State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[Just the Fax]

They found the Fielding drive data in late 2009, so that was not used for the indictment - though it was probably not needed. Indictments are pretty easy come by in a case like this.

Wow, you make this claim as fact:banghead:

 

[sunshine05]

Madeleine,

It depends on your hypothesis. If you are inclined to the side that no matter what BC did it, then no, an alternate hypothesis carries little weight.

On the other hand, if your inclined to be unsure at this moment that BC did it, then you add up stuff on that (BC may not be guilty) side of the ledger:

Crime committed, but no crime scene could be determined or found in the house.
No forensic evidence BC transported a body.
ME conclusions weak as to TOD. Could be hours before 7 am or after 7 AM.
Forensic Bug Guy left the window open as equally before or after 7 AM.
6:40 AM phone call: spoofed by BC, or made by unknown third party, or made by NC herself is inconclusive.

So if not BC then who??? Yes, I know it could be BC, it should be BC because he's a slimeball, and most folks here want it to be BC.

But for just a moment, think: what if it's not BC, and postulate for the briefest time that he is maybe being framed by a killer.

Does that mean he did not do it. No, it just means keep your mind open, explore all possibilities, and after all evidence is heard, explored and trashed over, the jury will speak, affirmatively one way or the other.

Then we will all know......

I wonder if we will ever really know. If, by chance BC is found "not guilty" would police reopen the case? I would hope so.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I guess you haven't read my posts. I have said it dozens of times since the "smoking gun" dropped last week.


ETA: But it doesn't mean I'm not going to look at what is being presented with a skeptical viewpoint (from both sides). I will still argue the evidence based on my understanding and experience. And I'm still open minded enough to change my opinion if evidence shows the search wasn't legit. But until they show that, I'm on the guilty side. And just to add...I don't believe anyone hacked into his system. My arguing today is more about the capability than if someone did. And I still think Gessner is as biased as they come.

I read on wral.com that Kurtz asked for a mistrial and for Gessner to recuse himself. This judge has been as biased as they come. He has made a mockery of this case in his rulings. It would only be fair for him to recuse himself - of course - something he would not do.

 

[jrb0124]

Thanks. I find it interesting they would lock him up for 2 1/2 years on pre-Fielding drive search evidence.

Maybe they thought stopping the daily flood of angry phone calls to CPD was a good enough reason?

 

[Cheyenne130]

WEP is barely a screen door. WPA is closer to a screen door. WPA2 is a bit better. WEP was considered a joke before 2008. Today, the automated hacking is quickly overcoming the higher levels of security. What is being discussed at the trial requires almost no technical skills, only the ability of Google search slightly more complicated than "27518".

It still requires a person with a wireless device with the tool installed in close proximity to the wireless router to hack into the network and thereby the computer. It is definitely not as easy as pushing open a screen door. It might be for computer geeks/hackers but not for the normal, every day person. The most they are able to do is get onto someone's unsecured network. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

Yes, I agree with this point. Engineers don't deal well with uncertainty. I wouldn't say that I'm on the fence. I have assumed that he probably did it since the day she went missing (and posted such back in 2008). But, I do like details and certainty. There seems to be practically none of that in this case.

I agree too. That's why I hated classes like Philosophy but loved classes like Calculus (all 4 levels). With math, there is a right or a wrong answer that isn't subject to someones interpretation. I knew in English that I was going to get a B no matter how much effort I put into a paper.

 

[Just the Fax]

I was embarassed for him
Not credible because he was not in the least bit professional on the stand. Not credible because it is a known fact in this little circle of Lochmere friends that he hit on NC repeatidly.
Not credible because he threw the f-bomb in court that day numerous time. And yes - not credible because he wore a t-shirt and sounded like a disgruntled, jealous, wanna-be boyfriend on the stand.

Who says that a reluctant witness must be 'professional' to be credible?
That is obviously your opinion and you are so entitled.
Personally, I considered him quite credible with absolutely no pretense.
Yes, he should have worn a nice shirt to court, but that certainly did not subtract from his testimony.

 

[sunshine05]

I find it *very* interesting that posters on this forum knew about the Fielding Drive "zoom-in" evidence even before the FBI. Amazing.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I wonder if we will ever really know. If, by chance BC is found "not guilty" would police reopen the case? I would hope so.

Uh, no. Did the LAPD go looking for the "real killers" after OJ was found not guilty?

 

[jrb0124]

I agree too. That's why I hated classes like Philosophy but loved classes like Calculus (all 4 levels). With math, there is a right or a wrong answer that isn't subject to someones interpretation. I knew in English that I was going to get a B no matter how much effort I put into a paper.

Amen.

 

[gritguy]

in looking at an alternate theory (not just hey the state didn't prove its case) i would say to produce a reasonable doubt it would have to be reasonable not just possible that the theory was true, and to be reasonable it would have to have some evidence behind it. In the totality of the picture, a mere possibility of another killer with nothing else to show for it but the intellectual argument that it is not impossible isn't much for me. If you think the state's case is too weak as it is, then I can see an alternate theory being a bigger deal.

but for me, the state has shown their theory has evidence behind it. to dislodge that theory with another theory, it should be shown by evidence that the competing theory reasonably could have happened.

If Kurtz wants/intends to do that, here comes his chance.

 

[sunshine05]

I agree too. That's why I hated classes like Philosophy but loved classes like Calculus (all 4 levels). With math, there is a right or a wrong answer that isn't subject to someones interpretation. I knew in English that I was going to get a B no matter how much effort I put into a paper.

Me too. Calculus was my favorite, even as a chemistry major. And I have always questioned things that don't "fit" and so many things about this case do not.

 

[calgary123]

I find it *very* interesting that posters on this forum knew about the Fielding Drive "zoom-in" evidence even before the FBI. Amazing.

Who knew? Can you link the post?

 

[Madeleine74]

I want the real killer of Nancy brought to justice. If that is not Brad then it must be someone else. If someone framed Brad Cooper then that person must be the real killer, yes? If the real killer didn't frame Brad Cooper then the person who did frame him must know who the real killer is (and that it is not Brad Cooper).

And I want to know why this framer chose to go the route of changing a computer file as their method to this frame job. That's pretty specific. I want to know how they knew there wasn't other evidence to lead to the killer.

 

[Just the Fax]

I read on wral.com that Kurtz asked for a mistrial and for Gessner to recuse himself. This judge has been as biased as they come. He has made a mockery of this case in his rulings. It would only be fair for him to recuse himself - of course - something he would not do.

Mockery of the case?
And you get most of the trial news from WRAL?

 

[unc70]

Never really though Condit did it. After all, he was in "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes".

Movie trivia for tonight.

Coming soon: Who connects JonBenet, Elian, and Rielle?

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Who says that a reluctant witness must be 'professional' to be credible?
That is obviously your opinion and you are so entitled.
Personally, I considered him quite credible with absolutely no pretense.
Yes, he should have worn a nice shirt to court, but that certainly did not subtract from his testimony.

Okay - you are reading way way way too into things that people post. Can you read into the overall comment rather than picking every word apart one by one?

I know CD personally. He is NOT credible, so I think I have a leg up on you on this one. Wait until Kurtz calls him back up on the stand. I have no doubt you will find his testimony a bit "less credible".

By the way - I don't think I ever said anything about him being a "reluctant" witness, did I? I think those are your words.

 

[sunshine05]

Uh, no. Did the LAPD go looking for the "real killers" after OJ was found not guilty?

Apples to oranges.

 

[Maja]

It was CD, who showed up to court in a t-shirt and threw the "f-bomb" so many times I was beyond embarassed. I think the defense will be calling him back. This guy is not credible.

What day did he testify? Is he DD's husband by chance?

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Mockery of the case?
And you get most of the trial news from WRAL?

It is apparent that this judge is completely biased on the side of the prosecution. You would be lying in denying that.
Where do you get your trial news from, may I ask? Are you in the courtroom every day? Just curious