State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[less0305]

LOL - I was going to say if the defense knew how to pose a proper question, he would have gotten better answers.

 

[Tipstaff]

Defense cross examination of Detective Young served to prepare future witnesses on what to expect when their turn comes. It didn't seem the cross of Detective Young in the end developed into anything that would be enough that would change an opinion - if one had been developed - of the direct exam. But those prosecution witnesses after him have had a preview of the aggressive cross to anticipate.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I just read today's article on WRAL. It says JY attempted to access NC's phone more than a week after he called the phone company for assistance, using what he remembered as the directions. It says he expected to see a warning screen before it wiped but none came and it was too late. I didn't realize there was such a gap of time there.

I just read the same article. I haven't seen a minute of the trial, so can someone who did see this say whether he explained why the week gap and also why he went from memory? You'd think that he would have just let the AT&T person walk him through it while he was on the phone with them. Then they could have told him not to say 'yes' to the warning.

 

[sunshine05]

If the defense had actually asked legitimate questions, he might have had answers.

I thought he asked very clear concise questions regarding the phones and that is the most important part of this trial.

The fumbling from Kurtz was a result of Young's evasiveness, imo. I don't think he was expecting a "no" answer to "do you know what a sim card is?"

 

[gracielee]

These are actually two unrelated issues. If you are suggesting that because he has a Blackberry, he has a SIM card so he should know what one is, that's not necessarily true.

Whether or not you have a SIM card is not a property of the device manufacturer (Blackberry, Apple, Motorola, Nokia, etc). It is a property of the wireless carrier, specifically of the underlying cellular technology used by that carrier.

AT&T's cellular technology is called GSM and GSM phones have SIM cards. Verizon's cellular technology is called CDMA and CDMA phones do not have SIM cards (at least not in the U.S.).

So, if he got his BB from AT&T it does have a SIM card. If he got his BB from Verizon, it does not have a SIM card.

As far as what a SIM card is, it provides a GSM phone with all the information it needs to make and receive calls and/or send and receive data. E.g. the identification number for the phone so that the cell network knows who/where you phone is, the phone number, etc. A GSM phone will not work without a SIM card. It typically does not have personal information on it (address book, e-mails, photos, etc). It's just the technical stuff that the phone needs to work on the cellular network. The SIM card is a tiny little rectangular card with a little notch on one corner. It is often underneath the battery in a phone.

If you and your spouse both have GSM phones and for whatever reason you want to swap phones but don't want to have to tell all your friends that your phone number changed, you and the spouse can swap phones and as long as you put the SIM card from your phone in the spouse's phone and vice-versa, you can make and receive calls with the same number as before. But, if you have a lot of "stuff" on the phone (e-mails, photos, address book, etc) it is going to stay with your original phone unless it is on removable storage.

Now, if you are thinking that your phone has a little tiny card that you put in a slot on the side, that is not a SIM card. That is a Micro SD card. That is used to store personal stuff on (e-mails, photos, etc). It is unrelated to the operation of the phone and the phone will work fine without it, you may just not have any space to store anything.

So, you can debate whether the detective should have known what a SIM card is because he is a detective, but the fact that he has a BB does not tell you anything about his SIM card knowledge.

Thank you! Great explanation. I don't feel quite as dumb anymore. And if I understood you correctly, we have verizon so we don't even HAVE sim cards.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I thought he asked very clear concise questions regarding the phones and that is the most important part of this trial.

The fumbling from Kurtz was a result of Young's evasiveness, imo. I don't think he was expecting a "no" answer to "do you know what a sim card is?"

Kurtz: "If Nancy called Brad at 6:40, that would mean that Nancy was alive at 6:40"

Det. Young: (what would be an honest response) If we had ANY proof that Nancy called Brad at 6:40 on July 12th, we wouldn't be here right now!

*DISCLAIMER* This did not happen. It is a simulated response to a (in my opinion) ridiculous question. That's what would be said in an ideal world without the rules of court.

 

[gracielee]

Didn't he say he fell asleep with the girls around 9 pm? That doesn't mean he said he was asleep at 10:30 pm.

In his depostion he said 'he fell asleep shortly after 9:00 with the girls, and never arose before Katie woke up, around 4:00 a.m. was it? He said he woke up when nancy came home, checked his watch to see the time, around 12:30, but he didn't get up, nor did he acknowledge Nancy. That's what I recall from Brad's sworn deposition oct 2, 2008

 

[Lori59]

Two random thoughts.....I think Young did fluster Kurtz with his sometimes evasive answers and Young asking him to be more specific on many questions he was being asked. I think it was a clever thing for Young to do actually......not an accident on Young's part. It appeared to me that it got to Kurtz. And, the re-direct was the best I have seen the State...I hope they have their groove and will keep it up the rest of the trial. The tone and pace were great. JMO

 

[gracielee]

Knowing you are the focus of the investigation, the ONLY focus, and just saying if he's innocent, you'd be pretty ticked about having to go through with all this BS, and may omit things because you've felt you've offered your story already 50 other times, or its none of their business if I woke up or not, or went to Lowe's on the way to work, or where I was; or you just forgot the details, kinda like the detective did during the cross. Or shall we say the detective was less than forthwright with some of his answers, kinda like you are accusing Brad of? Which is the greater sin? Get your stones ready, decide who to throw them at.

Except, in all these reasons, I notice you never mentioned the horror of having ones wife brutally murdered. The mother of your children. 'He's ticked.' 'having to go through all this BS." Remember, the reason for all *this* is the murder of your wife. After all, somebody killed Nancy. If he didn't do it, shouldn't he be concerned about who did kill his wife?

 

[CuriousDad]

Except, in all these reasons, I notice you never mentioned the horror of having ones wife brutally murdered. The mother of your children. 'He's ticked.' 'having to go through all this BS." Remember, the reason for all *this* is the murder of your wife. After all, somebody killed Nancy. If he didn't do it, shouldn't he be concerned about who did kill his wife?

He officially didn't know his wife was brutally murdered until the 15th? He's ticked cause they are tailing him starting the evening of the 12th, plus asking him to come down to the station to answer questions, asking him to get in the patrol car and go for a ride, constantly asking questions that anyone would know were accusitory (sp?) in nature. Then later during the taped interviews - remember the CPD had tricked him into meeting them and then took his children. Yes, I'd be really ticked, and wouldn't trust a thing they did.

Didn't DY say he didn't get to talk to BC after the 14th? So, all of these questions were asked while NC was officially still missing, and BC was officially not a suspect. The next we hear from Brad were the custody hearings. So, yeah, a lot of BS to put a man through when his wife is missing.

 

[CyberPro]

I think the point that's trying to be made and that I have a problem with is they didn't even talk with her during that time. You're in the early part of your investigation and don't have a lot of evidence to go on at that moment in time and someone calls CPD and says not only they saw her, but talked to her. If nothing else, wouldn't it be simple due diligence to speak to the woman to determine what she saw. Yes, they eventually talk to her, but why not at that early time?

This has been repeated several times on here, and it is not correct. Don't believe me? Go read her affidavit for yourself. She called the CPD and gave them the information, but the affidavit says they never came out to talk to her. She was waiting for someone to show up and interview her.

My thinking is that they already had some evidence (like, oh, I don't know, a mismatched pair of shoes) that she did not go running, or perhaps the timing was wrong. Don't worry, I feel sure the defense will hammer this out if there is anything at all to it, and if they don't bring it up, you can rest assured that there is nothing to it.

 

[gracielee]

I think she was working towards it...yes. We know she reconnected with men from her past.

She was over with Brad. Working towards it is one thing, having affairs is 'already there'. In listening to the deposition tapes, hearing the questions about the French woman when Brad was in France, I wonder if they will have her as a witness, or depositions from her. I think that would be interesting. I noticed the way Brad inched up the time frame of his last correspondence with Frenchie too. Brad was all over the place with his female friends IMO.

:slap:

 

[gracielee]

I thought it had (JP)

Three years ago. Brad's French fling was only a year prior.

 

[gracielee]

I recorded the information when they talked about all the phone calls. I actually have made up a spreadsheet to keep track of everything. I am waiting to add the cell tower information as I think it may be very telling.

Wow! Great ideas, can't wait to hear the tower evidence now.

 

[CuriousDad]

I have to add this - How in the world was BC to know that the call he didn't answer from some random 919-*advertiser censored*-xxxx number was a policeman calling him on Sat afternoon? People keep saying why didn't he answer that call. His BB is not that smart, to post the caller's name, and occupation. Now that would be a cool feature. He's busy tending kids, maybe out of the car, phone is in car, obviously his mind is racing, guilty or not. I miss calls all the time. LE calls back, leaves message. He doesn't return call right away. Maybe kids are sleeping in the car, phone is on silence, doesn't realize there's a message until 10 mins or so later when he picks up the phone and looks at it.

I just see that it doesn't matter what he did, or what his response was, many on here are going to paint that action as proof of guilt. I thought sleuths were open minded, free thinking people.

 

[Albert]

He officially didn't know his wife was brutally murdered until the 15th? He's ticked cause they are tailing him starting the evening of the 12th, plus asking him to come down to the station to answer questions, asking him to get in the patrol car and go for a ride, constantly asking questions that anyone would know were accusitory (sp?) in nature. Then later during the taped interviews - remember the CPD had tricked him into meeting them and then took his children. Yes, I'd be really ticked, and wouldn't trust a thing they did.

Didn't DY say he didn't get to talk to BC after the 14th? So, all of these questions were asked while NC was officially still missing, and BC was officially not a suspect. The next we hear from Brad were the custody hearings. So, yeah, a lot of BS to put a man through when his wife is missing.

To me this is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. It starts as a missing person report and who knows how long the person will remain missing, 1 day, 1 week, 2 weeks, 2 months, etc. At what point should LE start to transition their investigation from missing person to something more severe. Should they allow the last known person to see the missing person alive the freedom to roam freely, the freedom to potentially dispose of evidence. Is there any way for LE to win in this type of situation?

 

[Cheyenne130]

I have to add this - How in the world was BC to know that the call he didn't answer from some random 919-*advertiser censored*-xxxx number was a policeman calling him on Sat afternoon? People keep saying why didn't he answer that call. His BB is not that smart, to post the caller's name, and occupation. Now that would be a cool feature. He's busy tending kids, maybe out of the car, phone is in car, obviously his mind is racing, guilty or not. I miss calls all the time. LE calls back, leaves message. He doesn't return call right away. Maybe kids are sleeping in the car, phone is on silence, doesn't realize there's a message until 10 mins or so later when he picks up the phone and looks at it.

I just see that it doesn't matter what he did, or what his response was, many on here are going to paint that action as proof of guilt. I thought sleuths were open minded, free thinking people.

The curious part is that the officer left a voice message and Brad didn't return the call. That's my take.

 

[gracielee]

Two random thoughts.....I think Young did fluster Kurtz with his sometimes evasive answers and Young asking him to be more specific on many questions he was being asked. I think it was a clever thing for Young to do actually......not an accident on Young's part. It appeared to me that it got to Kurtz. And, the re-direct was the best I have seen the State...I hope they have their groove and will keep it up the rest of the trial. The tone and pace were great. JMO

I remember being told that exactly. Listen to the questions, and 'if you don't understand a question, say so'. 'Ask for it to be repeated or worded in a different fashion so that you do understand what's being asked *before* you respond.' I think Young has learned how to testify at trial. JMO

 

[jmflu]

He officially didn't know his wife was brutally murdered until the 15th? He's ticked cause they are tailing him starting the evening of the 12th, plus asking him to come down to the station to answer questions, asking him to get in the patrol car and go for a ride, constantly asking questions that anyone would know were accusitory (sp?) in nature. Then later during the taped interviews - remember the CPD had tricked him into meeting them and then took his children. Yes, I'd be really ticked, and wouldn't trust a thing they did.

Didn't DY say he didn't get to talk to BC after the 14th? So, all of these questions were asked while NC was officially still missing, and BC was officially not a suspect. The next we hear from Brad were the custody hearings. So, yeah, a lot of BS to put a man through when his wife is missing.

Wow. I would expect to be tailed if my wife were missing. Everyone knows the spouse is the default first suspect. And damn it, if you have nothing to hide, why be pissed?! Nothing to worry about... Unless you did it.

BC never, ever acted like any human being I've ever heard of whose wife was missing and then found murdered. Not a human who was concerned or cared in any way. Just 'irritated.'

I just don't get how anyone can justify how he acted in any way, shape or form.

 

[CuriousDad]

The curious part is that the officer left a voice message and Brad didn't return the call. That's my take.

I thought he did return the call, just not right away. Or did the officer call a third time and reach Brad? Either way, he's busy looking for Nancy, has no idea who called the first time, does check the vm sometime after the second call. Still doesn't raise any flags for me.