State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11

[FullDisclosure]

Some jurors said it made them feel uncomfortable.
If they complained to him, I can see why he made the statement.

I will say there were 1-2 very sketch people in the courtroom when I was there this week.

Gessner stressed that the jurors wish to remain anonymous. And JTF, are you talking about me?

 

[Just the Fax]

So now that live cameras are back, what is the issue with computers and BlackBerrys?

 

[Tipstaff]

He was at work earlier in the day, he may have been in meetings, having discussions with employee's any host of things that people do at work that distracts them from picking up the phone.

Or he was ignoring her calls as he did regularly and letting them go to voice mail......so why answer the Friday night phone call. He had plans for her that is why he took this particular call. JMO

 

[gracielee]

I love it when people say don't talk to police, don't talk to police - and then the likes of Mark Klaas, John Walsh, and Mark (in Florida - squirly little guy across the trailer park stole the daughter and had her in the closet, then buried at back door - I'm so embarrassed I can't remember the names) parade across my brain and they never once questioned the police motives in asking them questions, never once wavered, never once hedged, never once backed up, never once went into a non-cooperative mode. Why? Because they were innocent and desperately wanted to find their loved one.

I'm terrible with names, Mark Lunsford, little Jessica Lunsford murdered by John Couey, buried alive. Same thing with Steve Groene, so many drug rumors, biker rumors, but he too didn't back down. He wanted to find his missing kids, D & S.

 

[Danielle59]

Hi Danielle. Did you get a chance to check out the phone records? Since there has been accusations of tampering with these records they are perhaps the most objective piece of evidence entered so far.

I don't think there is anything suspicious about his phone calls. He called his voice mail, I don't know why he called and left a voice mail for the call center he set up, but I don't think they mean anything. I know people that work where he worked and they work all the time, always listening to voice mail, checking email, leaving messages on weekends, etc. You think there is something up with those calls, I don't. I think he would have made a point of talking about them if he had made them as an alibi.

 

[CyberPro]

I've seen the posts about jurors laughing etc. No conclusion I can draw from that except mere speculation. But here's my speculation. I would be concerned about that in any case, but particularly one involving a violent crime. If you are making the case of a horrible murder, what exactly is funny?

I feared in the early phase of the state's case that there was no clear narrative, no easy path to follow the story, and dead end witnesses, including the infamous water-addict.

They have the last couple of days presented the kind of case I'd hoped to see from the start. They spent a lot of time proving the relationship had been shattered and the couple were at a crossroads. Now that we are in the phase of seeing the heart of the state's case, I hope the laughter has stopped.

Well, I served on a jury once, but it was nothing at all like this case. A very strange case for a jury trial at all, not just IMO, but according to the judge as well. We were on the case for a week with deliberations beginning Friday afternoon. We had been sent out of the courtroom many times for bench conferences and hearings of evidence/testimony.

We got back in the room to begin deliberations, and one of the jurors was - um - shall we say an earthy person. He made a comment alluding to the drinking habits of at least one of the people in the case, and the whole room broke up laughing pretty loudly. Even thinking back now, it was pretty funny. "I don't have a problem with a little social drinking, but that guy is a bottle toter." -

Anyway, I am thinking that at least some of the laughter is a stress reduction technique, much like gallows humor. No, nothing funny about this case, but sometimes stress can make things that might usually merit a polite smile into a laugh.

 

[Just the Fax]

Gessner stressed that the jurors wish to remain anonymous. And JTF, are you talking about me?

Ha ha.
One in particular was a very thin character with bloodshot eyes, a greasy mullet, numerous tattoos, filthy clothes and had very bad BO. This was Tuesday when I came in late and sat behind him on Brad's side of the courtroom.

 

[Albert]

He was at work earlier in the day, he may have been in meetings, having discussions with employee's any host of things that people do at work that distracts them from picking up the phone.

possible, but he had texting capability. Even when I am on customer conf calls, if I see my wife calling my cell phone I will text her to find out what she wants. Or we can simply decide that BC was so busy running the alpha system that he does not have a quick second or two to respond.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I don't think there is anything suspicious about his phone calls. He called his voice mail, I don't know why he called and left a voice mail for the call center he set up, but I don't think they mean anything. I know people that work where he worked and they work all the time, always listening to voice mail, checking email, leaving messages on weekends, etc. You think there is something up with those calls, I don't. I think he would have made a point of talking about them if he had made them as an alibi.

I would buy that if there had been any activity at all between 4 and 6. He said he had been up for two hours and he and Nancy were "tag teaming" in taking care of a two year old. He had an opportunity to take care of some of this work without doing it on a 6 minute trip to the store. MOO

 

[Danielle59]

Or he was ignoring her calls as he did regularly and letting them go to voice mail......so why answer the Friday night phone call. He had plans for her that is why he took this particular call. JMO

He answered her lunch phone call. I just assume when she was calling him Friday during the day when he was at work he was busy and unable to take calls, he was being paid to work, not socialize. When he got the call at lunch time he answered it. I doubt everything he did had an ulterior motive.

We could look at all of these things too closely and start making them more than they are, when that happens it perverts what justice should be.

 

[Albert]

I don't think there is anything suspicious about his phone calls. He called his voice mail, I don't know why he called and left a voice mail for the call center he set up, but I don't think they mean anything. I know people that work where he worked and they work all the time, always listening to voice mail, checking email, leaving messages on weekends, etc. You think there is something up with those calls, I don't. I think he would have made a point of talking about them if he had made them as an alibi.

Ok, here is my take on the calls, the first part is the calls to his cell phone on 7/12 in the am, the second part is the supposed work calls:

What if we already have our smoking gun and it was presented by the AT*T guy. Remember how he explained seizure time as the total ringing time. That is, the time from locating the cell phone within the network till the time the cell phone was answered. I know we have heard different opinions on the meaning of seizure time on this forum but let's imagine the AT&T guy is correct. During his testimony he identified seizure times from 0-21 seconds in the detailed records. We heard on cross examination that there was nothing unusual about these seizure times. We did not, however, hear during cross exam that the defense team doubted the AT&T's definition of seizure time. So unless the defense is waiting till they call their expert and offer a different definition then perhaps the AT&T guy is correct. It would seem more effective to discredit the AT&T guy during this testimony but I am not a lawyer and therefore what do I know.

Anyway, BC mentioned that he placed a call from the home phone to his cell phone in order to locate the cell phone. We know he had his cell phone on the first trip to HT. So we therefore have 2 possibilities of which time that call from home was made to locate the phone. Either 6:05am or 6:34am. If this call occurred at 6:34am then we are to believe that BC misplaced his phone after returning from HT on his 1st trip. If this is the case then the 6:05am call has not been explained. Therefore I must assume the call to locate the phone occurred at 6:05am.

If the call at 6:05am was for the purpose of locating the phone we know that this call terminated at voicemail if the phone was truly misplaced. The duration of this call was 23 seconds with a seizure time of 1 second. I have a problem with this 1 second duration as this implies 1 of 2 things to me. Either BC had this phone in his hand and answered the call immediately when it stated to ring which would imply the phone is not misplaced. Or, the phone was powered off and the call went immediately to voicemail or the phone was set to call forward all to voicemail. If the call was forwarded immediately to voicemail then the cell phone did not ring and therefore the phone would still be misplaced.

I only think these questions will be answered when and if BC takes the stand. The defense team indicated the call was to locate the phone and now we will need to understand if the call indeed helped locate the phone.


There were 4 calls from BC to either the rtp or ireland alpha systems.

6:37am, call from cell phone to the rtp vm system, message checked and then disconnect.

6:53am, call from home ip phone to cisco vm, deletes 2 message, message waiting light is now turned off and the call is terminated. (There is no indication that the MWI light was turned on that morning so it is not certain when these messages were left for BC)

7:26am, call to ireland vm system and a vm is composed and forwarded to BC phone in rtp. (The interesting thing about this forwarded vm was that the vm was never checked. So, if this was testing purposes one would assume that the forwarded vm would have been checked, otherwise how would you know that it was successful.)

7:56am, call to the San Jose alpha meetingplace system, hears opening greeting, presses 0 and hangs up. (This did not test any functionality of the meetingplace system, it only verified that the meetingplace system answered a call.)

BC maintained the ireland and rtp alpha systems, the san jose alpha system was outside of his control

 

[jmflu]

It's so strange to me that people are back to defending Brad.

 

[lib's mom]

He was at work earlier in the day, he may have been in meetings, having discussions with employee's any host of things that people do at work that distracts them from picking up the phone.

IIRC, there were 3 calls from Nancy that Brad let go to voice mail before he got to work. I'm certain there was testimony that one was during his Lowe's stop for the drop cloth. He was not at work when those calls came through and didn't actually talk to her until 2:32 pm.

Nancy was blowing up his phone because she wanted her "allowance" and he was not answering because he didn't want to deal with it.

 

[Danielle59]

possible, but he had texting capability. Even when I am on customer conf calls, if I see my wife calling my cell phone I will text her to find out what she wants. Or we can simply decide that BC was so busy running the alpha system that he does not have a quick second or two to respond.

Maybe he didn't carry his phone with him all the time, I know I don't. Maybe Kurtz will bring on some of his employees and we can find out if he always carried his phone with him. If he was meeting with his employees that would have been rude to stop to text someone. She could have also texted him? Why didn't she?

 

[Tipstaff]

He answered her lunch phone call. I just assume when she was calling him Friday during the day when he was at work he was busy and unable to take calls, he was being paid to work, not socialize. When he got the call at lunch time he answered it. I doubt everything he did had an ulterior motive.

We could look at all of these things too closely and start making them more than they are, when that happens it perverts what justice should be.

Everything BC did on the 11th had an ulterior motive and on the 12th and on the 13th and the 14th.

 

[Danielle59]

I would buy that if there had been any activity at all between 4 and 6. He said he had been up for two hours and he and Nancy were "tag teaming" in taking care of a two year old. He had an opportunity to take care of some of this work without doing it on a 6 minute trip to the store. MOO

Do we know that he didn't? I am not sure if we do, and I wouldn't expect the Pros to tell us that.

 

[CrimeAddict]

It's so strange to me that people are back to defending Brad.

:floorlaugh:

 

[FullDisclosure]

Ha ha.
One in particular was a very thin character with bloodshot eyes, a greasy mullet, numerous tattoos, filthy clothes and had very bad BO. This was Tuesday when I came in late and sat behind him on Brad's side of the courtroom.

Yep. That's me! (Seriously, I saw the dude you're talking about...fortunately, I was not close enough to smell him.)

 

[Albert]

Maybe he didn't carry his phone with him all the time, I know I don't. Maybe Kurtz will bring on some of his employees and we can find out if he always carried his phone with him. If he was meeting with his employees that would have been rude to stop to text someone. She could have also texted him? Why didn't she?

ok, but then he should have had no problem going to HT at ~6:15am on 7/12 without his phone? If I do not carry my phone all the time then certainly I would not care so much to locate my phone on that morning before I went to the store, correct?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Do we know that he didn't? I am not sure if we do, and I wouldn't expect the Pros to tell us that.

I thought they presented all of the phone records. If there had been activity during the 4-6 hours, I would have expected the defense to bring it up in cross if the prosecution ignored it. There was no reason for him to wait until he was on his way to the store to check his vm.