State v Bradley Cooper - 3/25/11

[carolinalady]

Wait I found it. JY requested forensic exam on Dell Power Edge Server on Nov 9th. Item signed out of evidence to begin exam. Det. Ice pt 2 25:24

Not really clear when this item went into evidence.

I didn't see that listed as an item seized on 7/16 from the home. Would that be from his office or did Det. Ice specify?

 

[sunshine05]

Most simply was the defense assertion that the CPD didn't follow up on leads, botched their investigation, didn't do this or that as they should have.
On Friday morning Judge Gessner used that very subject as his grounds for overruling a defense objection to the pieces of paper the detectives left on the kitchen table to be entered into evidence. He said something to the effect that "he was going to allow it into evidence because the defense had stated so many times that the CPD didn't pursue leads, evidence, etc. And this particular evidence was proof that they did, indeed, do their jobs." Not a perfect quote but the meaning is the same.

They DID botch the investigation. They didn't follow up on leads. Did you read the affidavit of the witness who saw her running and how the police ignored her 3 times? Did you hear the testimony about NC's cell phone and how they handled it? (If that's not blotching an investigation, I don't know what is). The cigarette butt should have been tested for DNA immediately. It was not.

The judge made that comment about defense claims the investigators were not thorough enough but that is not what Kurtz said - he said the investigation ONLY focused on BC and that is true based on everything I know to this point.

 

[Cheyenne130]

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...8,_search_warrant_for_104_Wallsburg_Court.pdf

Just looking at the search warrant about the house looking for descriptions of computer equipment seized. It's #22 under items seized. There is a Dell Dimension 8300 Tower listed.

One other thing that caught my eye was # 6 that contained a black colored sports bra. I know he said black & red bra is what she normally wore (and what she was found in). So, we know she had at least one other sports bra w/ black being dominant color.

I remember the testimony about the black sports bra. It was found on the dining room table with a red t-shirt.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I stated that poorly. What I meant to say is that there is no such thing as voice directly over cable. There has to be some transport layer protocol and in all cases that I am aware of, that transport layer is IP. So, it is VoIP.

It certainly is in the case of TWC as it is done with Cisco softswitches.

Really to complex a conversation for this venue I think but I will say TWC Digital Voice is most similar to the PSTN where VoIP is most similar to a PBX. Very different operations but both deliver voice capabilities.

 

[Just the Fax]

A couple of things -
Brad made the tennis plans, initiated by MH the night of the 11th in NC's presence at the party. Even JA said NC would not have been bringing the kids to paint.

I think there is doubt that there even were painting plans for Saturday, imo. I think that is why JA didn't tell BC about them when she called. I think she called CPD and had to say something more concrete than "I called her cell and can't reach her" so she made up the paint plans to the police. I think that is why the paint plans were not in her calendar and why NC had no conflict in her mind when the tennis plans were made because she knew she would be home to watch the girls. JMO

So you think both CC and JA lied and thus committed perjury???
Wow.

 

[carolinalady]

I didn't see that listed as an item seized on 7/16 from the home. Would that be from his office or did Det. Ice specify?

In a subsequent search warrant (10/29/08), a Dell 1400 SC CPU is listed.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/31/3863865/warrant.swf Item 20. Would that be the Power Edge Server?

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Wait I found it. JY requested forensic exam on Dell Power Edge Server on Nov 9th. Item signed out of evidence to begin exam. Det. Ice pt 2 25:24

Not really clear when this item went into evidence.

I think you have found the source of the confusion!! He later referred to this as the Dell 1400 that he did the exam on. Maybe seeing a list of the electronics (I think I got everything) will help. With all the computers this family owned, I think we may need a chart.

From the July SW--
21—One Canon DS 126131 Camera, One Sanrio Camera, and one DigPro Carrying Case
22—One IBM Thinkpad, One HP 4400 Workstation Tower, One Dell Dimension 8300 Tower and One Macbook Pro Laptop and One Maxtor External Hard Drive

From the October SW
Item 1 Samsung BlackJack Cell Phone
2 Sony MP3 IC Recorder
3 Motorola V551 Cell Phone
4—IBM 32 MB Thumb Drive
12 and 13 are routers
14 Voip Cable Modem
15 Wireless IP Phone
16 IP Phone
20 Dell 1400 CPU

I think the HP 4400 Workstation is what we saw under the desk.

I do believe the 1400 can be a server, a laptop, or a plain tower, just so I'm not being misleading to anyone! Then again, any computer can be a server, so it's a moot point anyways.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I didn't see that listed as an item seized on 7/16 from the home. Would that be from his office or did Det. Ice specify?

I really couldn't tell if it was referenced in any of the discussions regarding the seizure of the computers by either Det. Thomas nor Det. Ice. It may have been and I just missed it. Det. Ice testified that he was asked to perform the forensic exam, got it from the secure storage, began the exam but then stopped because he believed he found files that were client-attorney privileged. To his knowledge CPD never investigated this particular computer.

 

[Cheyenne130]

A couple of things -
Brad made the tennis plans, initiated by MH the night of the 11th in NC's presence at the party. Even JA said NC would not have been bringing the kids to paint.

I think there is doubt that there even were painting plans for Saturday, imo. I think that is why JA didn't tell BC about them when she called. I think she called CPD and had to say something more concrete than "I called her cell and can't reach her" so she made up the paint plans to the police. I think that is why the paint plans were not in her calendar and why NC had no conflict in her mind when the tennis plans were made because she knew she would be home to watch the girls. JMO

According to BC in his video deposition, MH asked him about playing tennis while BC was at the party. BC indicated that MH was at the party when BC arrived so all three, BC, NC and MH, were at the party together. BC said he made plans with MH to play tennis the next day but did not firm up a time. BC said that Nancy called him around 8:30 and handed the phone to MH and that BC and MH confirmed a time of 9:30. No where is there anything said about NC agreeing to the plans.

 

[Just the Fax]

They DID botch the investigation. They didn't follow up on leads. Did you read the affidavit of the witness who saw her running and how the police ignored her 3 times? Did you hear the testimony about NC's cell phone and how they handled it? (If that's not blotching an investigation, I don't know what is). The cigarette butt should have been tested for DNA immediately. It was not.

The judge made that comment about defense claims the investigators were not thorough enough but that is not what Kurtz said - he said the investigation ONLY focused on BC and that is true based on everything I know to this point.

CPD eventually interviewed all the so called 'witnesses"....Didn't change a thing.

Yes, accidently erasing her BlackBerry was certainly not good. Do you honestly think her killer's identity (other than Brad) would be revealed?
I don't. The jury will just need to weigh the importance of this when they consider the case in the end. I doubt it even comes up in deliberations.

They tested the very old cigarette butt....unknown DNA as expected.

 

[SleuthinNC]

In a subsequent search warrant (10/29/08), a Dell 1400 SC CPU is listed.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/31/3863865/warrant.swf Item 20. Would that be the Power Edge Server?

Ok so that would correspond I think to the "Special assignment" Det. Ice was asked to execute at the home.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Ok I could buy that. If he spoofed the caller id it would show up correctly on the call record but there would not be a corresponding TWC call. That would be so easy to prove though. I will be so technically disappointed if that is it! :banghead:

Ya know, reading all the postings regarding voip phone calls, and call logs, and all the different systems (if that the right erm?) Brad had is becoming gobblygook to me now..I guess I have become techie overloaded at this stage of the game...however, as my simple mind works..I got the impression by the AT&T witness, that the calls made in the early morning hours appeared if possiby Brad was setting up call forwarding from one number to another..possibly his work cell??..not sure after reading this past weekend.

Bottomline..Brad had the capabilities to manipulate things ..however, keeping it simple ( for my simple mind) I think he forewarded all calls to his Cisco Cell which he carried...and I think the call logs are going to indicate just that..In other words, It may disprove Brad's alibi's as to times, calls from whom, where or when??

Am I just looking at this too simply??

 

[gracielee]

I agree with the point that opening statements are not evidence. However, there are a lot of things being posted and speculated about on these boards that are not evidence. And I think that's the point of these boards, to provide discussion and speculation. No affidavit, deposition, or news article is evidence either, until it has been entered as such in this trial. So, either we can reference everything, or just trial testimony; but it's a bit ridiculous to think we can reference everything under the moon (even things that are blatantly wrong), except for the opening statements of either the prosecution or the defense.

That's true, but a deposition is a sworn statement, so I wouldn't classify it in the same catagory as news article. It is sworn, given with a judges approval, the judge was called on at least one occasion I recall from the tapes, to hear an objection by the defense. Brad had numerous attorney's present in the room, at least three or four I heard in the background. Now, can someone tell me, are his sworn statement's admissible in this trial? If that's been discussed, I missed it?

Brad's deposition ties him into many of the pertinent evidence in this case. Everything from whether or not Bella was up and ever saw Nancy, to where he says he was in the residence when Nancy *left* the house. And again, this is taken under oath with his attorney's present and objecting.

 

[SleuthinNC]

my bad. I knew there was a Dell in the mix.

Det. Ice did call it a Dell PowerEdge Server in his testimony. You had it right. I knew you would, that's why I tried so hard to find it.

It was also the computer that received a LOT of defense objections during the testimony.

 

[gracielee]

Why would John Pearson be a suspect?
.

Exactly, unlike Heather Metour, Pearson was never mentioned in any depositions. He wasn't brought up by Brad to counteract his affair/s. AFAICT, *if* Nancy ever had anything with Pearson, it was brief, not substantiated, and over years ago. Anyone know anything different that I missed here?

 

[CyberPro]

They DID botch the investigation. They didn't follow up on leads. Did you read the affidavit of the witness who saw her running and how the police ignored her 3 times? Did you hear the testimony about NC's cell phone and how they handled it? (If that's not blotching an investigation, I don't know what is). The cigarette butt should have been tested for DNA immediately. It was not.

The judge made that comment about defense claims the investigators were not thorough enough but that is not what Kurtz said - he said the investigation ONLY focused on BC and that is true based on everything I know to this point.

OK, time for a hypothetical.

I am not claiming this is true, but just to make a point.

Let's just say that a neighbor had a camera pointed from their home to monitor the street, and it happened to capture BC at 2AM pulling the car into the garage and loading a large, heavy bundle, shaped like a person into the trunk. CPD finds this information and while it is not absolute proof, it does show something that is not explained by BC on the morning his wife is missing and later turns up dead. CPD has the video of the loading operation, but later someone says she saw NC running, when the same video shows that NC never left the house that morning. NOW would you still say they were remiss not to interview the person?

I don't know this person, but it could be someone who calls frequently about things, and is known to the CPD. She might have reported other things that were later proven to be untrue, or CPD might have known something at this point that caused them to understand that NC had never left to run that morning, like say, having the same shoe from different pairs of running shoes left behind.

Eyewitness testimony is not the hard concrete thing that many think it is. LE frequently find that if they have 5 eyewitnesses to the same event, they get 5 different stories about what happened.

I am NOT saying the case was perfect, but I also don't think they were a bunch of keystone kops either, especially on the basis of someone thinking they saw her running in an area known for runners.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Det. Ice did call it a Dell PowerEdge Server in his testimony. You had it right. I knew you would, that's why I tried so hard to find it.

It was also the computer that received a LOT of defense objections during the testimony.

Okay thanks. I KNEW I had heard the word PowerEdge cause I remember pausing and thinking...'hmmmmm' a server.

 

[SleuthyGal]

There are some people in the world who would still deny a specific person being guilty EVEN IF there were a plain-as-day video showing them doing the deed they are accused of doing. They would claim it was CGI, they would claim it was a look-alike actor, they would claim conspiracy and anything and everything.

 

[Cheyenne130]

OK, time for a hypothetical.

I am not claiming this is true, but just to make a point.

Let's just say that a neighbor had a camera pointed from their home to monitor the street, and it happened to capture BC at 2AM pulling the car into the garage and loading a large, heavy bundle, shaped like a person into the trunk. CPD finds this information and while it is not absolute proof, it does show something that is not explained by BC on the morning his wife is missing and later turns up dead. CPD has the video of the loading operation, but later someone says she saw NC running, when the same video shows that NC never left the house that morning. NOW would you still say they were remiss not to interview the person?

I don't know this person, but it could be someone who calls frequently about things, and is known to the CPD. She might have reported other things that were later proven to be untrue, or CPD might have known something at this point that caused them to understand that NC had never left to run that morning, like say, having the same shoe from different pairs of running shoes left behind.

Eyewitness testimony is not the hard concrete thing that many think it is. LE frequently find that if they have 5 eyewitnesses to the same event, they get 5 different stories about what happened.

I am NOT saying the case was perfect, but I also don't think they were a bunch of keystone kops either, especially on the basis of someone thinking they saw her running in an area known for runners.

It's also a very real possibility that CPD had already spoken to the neighbors in the area and one of the neighbors said that they saw a person known to them run by and a woman walking her dog. Since NC was not known to the woman who called in, she can't say for sure that it was NC. (It amazes me how many people mistake me for someone else!)

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Okay thanks. I KNEW I had heard the word PowerEdge cause I remember pausing and thinking...'hmmmmm' a server.

I will be the first to admit that I was wrong!! Thank YOU for paying such close attention to the testimony. Just goes to show further we can't rely on everything we've **thought** we've heard. I really do wish that someone would post a transcript up after each day's testimony.