State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[sunshine05]

Another thing I want to see are details of NC's phone calls and emails. I don't think we've seen all of that yet.

 

[otto]

Hey--before you go. I'm not certain that tomorrow is THE Thursday the child has an appointment. But I'm sure I just heard the judge say NO court on Friday.

Probably duplicating a post ... but I heard the 28th, next Thursday.

 

[otto]

The defense did call one of the state's computer experts yesterday morning. He was their first witness. (Of course we didn't get to hear any of it since he is not allowed to be on camera. Darn it!)

Goose is Cooked

 

[CyberPro]

Are you saying you use a no-split tunnel vpn profile?

Yep, Company requirement. It is a bummer to a degree. Here I got this all super cool all-in-one Fax, Copier, Printer with auto-duplexing and 2 types of network connection, but I have to connect via USB to the thing. All the other systems in the house can print to it over the network, but I can't.

 

[otto]

mmmm...the men and Women of the jury do not have any forehead tattoos that say "IT". Sorry for the sarcasm, but I find it difficult to judge casually dressed folks' professions. Right noW they are jurors. I am sure We have many more IT folks here, for the obvious reason.

sorry about my ailing W

Look at their shoes.

 

[dramamama]

Crazy thought... Maybe Kurtz realized the faith he eschewed early on in BC (to me, in person) was misplaced. Maybe BC used his arrogance in their dealings and Kurtz's conscience got the better of him. Perhaps he is throwing the case... And that's why he didn't have someone more professional up there on that stand. I mean, you'd think winning is everything. But sometimes... You meet people like the Rentzs and you compare them to the jackass you are defending and you know... you're on the wrong side. What you're doing will free a killer.

Just a thought.

Did you see the Licoln Lawyer recently at the theatres.....similiar scenario and a fun movie!

I see your point. But I have also thought that today really did work in his favor, because he was able to throw out innuendo without proving anything. If he had a homerun w his expert's ability to testify to forensic knowledge, he would have had to show proof. And if that proof was there, he certainly would have gotten someone more qualified....Just a thought.

 

[otto]

did i hear that bc's phone Was actually Wiped by cisco?

I didn't hear who wiped it, but the history of the phone was about 31 hours and there was no information on the phone.

The prosecution asked a bunch of irrelevant questions like: have you used this software, or that software, and then ... well ... how do you know the history was only 31 hours. Response: I read it on the phone screen after pushing the right buttons (something like that).

 

[otto]

'Scuse me. I came to Websleuths 3 years ago because of the Cooper case. I first saW the poster about Nancy missing posted on the door at Whole Foods across the street from the Harris Teeter that first Weekend that she Went missing. I have taken the bus tWice to get doWntoWn to the trial, sat and listened to testimony. The judge asked that We not scrutinize the jury because it made them nervous. I respect that. They are all dressed in casual clothing and each of them Wears a red juror's tag. I did notice one of them taking notes, but I pretty much ignored them. They don't talk to each other - it is forbidden that they speak to each other about the case. Others in the courtroom are also enjoined from talking - unless it is to a laWyer or the judge. Oh, and you can't hardly see the jury box because it is mostly hidden from the gallery as it is totally hidden from the camera. I sit here day after day on my computer reading and posting just as you do, hoping for justice, and often at night and early in the morning. So don't jump doWn my throat that I don't care What the jury thinks. I certainly do. But they are doing the first half of their job right noW. When they get the case they Will do their second half. Then, maybe, We Will find out What they think, and for sure We Will get their collective take on the testimony.

Have you got a sticky W?

 

[unc70]

This video explains what happened yesterday better than anything I read on WRAL.

http://triangle.news14.com/content/...ense-begins-calling-witnesses-in-cooper-trial

TWC did do a decent job with those reports.

WRAL is barely reporting the defense, though still providing the video.

 

[NCEast]

TWC did do a decent job with those reports.

WRAL is barely reporting the defense, though still providing the video. GOLO this afternoon seems almost in full lockdown mode. Maybe just which moderators happen to be working today. I had more posts disappear today than in all my previous time at that site. Who knows? Certainly, not I.

Just a heads up--the mods here would prefer that other sites not be mentioned. Don't want you to get into any trouble.

 

[otto]

My gut reaction when the prosecutor pulled some of the exert's half naked photos and conspiracy theory remarks off the Facebook page was to think that the prosecutor was playing dirty; demonstrating that he is capable of playing dirty across the board. That was wrong ... incorrect ... naive. He was speaking to credibility, and because he demonstrated that the expert has shown poor judgement, that expert's judgement and testimony is questionable or suspect.

 

[Star12]

Look at their shoes.

mmmm I am sure they had them on. A left and a right each. I dunno, hat kind of shoes do tekkies usually Wear? After We Were told to not look at the jury, I pretty much didn't. Didn't you see hoW mad Gessner can get? I tend to avoid angry men.

 

[dramamama]

My gut reaction when the prosecutor pulled some of the exert's half naked photos and conspiracy theory remarks off the Facebook page was to think that the prosecutor was playing dirty; demonstrating that he is capable of playing dirty across the board. That was wrong ... incorrect ... naive. He was speaking to credibility, and because he demonstrated that the expert has shown poor judgement, that expert's judgement and testimony is questionable or suspect.

I agree. I do think BC is G, but I did not like his cross at all. I don't remember Kurtz ever speaking that way in cross. I was disappointed. And perhaps the FB thing was offensive, but it had nothing to do with this trial. I, too felt he was playing dirty and it undermined any points he was trying to make.

 

[unc70]

They could ask the judge. The judge could allow it or not. So far they don't seem to have asked (unless I missed it). This could mean they put their effort to trying to get in the info they needed w/o qualifying him as an expert on forensics (computer people would have to chime in on whether this was going on or not) or could mean they don't think they can get someone (if there is anyone to get who would give them what they want) at this point with any hope of getting it ready and approved for trial.

From my perspective as a computer person (actually at expert witness level in some aspects), they got a remarkable amount of things introduced as "expert" testimony. I have posted previously that they might have just barely have enough evidence & expert testimony to actually prove tampering, certainly enough to undermine the Google search evidence.

Will need to carefully tie this together so the jury can see all the pieces. Certainly part of the summation, maybe introduced some way prior.

In the short term, raising doubts about the "smoking gun" should make it easier for more of the jurors to be receptive to other defense arguments.

 

[sunshine05]

My gut reaction when the prosecutor pulled some of the exert's half naked photos and conspiracy theory remarks off the Facebook page was to think that the prosecutor was playing dirty; demonstrating that he is capable of playing dirty across the board. That was wrong ... incorrect ... naive. He was speaking to credibility, and because he demonstrated that the expert has shown poor judgement, that expert's judgement and testimony is questionable or suspect.

Agreed. It seemed like an act of desperation. I'm sure the jury was not impressed with his behavior.

 

[jmflu]

It had to do with the trial in that they were speaking to his credibility. The way we portray ourselves on FB DOES have an impact on our reputation.

 

[jrb0124]

He was speaking to credibility, and because he demonstrated that the expert has shown poor judgement, that expert's judgement and testimony is questionable or suspect.

I would think the best way to attack credibility would be to go after his testimony. They didn't, which essentially validates his testimony. Having a Facebook page out there that he didn't pay too much attention to doesn't impreach his testimony as an expert.

 

[unc70]

Yep, Company requirement. It is a bummer to a degree. Here I got this all super cool all-in-one Fax, Copier, Printer with auto-duplexing and 2 types of network connection, but I have to connect via USB to the thing. All the other systems in the house can print to it over the network, but I can't.

Even with the USB to your system, it could still be spying on you, particularly if the wireless is still functional for the other systems. They also phone home to HP or whoever supposedly just ink levels, etc. but who knows. Then there is that "little" problem with the yellow dot watermark on everything you print or copy that is traceable to the specific printer and date and time the page was printed. Search on "EFF yellow dots" and get really paranoid.

 

[jrb0124]

The way we portray ourselves on FB DOES have an impact on our reputation.

what on his Facebook page has anything whatsoever to do with what he testified to as an expert witness?

 

[unc70]

Just a heads up--the mods here would prefer that other sites not be mentioned. Don't want you to get into any trouble.

Thanks. Too late to edit, sorry.

ETA: Suddenly it had an Edit option, so I was able to edit. Thanks.