State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[LyndyLoo]

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

Now IIRC during direct testimony about this, he said he was told to enter PW's until there was a request by the phone for a PUK code...Sounds like pretty simple instructions...He followed the prompts on the phone, and never got a request for Puk Code, then phone indicated it was deleting..and he shut it down pronto!!

 

[gracielee]

Originally Posted by gracielee
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.

-----

Man, I would be in so much trouble. I would most definitely forget it if I didn't write it down. I'd panic and forget which one I'd used this time. Truly, not joking, I would get stressed and forget it.

 

[gracielee]

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.

I have too. Returned shoes that didn't hold up as they should have, broken strap, sole coming off of the shoe, etc.

 

[Albert]

11:49 Det. Young is clearly showing his bias by his responses.

Kurtz: IF NC called BC at 6:40, she was alive, yes or no?

Young: I have no evidence NC was alive at 6:40.

He should have just said, yes, if NC called BC at 6:40, she was alive.

And, Det. Young, Cary is a TOWN not a city as you testified. A pretty big town, but a town nevertheless.

I don't think this shows any bias. All the call at 6:40am proves is that the phone from home dialed BC cell's phone. There is a very easy way to have a device, based upon a timer, depress the redial button on the home phone. This same device can then end the call. Receiving a call does not imply that a human actually placed the originating call.

 

[NCEast]

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

I agree.
Then he stated he handed the phone off to another detective, his supervisor or somebody. I think he should have followed up with ATT when he realized the code didn't work as instructed and the wiping was done.

 

[LyndyLoo]

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.

Im not so sure he was drinking that diet coke..It was the Def. making that statement..This was only one picture of a bootied, gloved, protective garb wearing technician holding a can of coke...For all we know, if that guy was asked about it..He could have said why he had it in his hand..Like moved it off the counter to collect, or other reasons....also given the clutter of that house, opened beverage containers were not uncommon, bottles of water, plastic cups, and cans of soda ( we say pop up here)...Ya cant assume anything and IF important to Def. then speak to the Diet Coke holding person:fence:

ETA~~~ IF Defense had a picture of this tech ( fully wearing protective gear) with that can up to his mouth you'd bet they would have shown that!!!

 

[gracielee]

Im not so sure he was drinking that diet coke..It was the Def. making that statement..This was only one picture of a bootied, gloved, protective garb wearing technician holding a can of coke...For all we know, if that guy was asked about it..He could have said why he had it in his hand..Like moved it off the counter to collect, or other reasons....also given the clutter of that house, opened beverage containers were not uncommon, bottles of water, plastic cups, and cans of soda ( we say pop up here)...Ya cant assume anything and IF important to Def. then speak to the Diet Coke holding person:fence:

ETA~~~ IF Defense had a picture of this tech ( fully wearing protective gear) with that can up to his mouth you'd bet they would have shown that!!!

I didn't see/hear any of this yesterday, I think that's when my computer was in a 'dead space'. Your response sounds logical to me though. Thanks.

 

[Lori59]

I wouldn't have a problem if Det. Young had just picked up the phone and looked at an available call log...When the phone was locked..he should have had someone else try to get into the phone. I don't know if he went out of his bounds...still thinking. I will say if the Defense had done the same...minds would go straight to bad thoughts.

 

[cityslick]

Now IIRC during direct testimony about this, he said he was told to enter PW's until there was a request by the phone for a PUK code...Sounds like pretty simple instructions...He followed the prompts on the phone, and never got a request for Puk Code, then phone indicated it was deleting..and he shut it down pronto!!

I'm surprised you're downplaying the importance of all this. Look, I think BC probably did it too, but I'm smart enough to know when somebody screwed up and this is a major screw up. He documented everything he did. Why did he not follow his own protocol here? Why did he not get the name of who was helping him? All we have is his word that these was what was told to him and this is what he did.

 

[uncfan]

I don't think this shows any bias. All the call at 6:40am proves is that the phone from home dialed BC cell's phone. There is a very easy way to have a device, based upon a timer, depress the redial button on the home phone. This same device can then end the call. Receiving a call does not imply that a human actually placed the originating call.

Are you talking about a mechanical device?? If so, prosecution would need to prove this device existed in the home that day.

I was thinking it could be done with a computer that had a fax modem and a simiple program set to auto dial a number. If this is the theory, I would expect you'd find some trace of this on the hard drive.

 

[Maja]

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.

Was really referring to top dollar running shoes. It's been my experience the staff at the store have you try them out on a clean surface and give warning about returns.

 

[Albert]

Are you talking about a mechanical device?? If so, prosecution would need to prove this device existed in the home that day.

I was thinking it could be done with a computer that had a fax modem and a simiple program set to auto dial a number. If this is the theory, I would expect you'd find some trace of this on the hard drive.

Yes, I am talking about a mechanical device . And yes, the burden of proof is definitely on the side of prosecution. My response was to indicate that I don't believe that the detectives answer showed any sign of bias.

 

[CuriousDad]

All this talk about a smoking gun, Kurtz's opening statement, and Kurtz throwing fits:

1 - Didn't the pros have an opening statement? Don't they outline their case then? If I had a smoking gun, I'd explain what it was, why we have to sit through 3 weeks of testimony before we get there.

2 - Smoking guns has gotta be the computer cause Kurtz throws a fit over it everytime it comes up. Looks to me like he throws a fit over all the non-evidence that has come up so far, why not throw a fit over the computer, also.

Bottome line - the spooked call is about 99% gone, but the pros and defense already knew that, just had to bring it up in the trial. I predict same is going to happen with the computer - there is no smoking gun. If there was, that card would have been prominently played in the opening arguements, and the process to get there would have been explained, so the jury would not give up earning that $15 a day to come hear another day of 'foundation' testimony. This is a bunch of smoke and mirrors - confused and cloud the picture for the jury, maybe they'll buy it.

 

[RaleighNC]

I am still thinking fax via computer for the dialing.

clone a harddrive and place in the PC, have your PC make the call, listen to incessant fax beeping for 38 or so seconds and maybe even let the PC redial since the fax didn't go through, swap the harddrive out to the original one. Toss the one used to place the call.

No evidence and your home phone was used.

 

[less0305]

I feel badly for Det. Y - I'm sure he'd give anything had that phone not wiped. And if that is the very thing that hangs this case or keeps a jury from convicting the inmate, well, then I will just have to know that there is a higher judgement - and BC will face that judgement one day because I'm still completely convinced that he is the guilty party. Det. Y is a fine law enforcement officer and he's also human. Nobody can truly believe that police officers don't make mistakes. I don't think it was a mistake to investigate BC to the fullest. I think it was right on target.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I am still thinking fax via computer for the dialing.

clone a harddrive and place in the PC, have your PC make the call, listen to incessant fax beeping for 38 or so seconds and maybe even let the PC redial since the fax didn't go through, swap the harddrive out to the original one. Toss the one used to place the call.

No evidence and your home phone was used.

At face value I would agree. If they actually have voice network experts look at the traffic they can tell if the call was somebody speaking, fax tones, etc.

 

[uncfan]

I am still thinking fax via computer for the dialing.

clone a harddrive and place in the PC, have your PC make the call, listen to incessant fax beeping for 38 or so seconds and maybe even let the PC redial since the fax didn't go through, swap the harddrive out to the original one. Toss the one used to place the call.

No evidence and your home phone was used.

So now we add cloning/swapping/disposing of harddrives to the list of things BC did between midnight and 6am (kill NC, dress her, clean garage, dispose of body, make Harris Teeter runs, clean house....). It starts to get more and more far fetched.

 

[luckyme]

I feel badly for Det. Y - I'm sure he'd give anything had that phone not wiped. And if that is the very thing that hangs this case or keeps a jury from convicting the inmate, well, then I will just have to know that there is a higher judgement - and BC will face that judgement one day because I'm still completely convinced that he is the guilty party. Det. Y is a fine law enforcement officer and he's also human. Nobody can truly believe that police officers don't make mistakes. I don't think it was a mistake to investigate BC to the fullest. I think it was right on target.

I hope he has a vacation lined up after this. I feel sorry for him sitting there day after day. I really think the wiping of the phone might jeopardize the case. He has to be exhausted. moo!

 

[gracielee]

I'm surprised you're downplaying the importance of all this. Look, I think BC probably did it too, but I'm smart enough to know when somebody screwed up and this is a major screw up. He documented everything he did. Why did he not follow his own protocol here? Why did he not get the name of who was helping him? All we have is his word that these was what was told to him and this is what he did.

I completely agree. In his testimony today, he should have simply 'manned-up' about it too IMO.

 

[Lori59]

I feel badly for Det. Y - I'm sure he'd give anything had that phone not wiped. And if that is the very thing that hangs this case or keeps a jury from convicting the inmate, well, then I will just have to know that there is a higher judgement - and BC will face that judgement one day because I'm still completely convinced that he is the guilty party. Det. Y is a fine law enforcement officer and he's also human. Nobody can truly believe that police officers don't make mistakes. I don't think it was a mistake to investigate BC to the fullest. I think it was right on target.

Is there anything that can be done on re-direct? ullhair: I find him credible...and think this was just a HUGE mistake. But, any possibility FBI still got data off the phone?????