State v. Bradley Cooper 4-12-2011

[gbay]

Albert - I would like to throw this in also. If he claims that he looked and had to call his cell phone during the two trips why did he not testify to this while being questioned by AS. She asked him pointedly what he did during the two trips. She asked him more than once, I believe, what all he did when he returned home on the first trip before leaving out the second trip. He did not mention that he lost his phone and had to call it to find it. Please correct me if I'm wrong - but why wouldn't he have disclosed that when asked by AS about his actions. Again, I think she gave him PLENTY of room to explain his actions then and he did not. He's lying through his teeth and all with a smirk on his face.

I think they will prove with the cell phone tower info that he never went home between trips. Do you think that a cell phone expert will testify. I think they will say the 6:05 call was the call to find the cell.

 

[less0305]

I think they will prove with the cell phone tower info that he never went home between trips. Do you think that a cell phone expert will testify. I think they will say the 6:05 call was the call to find the cell.

I do not believe he went home between HT trips either.

 

[RobT]

Been following this trial daily like most of you, as well as reading the very interesting and insightful thoughts posted on this forum (which I honestly didn't know existed until this trial started).

One thought that I keep coming back to, and has been stated I'm sure before is two-fold. 1) That though taken in individual context, all the little things that make BC look suspicious are explainable but, at least so far, taken together they represent an increasingly unlikely scenario. And 2) I'm having a very difficult time constituting whether or not that unlikely scenario constitutes reasonable doubt.

As to "the smoking gun" ... I highly doubt there is one in all honesty. I don't believe this case would have made it to trial if there was a single piece of evidence that was altogether damning for BC. It would have been plead out.

I think there are two very large looming questions remaining as well. 1) The testimony of RZ and how that is going to be addressed by the prosectution, and 2) if BC will testify in his own defence which admittedly is unlikely but could prove to be a bit of a nail in the coffin to the prosecution if he gets up there and recites the same story that the defense has put forth as a timeline at the same time as seeming credible.

 

[Palomine]

I think they will prove with the cell phone tower info that he never went home between trips. Do you think that a cell phone expert will testify. I think they will say the 6:05 call was the call to find the cell.

i thought that was already done?

 

[RobT]

I don't understand why they don't tweet more frequently? tweeting and blogs is all we get in Canadian Trial...if they didn't tweet for 20 minutes I would be peeved

My understanding from a friend that is there is that there are absolutely no cell phones allowed in the court room and thus notes are having to be taken and then physically walked to someone that can relay them on twitter.

 

[CyberPro]

i thought that was already done?

(cell phone...)

Not really. IIRC the AT&T guy was a "loss analyst" or something like that, I took it to be a security guy, but was not qualified as an expert witness.

With the information on all the cell traffic from the various phones, etc. I suspect that we will see a prosecution expert witness to tie all that ping, data and call info from the cell phones into a nice, neat, package.

(at least I hope that is waiting in the wings)

 

[NCEast]

My understanding from a friend that is there is that there are absolutely no cell phones allowed in the court room and thus notes are having to be taken and then physically walked to someone that can relay them on twitter.

A few weeks ago when another poster was thinking about going, I wasn't paying much attention about the signals, passwords, etc. for wifi. I am thinking about going and now I'm wondering if my netbook would work from within the courtroom? This computer and signal stuff is very confusing to me so some guidance would be very much appreciated.

 

[ncsu95]

Albert - I would like to throw this in also. If he claims that he looked and had to call his cell phone during the two trips why did he not testify to this while being questioned by AS. She asked him pointedly what he did during the two trips. She asked him more than once, I believe, what all he did when he returned home on the first trip before leaving out the second trip. He did not mention that he lost his phone and had to call it to find it. Please correct me if I'm wrong - but why wouldn't he have disclosed that when asked by AS about his actions. Again, I think she gave him PLENTY of room to explain his actions then and he did not. He's lying through his teeth and all with a smirk on his face.

The defense said in opening statements that the 6:05 call was to find the phone.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think they will prove with the cell phone tower info that he never went home between trips. Do you think that a cell phone expert will testify. I think they will say the 6:05 call was the call to find the cell.

I don't think they can prove anything from the cell towers especially that he did or did not go home because

A. they have already shown the towers the cell phones pinged

B. they set no foundation for BC's path upon leaving HT on either trip

Could Det. Daniels bring this type of info, sure, but then the earlier testimony which showed they really had no way of knowing which way BC went to HT was a huge waste of time and information.

 

[Cheyenne130]

A few weeks ago when another poster was thinking about going, I wasn't paying much attention about the signals, passwords, etc. for wifi. I am thinking about going and now I'm wondering if my netbook would work from within the courtroom? This computer and signal stuff is very confusing to me so some guidance would be very much appreciated.

They do not have a public wireless network from what I understand. You would have to know (or guess) the password for a nearby secure network in order to get on.

 

[Palomine]

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Waiting on notes from the courtroom. Will let you know as soon as we hear something. #coopertrial RT @foxone1: why so long between tweets?

 

[RobT]

A few weeks ago when another poster was thinking about going, I wasn't paying much attention about the signals, passwords, etc. for wifi. I am thinking about going and now I'm wondering if my netbook would work from within the courtroom? This computer and signal stuff is very confusing to me so some guidance would be very much appreciated.

I had to appear for jury duty (as a new American citizen that was a bit daunting) for a civil case a few months ago. Mobile signals were fine in the court room I was in but bailiffs and judges alike will confiscate the phone if they see you using it. I never picked up a WiFi signal on my iPhone but there are free hotspots all around that one can pick up from the ground floor (The Oxford, etc.). Without some sort of tethering to a mobile device or other connection that relies on mobile service I wouldn't plan on doing anything from the courthouse itself and I certainly wouldn't plan on doing anything from the court room without risk of losing your phone.

 

[Tipstaff]

WRAL does say waiting on notes from the courtroom.

 

[Star12]

Been following this trial daily like most of you, as well as reading the very interesting and insightful thoughts posted on this forum (which I honestly didn't know existed until this trial started).

One thought that I keep coming back to, and has been stated I'm sure before is two-fold. 1) That though taken in individual context, all the little things that make BC look suspicious are explainable but, at least so far, taken together they represent an increasingly unlikely scenario. And 2) I'm having a very difficult time constituting whether or not that unlikely scenario constitutes reasonable doubt.

As to "the smoking gun" ... I highly doubt there is one in all honesty. I don't believe this case would have made it to trial if there was a single piece of evidence that was altogether damning for BC. It would have been plead out.

I think there are two very large looming questions remaining as well. 1) The testimony of RZ and how that is going to be addressed by the prosectution, and 2) if BC will testify in his own defence which admittedly is unlikely but could prove to be a bit of a nail in the coffin to the prosecution if he gets up there and recites the same story that the defense has put forth as a timeline at the same time as seeming credible.

RZ was deemed not credible due to all the photos and flyers and other publicity. See Temporary custody order in the sticky files, under findings of fact and conclusions of law.

 

[gbay]

i thought that was already done?

The guy from At&T was not really an expert on mobility towers. I believe he had snippets of information but his expertise was more to do with records. They have alluded to different towers being pinged at different times but have not really pinned it down. I have thought all along they would have an expert on and then specifically state... this call was initiated and pinged on this tower. I also think they alluded to his activities on July 11 but have never been clear. They stated his whereabouts after 11:00 am or so showed him at the tower closest to work but they were obscure prior to that. Also july 12`th they talked about the calls pinging on different towers but again were not clear about each call.

 

[less0305]

The defense said in opening statements that the 6:05 call was to find the phone.

Thanks. I musta got confused and thought somewhere that the defense was trying to say the lost phone call was in between the two trips. Sorry if I was mistaken.

 

[borndem]

Gribble took the stand anything is possible...Brad may take the stand just so they can explain his bland, no emotion personality

You may be right, but I'm not gonna bet on that one... But how would they do it? By just showing more of the same??? I dunno.

But you have a point -- In a way, he needs to get up there, but it's too big a risk. I still wonder, as some others do, if the defense will just say, "The defense rests," just to show their disdain and to show that it is not worth defending. Big risk, yes, as has already been offered.

OTOH, I can't see Kurtz missing out on another opportunity to strut, obfuscate, and proclaim for three more hours. :waitasec:

 

[RobT]

RZ was deemed not credible due to all the photos and flyers and other publicity. See Temporary custody order in the sticky files, under findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Thanks for the heads up... I think all I saw was her affidavit. Will go back and read them now.

 

[NCEast]

They do not have a public wireless network from what I understand. You would have to know (or guess) the password for a nearby secure network in order to get on.

Hmmmm, thank you. I still may give it a try.

 

[Byrdbrain]

My understanding from a friend that is there is that there are absolutely no cell phones allowed in the court room and thus notes are having to be taken and then physically walked to someone that can relay them on twitter.

I definitely saw on camera a shot of AS sitting in the courtroom playing with her Blackberry, so . . .