, even if it was completely innocent.

I agree but, and it is a but, if Brad already cleared off Nancy's phone prior to handing it over, then he would have known it was clear, so he wouldn't have worried what 'might be' on it. MOO

 

[luckyme]

I agree but, and it is a but, if Brad already cleared off Nancy's phone prior to handing it over, then he would have known it was clear, so he wouldn't have worried what 'might be' on it. MOO

I think nancy might have put a lock on her phone that brad probally couldnt get into. moo

 

[JiminWilton]

So we're having a little 4th amendment issue.... Hmmmm.

<Kurtz brings out that Det. Young was doing a "forensic preview" a month before they applied for and received a search warrant>

 

[sunshine05]

So I guess this is one thing from Kurtz's opening that he didn't lie about. Wow. CPD is going to be investigated after this trial.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Lunch Break

 

[LyndyLoo]

Wow, wiped the phone but didn't call AT&T back for assistance trying to recover the data.

NO he did not call back..but turned it OFF and sent it to the experts to do a more invasive check of the phone...Why call AT&T..as the program to follow unlocking of phone suggested to him led to starting of wiping...AT&T could not of done anything at that point..and he did what he thought was the best option at the time....

This whole line of questioning is only to besmurch this Detective..as this wiping of data has been already put before the jury..Data got wiped..and asking same question 100 times is mainly to drive home this error..Move on..

Having said that...The HUGE thing I feel that got botched was NOT collecting that Shop Vac..NOW there's a real screwup...:rocker:

 

[gracielee]

I think nancy might have put a lock on her phone that brad probally couldnt get into. moo

Okay, I'm definitely not a technical person, don't have any LOCKS on anything personally, computer or cell phone. I do have passwords though, as does my husband. And we each have them written down, for our own memories sake. We are OLD, forgetful at times, especially stuff like passwords. My husband know's the little book I've written all my passwords in. He's probably forgotten about it by now, but I think eventually he'd stumble upon it if he really needed to get into something of mine on the computer. Wouldn't Nancy have written down any passwords/locks she might have had? Just asking because I don't know?

 

[NCEast]

NO he did not call back..but turned it OFF and sent it to the experts to do a more invasive check of the phone...Why call AT&T..as the program to follow unlocking of phone suggested to him led to starting of wiping...AT&T could not of done anything at that point..and he did what he thought was the best option at the time....

This whole line of questioning is only to besmurch this Detective..as this wiping of data has been already put before the jury..Data got wiped..and asking same question 100 times is mainly to drive home this error..Move on..

Having said that...The HUGE thing I feel that got botched was NOT collecting that Shop Vac..NOW there's a real screwup...:rocker:

I agree, but do wish Det. Young had gotten the names, titles, etc. of the person who gave him the directions to unlock the phone. That would have sounded so much better. I am confused about the search warrant, or lack of one, that allowed him to do a non-invasive search of the phone. He had something legal that allowed him to 'look' at the data in the phone but at that point he couldn't actually download the data. Is that correct?

 

[LyndyLoo]

So we're having a little 4th amendment issue.... Hmmmm.

<Kurtz brings out that Det. Young was doing a "forensic preview" a month before they applied for and received a search warrant>

Hummm Not so sure about that 4th ammendment issue..He did get a Court Order to obtain Puk Code...S/W was obtained for an Intrusive Exam..??..

BTW..do they need a search warrant to check into a victims phone?..Not sure being that it wasnt belonging to a suspect..who has rights..so S?W would be necessary then..Im sure they obtained one for looking into Brad's phone..

 

[luckyme]

Okay, I'm definitely not a technical person, don't have any LOCKS on anything personally, computer or cell phone. I do have passwords though, as does my husband. And we each have them written down, for our own memories sake. We are OLD, forgetful at times, especially stuff like passwords. My husband know's the little book I've written all my passwords in. He's probably forgotten about it by now, but I think eventually he'd stumble upon it if he really needed to get into something of mine on the computer. Wouldn't Nancy have written down any passwords/locks she might have had? Just asking because I don't know?

I write mine down too!! Hehe! I think that nancy hated brad so much she most likely had a code on her phone and something he wouldnt guess. jmo

 

[NCEast]

Okay, I'm definitely not a technical person, don't have any LOCKS on anything personally, computer or cell phone. I do have passwords though, as does my husband. And we each have them written down, for our own memories sake. We are OLD, forgetful at times, especially stuff like passwords. My husband know's the little book I've written all my passwords in. He's probably forgotten about it by now, but I think eventually he'd stumble upon it if he really needed to get into something of mine on the computer. Wouldn't Nancy have written down any passwords/locks she might have had? Just asking because I don't know?

I don't think she would have wanted to take a chance on Brad discovering her password/lock list. However, yesterday's comments on here about how she asked him to clean out her car and get items out of her car at various times kind of throws me a bit with respect to the items she wanted to keep him completely away from. So I really don't know anything. He may have had the technical knowledge to bypass any locks or passwords........

 

[filesman]

NO he did not call back..but turned it OFF and sent it to the experts to do a more invasive check of the phone...Why call AT&T..as the program to follow unlocking of phone suggested to him led to starting of wiping...AT&T could not of done anything at that point..and he did what he thought was the best option at the time....

This whole line of questioning is only to besmurch this Detective..as this wiping of data has been already put before the jury..Data got wiped..and asking same question 100 times is mainly to drive home this error..Move on..

Having said that...The HUGE thing I feel that got botched was NOT collecting that Shop Vac..NOW there's a real screwup...:rocker:

if he did not write the instructions down - how do we know he did exactly as instructed. Once given permission (code) he should have call at&t back and had them on the line as he did the steps.. MHO

 

[LyndyLoo]

I agree, but do wish Det. Young had gotten the names, titles, etc. of the person who gave him the directions to unlock the phone. That would have sounded so much better. I am confused about the search warrant, or lack of one, that allowed him to do a non-invasive search of the phone. He had something legal that allowed him to 'look' at the data in the phone but at that point he couldn't actually download the data. Is that correct?

BBM~~

Im sure if it was something as a requirement, they could have just asked AT&T who was the person who took JY's call on that date..and would bring him in as a witness....Defense is just making hay with Nancy's phone getting wiped of data....Time to move on me thinks........

 

[ncsu95]

NO he did not call back..but turned it OFF and sent it to the experts to do a more invasive check of the phone...Why call AT&T..as the program to follow unlocking of phone suggested to him led to starting of wiping...AT&T could not of done anything at that point..and he did what he thought was the best option at the time....

This whole line of questioning is only to besmurch this Detective..as this wiping of data has been already put before the jury..Data got wiped..and asking same question 100 times is mainly to drive home this error..Move on..

Having said that...The HUGE thing I feel that got botched was NOT collecting that Shop Vac..NOW there's a real screwup...:rocker:

Why? Maybe there is a way to retrieve wiped data if you do something within a certain period of time. You never know. I'd call and say "I was told to do this...I did that and now it says it is wiped. Can that be recovered?". That would make more sense than giving it to a forensic expert unless that forensic expert worked for AT&T.

 

[ncsu95]

Okay, I'm definitely not a technical person, don't have any LOCKS on anything personally, computer or cell phone. I do have passwords though, as does my husband. And we each have them written down, for our own memories sake. We are OLD, forgetful at times, especially stuff like passwords. My husband know's the little book I've written all my passwords in. He's probably forgotten about it by now, but I think eventually he'd stumble upon it if he really needed to get into something of mine on the computer. Wouldn't Nancy have written down any passwords/locks she might have had? Just asking because I don't know?

In a divorce type situation where she is storing stuff in her vehicle to keep it from him? I highly doubt it.

 

[gracielee]

I write mine down too!! Hehe! I think that nancy hated brad so much she most likely had a code on her phone and something he wouldnt guess. jmo

I'm sure she did too, but Brad is so *techie*, I'm curious as to whether people like that, their own separate species, could do something like sabotage a phone, so that regardless of Det. Young's capabilities, the contents would go *POOF* upon attempts to recover it? Man this will date me, kind of James Bondish, the really old (Sean Connery) James Bond. :floorlaugh:

FFR, from now on I think I just might use "I hate Brad Cooper" for my passwords on Facebook and stuff. :great: Easy to remember anyway. Although I'd probably do "I hate Jason Young" instead.

 

[ncsu95]

I don't think she would have wanted to take a chance on Brad discovering her password/lock list. However, yesterday's comments on here about how she asked him to clean out her car and get items out of her car at various times kind of throws me a bit with respect to the items she wanted to keep him completely away from. So I really don't know anything. He may have had the technical knowledge to bypass any locks or passwords........

There is no generic way to bypass the locks/passwords. That is why they had to obtain a code from AT&T to do so.

 

[Maja]

Diet Coke being consumed @ crime scene was a no-no. NOTHING can be introduced to the scene what-so-ever. What if it spilled? Was milling this over last night after Kurtz inqured about it yesterday.

 

[KellyCrash]

I believe once the shoes are worn on a surface other than the store/carpet, they cannot be returned.

That is not the case. I have returned shoes that have been worn for a few weeks. They were my daughter's shoes and the velcro kept coming undone when she walked/ran. Stores want to keep their customers happy.