State v Bradley Cooper 04-15-2011

[gritguy]

So so far the defense will have three prongs on the attack:

1. witnesses saw her running and if that is true or even believable, one cannot be certain BC committed the murder.
2. the phone call from home - state hasn't proven with evidence it was likely BC did it, just that he could have.
3. the LEO's were "dishonest" and the thing is basically a frame up. This may be what has the judge in ire, since it is so far completely baseless.

Now, I see the point that the defense could say the depo was coordinated w LEO or the DA and this furthers the point they just weren't spending any time on looking at the possibility she went running. I don't buy it, but I understand it.

Anyone hoping that that depo was an infringement of rights is going to be disappointed. The guy answered questions with lies and people look past that to say well she shouldn't have been given the info that would have captured him in a lie?? How about he shouldn't have lied as being his primary problem in that depo? Or, of course, killed his wife.

 

[NCEast]

Really how could they sit there day after day and not form an opinion???

I am afraid I would be slowly forming something, not exactly sure what, in my head by this time in the trial. Maybe ire.
I think Kurtz better realize over the weekend that he has been totally ineffective with this witness. He needs to start anew on Monday morning with easy, simple and brisk questions--formed as a question--so as not to upset the judge any further.

 

[Danielle59]

Obviously, no one else they investigated had the exact body dump Google search sites pictures on their computer.

But unless they tampered with the computer before the FBI received it they would not have known about those, so that tells me based on the time line they never investigated anyone else, and opens up the possibility of computer tampering.

 

[Star12]

I've been thinking, for some reason or another, that his trunk was vacuumed at home too.

we saw pictures of his shop vac in the garage

 

[SleuthinNC]

We heard all that testimony about how Det. Young didn't make any decisions and how everything he did was at the request and/or under the supervision of Det. D. So why is it that when Det. D is asked about what Det. Young was doing with the routers Det. D doesn't know?

Sloppy, lies, excuses?

 

[macd]

There was NO log/trace/data that BC initated a remote call. NONE. PG testified to this. If BC had initiated a remote call he could NOT remove the trace, even if he vaporized the Samsung.

There was NO forensic computer evidence that BC pre-programmed a remote call. pros own computer forensics tesified to this specifically. You do think the pros would have made that the first "smoking gun" of the trial if they could no?

Either: NC made the call (BC innocent), or one of his D's did i.e. redial or direct dial (BC guilty).

I don't believe that you believe this.
Clearly he could have had a device in his home (perhaps a router with a vox port) that made the call, and then the device was removed and hidden or destroyed. Most folks here believe this is what happened.
Destroying evidence of crime does not equal no crime occurred.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Oh and in case anybody missed this part of the testimony. Even CPD doesn't believe the motive was money. Can we finally put that argument to rest?

 

[Just the Fax]

I don't believe that you believe this.
Clearly he could have had a device in his home (perhaps a router with a vox port) that made the call, and then the device was removed and hidden or destroyed. Most folks here believe this is what happened.
Destroying evidence of crime does not equal no crime occurred.

"No murder weapon found, ok, so no way he could have done it"

Same BS.
Jurors are not only smart, they will use common sense.

 

[NCEast]

But unless they tampered with the computer before the FBI received it they would not have known about those, so that tells me based on the time line they never investigated anyone else, and opens up the possibility of computer tampering.

As was stated earlier this week--you can't have it both ways. The CPD was so inept that they erased her BB, didn't do this and that with the technical issues.....yet they were smart enough to tamper with his *work* computer--with layers and layers of security-- to plant incriminating evidence? Nope, it just doesn't work both ways.

 

[Tipstaff]

Love reading all your thoughts and opinions today! What a great forum!

 

[gritguy]

People think the allegedly barely functional CPD orchestrated a multi-person multi-discipline cover up involving tampering with computers to delete or insert evidence that would later make the DA's case?? Really?

The NSA and CIA need to pick these guys up asap.

More likely, they aren't computer gurus and wouldn't have known how to do that. They could, easily, have put some of her DNA on the floorboard cracks or trunk and that would be that.

Planting a bit of computer evidence in a way easily discovered seems way too elaborate when they could have placed a bit of good ole direct evidence and this would all have been over.

EDIT: CPD on next super secret cover up, simply place a back dated email in defendant's account saying, "My love I will soon have [insert victim name here] taken care of and once [victim] is gone for good we can be together. They will never discover what I did, unless they find some way onto my computer, which they could never do. [insert evil laugh emoticon here]"

 

[LyndyLoo]

I don't believe that you believe this.
Clearly he could have had a device in his home (perhaps a router with a vox port) that made the call, and then the device was removed and hidden or destroyed. Most folks here believe this is what happened.
Destroying evidence of crime does not equal no crime occurred.

We have heard testimony just HOW it could be done 10 different ways by Cisco Employee (co-worker of Brad) and how there would be no trace of any such call, and the fact that a call such as that would appear to have come from phone (set to foreward calls) to his cell.. It really isnt a giant leap to figure it all out..At least NOT for myself anyway.. Router and FOX was mysteriously missing by July 16th.....So I agree with you 100% :seeya:

 

[borndem]

Considering his alleged brilliance and wonderful mind, he sure does read slowly.

This man is under oath and does not take this case nor his position, and probably how hard he had to work to get there, lightly.

He wants to be sure what he is being asked and what he is being handed -- he & Kurtz are adversaries at least because of the accusations from Kurtz about him and the CPD itself.

To do less would be foolish, risky and derelict in his duty to the Court, the jurors and to Nancy, the defendant, and to jurisprudence. IMHO

 

[NCEast]

We heard all that testimony about how Det. Young didn't make any decisions and how everything he did was at the request and/or under the supervision of Det. D. So why is it that when Det. D is asked about what Det. Young was doing with the routers Det. D doesn't know?

Sloppy, lies, excuses?

You have a valid point but unless any of you who are picking apart this detective's testimony have ever been in law enforcement you have no idea how difficult it is to put a case together. It began as a missing person--transcended into a homicide. Many people working on it, many going in different directions. It's not easy to be gathering evidence, interviewing people, tracking down leads, suspecting the spouse based on 'rumors', etc. It's just overwhelming and it's perfectly reasonable that sometimes one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. I'm not making excuses,,,,,just want to point out how difficult it is with this type of case. It's not a speeding ticket situation.

 

[NCEast]

Love reading all your thoughts and opinions today! What a great forum!

Right on!

 

[gracielee]

So many loved Detective McDreamy for his looks...I love Detective Daniels for his mind. Just sayin!

Me too, I wasn't in love with McDreamy. He was okay, just not my type I guess. I like my men tall, dark & handsome. :great:

:floorlaugh:

My hubby is tall & handsome, but his hair is no longer *dark*, it's more salt then pepper, but he still has it all, so that's okay too.

:floorlaugh:

Daniels is a big teddy bear, if anything ever happens to someone I love, I'd want him on the case.

 

[SleuthinNC]

As was stated earlier this week--you can't have it both ways. The CPD was so inept that they erased her BB, didn't do this and that with the technical issues.....yet they were smart enough to tamper with his *work* computer--with layers and layers of security-- to plant incriminating evidence? Nope, it just doesn't work both ways.

Ok as far as the layers and layers of security, it is no more secure than any other laptop once it is disconnected from the network. Cisco uses network based security.

 

[Lori59]

Oh and in case anybody missed this part of the testimony. Even CPD doesn't believe the motive was money. Can we finally put that argument to rest?

Actually, DD said that there wasn't one thing that led them to the conclusion that Brad did it.....but a number of factors. Tension over finances being one.

 

[borndem]

Brad had a magic text he never told anyone about and no one has ever seen and that explains why he searched the site?? LOL!! If that kind of fantasy is allowed why not assume that BC was riding his bike on Fielding Dr (he'd just learned of it on a google search) and Nancy was waiting to attack him when she tripped and fell and suffocated herself and Brad never saw her. Yet he was terrified in his innocence to ever reveal he'd been on Fielding Dr.

Elementary, my dear Watson!! :websleuther:

 

[NCEast]

Ok as far as the layers and layers of security, it is no more secure than any other laptop once it is disconnected from the network. Cisco uses network based security.

Ok, so whatever you are saying may be correct, I have no idea as most of the computer testimony was beyond me. But it still remains that they could not do several important things in the investigation because they were inept.....yet accusing them of tampering with *any* computer and planting evidence is just crazy.