Found Deceased State v Bradley Cooper - 3/23/11

[BrownRice]

So is this testimony leading up to the speculation that Brad originated a computer prompted phone call from his home to his cell?

Hopefully it's leading to something!

 

[CyberPro]

So, cell phone carrier was AT&T, and home phone was TWC.

To the phone and VOIP pros out there, does that mean he could have just plugged in the CISCO stuff?

Probably, but it depends on what he had at the time from Cisco. All he really needed was a connection to the Internet. I will say that there are some possible complications that TWC was the phone provider. For most intended uses, it is just like any other phone, but I tried to hook up a fax to mine a couple of weeks ago, and it would not work. The fax said the phone was off-hook, even when it was not, so there are some differences. I have been able to get the fax to work with Vonage, but not TWC.

I feel sure this was not an insurmountable issue, given that he had used it previously. Also, for those of you keeping score at home, the confusion over the VTECH and VOIP phones is a moot point. TWC is a VOIP provider, and so was the CISCO system, the VTECH, as SG said in a prior post, is just a plain ol' phone, but hook it into the VOIP system and it becomes a VOIP phone.

 

[NCB]

I am awake now!!

 

[SleuthyGal]

Kurtz is having kittens.

I think he's wrong. This witness can certainly testify to what *he* himself did (i.e. seize the computer).

wahhh wahhhh wahhhh. Dad! He's not playing fairrrrrrr. Wahhh Wahhhhhh.

 

[ncsu95]

Probably, but it depends on what he had at the time from Cisco. All he really needed was a connection to the Internet. I will say that there are some possible complications that TWC was the phone provider. For most intended uses, it is just like any other phone, but I tried to hook up a fax to mine a couple of weeks ago, and it would not work. The fax said the phone was off-hook, even when it was not, so there are some differences. I have been able to get the fax to work with Vonage, but not TWC.

I feel sure this was not an insurmountable issue, given that he had used it previously. Also, for those of you keeping score at home, the confusion over the VTECH and VOIP phones is a moot point. TWC is a VOIP provider, and so was the CISCO system, the VTECH, as SG said in a prior post, is just a plain ol' phone, but hook it into the VOIP system and it becomes a VOIP phone.

And how exactly do you do that? I have vonage as my home provider (voip), but they won't let me login any of the 15 sip phones I have. They only enable the iad port on my modem that allows me to connect a standard telephone cable to it. He would have to know the settings to allow a voip phone to connect to it.

 

[Albert]

The current objection being raised by the defense does not make sense to me. Are they saying that they need their expert within the court while the testimony is given in order for the defense to have a cross examination. They defense is indicating that they are not computer experts. Ok, this makes sense that they are not computer experts. But are they also not forensic experts, ME experts, etc. Did they object, based upon lack of expertise, when the prosecution was leading the testimony of these other types of witnesses? I don't understand the current objection.

 

[gracielee]

So it would appear something of value was about to be broached. And this is somehow tied to the discovery the defense has withheld? So why hasn't the defense turned this over by now? The judge appeared to think they has sufficient time to turn it over. As for their needing an expert there, why can't the expert catch it on the video tonight?

 

[carolinalady]

What does 'this point in the trial' have to do with anything? The trial isn't over. All the evidence hasn't been entered yet. NOBODY would be expected to FIND anything at this point in time. That's why I don't understand the constant 'well I couldn't find him guilty on this or that's' both here and on local boards. Nobody makes findings on partial trials. This isn't a sporting event, it's a trial and it needs to be complete before anyone can conclude anything IMO. So why the continual 'well I couldn't find him guilty so far..........' many people respond with? That's exactly why the judge keeps saying to the jury 'don't talk about this until the trial is completed'.

You were typing your response when I added a clarification to mine. I was saying, I took it as "if the prosecution rested today". And lots of people on here have said that if this is all the prosecution has, they couldn't vote for guilty (both people who think he is definitely guilty and those that are still on the fence). So, I figured that's what you meant...as if the prosecution rested today. Obviously, I misunderstood what you meant.

 

[cygnusx1]

The current objection being raised by the defense does not make sense to me. Are they saying that they need their expert within the court while the testimony is given in order for the defense to have a cross examination. They defense is indicating that they are not computer experts. Ok, this makes sense that they are not computer experts. But are they also not forensic experts, ME experts, etc. Did they object, based upon lack of expertise, when the prosecution was leading the testimony of these other types of witnesses? I don't understand the current objection.

Did they have their own forensic expert in the courtroom analyzing what those witnesses were saying?

But, I think they are quibbling over nothing. This is the equivalent of the first CCBI guy who said I collected this and that, but left any testing of it for somebody else in the agency.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I noticed, sitting on BC's desk, to the right of the laptop, the manual for a Vtech phone.

 

[less0305]

Whew - he's mad!!!!

 

[ncmomof2boys]

well that was entertaining...

 

[BrownRice]

Yikes. I thought the Judge was going to throw his gavel at Kurtz.

Will somebody explain the exchange that just happened?

 

[lib's mom]

Did the judge say court would be in recess for TWO AND ONE HALF MINUTES??!!

HAHAHA!

 

[CrimeAddict]

I am totally lost as to why the judge is so mad. I know he is mad at the defense, but not sure why. I took my 3 year old to a park for 2 hours and this is what I get. He will be watching cartoons for the next 6 weeks now! haha.. just kidding.. but seriously, anyone able to summarize what just happened?

 

[gracielee]

You were typing your response when I added a clarification to mine. I was saying, I took it as "if the prosecution rested today". And lots of people on here have said that if this is all the prosecution has, they couldn't vote for guilty (both people who think he is definitely guilty and those that are still on the fence). So, I figured that's what you meant...as if the prosecution rested today. Obviously, I misunderstood what you meant.

That's okay Carolina Lady, I can see that my wording was jumbled at best in the original remark. I apologize for not thinking my thought through enough to word it properly. I guess I never think in terms of 'this point in time' when it comes to a trial because I just always am waiting for the next shoe to fall, so to speak. Actually, I'm old enough to remember the old 'Perry Mason moment' in trials. :crazy:

 

[Coolmomof4]

Geez. Been watching all day, and even did my errands and housework all during the court's lunch break. Then I leave for 5 minutes to pick up my son down the street and come home to the judge raising his voice to the defense atty, then took a 2 1/2 minute break? What the heck??? Man, it figures I'd miss something good.

 

[per_curiam]

Longest 2.5 min. ever. Did the judge go over and spank Kurtz?

 

[borndem]

Kurtz is having kittens.

I think he's wrong. This witness can certainly testify to what *he* himself did (i.e. seize the computer).

wahhh wahhhh wahhhh. Dad! He's not playing fairrrrrrr. Wahhh Wahhhhhh.

SG -- Fergit about the cats -- he's filling up a zoo! Lions & Tigers & Bears, Oh My.

And his favorites -- the snakes and the weasels. MOO.
Please forgive, and strike that.

 

[carolinalady]

So it would appear something of value was about to be broached. And this is somehow tied to the discovery the defense has withheld? So why hasn't the defense turned this over by now? The judge appeared to think they has sufficient time to turn it over. As for their needing an expert there, why can't the expert catch it on the video tonight?

There was a motion to compel the defense to do something and supposedly that's due on this Friday or the judge is going to see some paperwork from the prosecution.

I know, very specific, but that's about all I got out of the exchange right after one of the breaks.