State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LAWsy_ME said:
I reject on grounds of morals and principles anyone being expert on my own intentions, and if intentions are meant to deceive.

Looks like Boz is making that argument, that it is up to the jury, not this witness to determine intent.

This expert can only say what happened.....not why or *who* may have switched the sim card.
Click to expand...

I missed any tesimony on the SIM card being changed, what is speculated on this board is not testimony the Judge or witness is ruling on or testifying to. SIM cards are also numbered and have to be activated by the phone company before they will work. Did the phone company testify to a new SIM card being ordered for NC's phone number?
 
Jay123 could be verified in terms of IP address. Was that done? If he did post something here, it was probably a test to see if the prosecution was sitting around reading this stuff. If it wasn't, the prosecution fell on their face for introducing it in court.
 
gracielee said:
IIRC, during the David Westerfield trial, it was gleaned from one of the crime forums, to check the length of the hair/s found in DW's home/trailer because Danielle had just had her haircut only a day or two before she was taken and murdered. Often times ideas or thoughts from 'real people', those that would be making up a jury, both the defense and prosecution find to be handy as to what kinds of questions and concerns the jurors might have during deliberations. Sometimes for professionals, it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

And significantly less expensive that utilizing mock jury! Additionally both sides have the benefit of 'real time' thoughts and opinions.
 
LAWsy_ME said:
Interns....law students...... for example would be a source and I betcha, law students are following this trial. This is a virtual reality and certainly this forum has proven itself as useful in the past, per my peruse of the introductory information I read on Websleuths home page.

In my field, interns were able to perform parts of my job, under supervision....anywhere from arm's length supervision to minimal supervision. I don't know if this is true in a court of law.....Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Isn't that a bit like saying that someone studying or practicing law needs to know what the guy working at the corner store thinks in order to properly do his or her job? I find that absurd. There is absolutely no way of knowing who we, the posters, are in terms of background, education, experience. We can say any stupid thing we want. I would think that it's a waste of time to slog through everything written here.
 
RaleighNC said:
I don't think that there is any data to support that this wiping procedure was done 2x - therefore - I don't think you can allow him to talk about intent. Det McDreamy said he only did this error once - there's no way to know if the sim card was already wiped and the one attempt wiped the phone memory or vice versa.

Still trying to figure out what could be so inflammatory as to CPD wanting to destroy the phone data. If it was an alternative smoking gun - I have to believe they would have exhausted that lead. I don't think Nancy had too many secrets and her friends would have spilled if there was another suspect (i.e. romantic interest) as they seem to be focused on finding her killer and not necessarily convicting Brad.
Click to expand...

I would think the phone would be wiped first before the SIM card. There would be nothing for BC to fall back on if he had of wiped either if LE had of just followed protocol for the securing and testing of the evidence. It is possible there was information on that phone that may have totally exonerated him.

BC could not have foreseen that the police would handle the electonics in this case in a clumsy manner in which data was erased or corrupted. If they had of handled the Cell phone in the proper manner, then if BC had of done anything nefarious to the phone it would have been able to be argued, at this time it cannot be.

We still have not heard good reasoning why it took CPD 10 months to even tell Defense what they did in regard to wiping the SIM card and Cell phone. This whole issue is more than circumstantial evidence, yet the BDI's want to argue it, but they think there is enough ecircumstantial vidence otherwise to convict BC because he put NC on an allowance. It all baffles me.
 
raisincharlie said:
Following AT &T's directions - which said the phone would ask for the PUC, which it did not do. Det Young is not an expert, was following directions given to him by the provider.

Having AT & T internet service, I can tell you, if you have a problem - good luck getting it resolved in one or even two hour long phone calls which may involve four or five different people. Phone service is even worse.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, we HAD Bellsouth, who we were quite happy with *until* AT&T bought 'em up. Now, I don't believe we've ever spoken to anyone on the phone for tech service, for whom 'English was their FIRST language.
 
RaleighNC said:
I don't think that there is any data to support that this wiping procedure was done 2x - therefore - I don't think you can allow him to talk about intent. Det McDreamy said he only did this error once - there's no way to know if the sim card was already wiped and the one attempt wiped the phone memory or vice versa.

Still trying to figure out what could be so inflammatory as to CPD wanting to destroy the phone data. If it was an alternative smoking gun - I have to believe they would have exhausted that lead. I don't think Nancy had too many secrets and her friends would have spilled if there was another suspect (i.e. romantic interest) as they seem to be focused on finding her killer and not necessarily convicting Brad.
Click to expand...

Maybe Cary had one of the earlier versions of the UFED (Universal Forensic Extraction Device). These allow sucking of data off cell phones as easily as just plugging them into one of these devices. Automati-magically cracks the phone security, etc. The ACLU is having fits about this:

http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html

http://computer-forensics.sans.org/blog/2011/04/22/case-leads-aclu-v-msp

These allow someone to PEEK at a phone without detection.
 
otto said:
Isn't that a bit like saying that someone studying or practicing law needs to know what the guy working at the corner store thinks in order to properly do his or her job? I find that absurd. There is absolutely no way of knowing who we, the posters, are in terms of background, education, experience. We can say any stupid thing we want. I would think that it's a waste of time to slog through everything written here.
Click to expand...

I realize anyone can post anything. I just know that when professionals are training, real work experiences are made available. I certainly would find that to be a worthy task to assign to an intern.....what's the risk?
 
otto said:
I have to wonder who pays for someone to take the time to read through 40-60 pages of daily posts ... at some outrageous pay schedule. Does the prosecutor's office have too much money or what?
Click to expand...

I would imagine interns do the grunt work. JMO
 
Did anyone ever think that *MAYBE* someone emailed the State a link of JW's post?

geez why automatically accuse them of sitting around on a web forum all day.
 
yeknomaras said:
Did anyone ever think that *MAYBE* someone emailed the State a link of JW's post?

geez why automatically accuse them of sitting around on a web forum all day.
Click to expand...



Certainly, I would think the moderators have their *hinky* meter on at all times, and being a site devoted to the victims, *maybe* the MODS notify LE when something comes up that may be useful for the prosecution......maybe a concerned sleuther.....I have no idea and it doesn't matter really.

I'm new here and I don't know how all that works.
 
CPD's case against the unknown top secret lover/murderer would have HAD to be easier than the case they have against BC, because apparently he left proof positive on the cell phone that it was he and not BC that murdered NC. I can't imagine if the top secret lover/murderer had left his incriminating mark on the cell phone, that CPD desperately had to get rid of, that CPD wouldn't have taken the obvious easier choice and arrested the unknown top secret lover/murderer. Apparently that would have been a slam dunk case, but nooooo, they went on a three year journey of framing BC by way of trying to make themselves look inept and/or corrupt, whichever the story is this week. <tongue firmly in cheek>
 
LAWsy_ME said:
I realize anyone can post anything. I just know that when professionals are training, real work experiences are made available. I certainly would find that to be a worthy task to assign to an intern.....what's the risk?
Click to expand...

Studying case law seems like a worthy task, but personally I would not consider forum content relevant to a murder trial.
 
yeknomaras said:
Did anyone ever think that *MAYBE* someone emailed the State a link of JW's post?

geez why automatically accuse them of sitting around on a web forum all day.
Click to expand...

It seems that some of the people in the courtroom have been observed checking out this forum. That's why.
 
less0305 said:
<snip>

but nooooo, they went on a three year journey of framing BC by way of trying to make themselves look inept and/or corrupt, whichever the story is this week. <tongue firmly in cheek>
Click to expand...

Making PD/experts look inept/corrupt is a frequent defense tactic ... However, CPD did it to themselves with respect to this phone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 122 more.
Total: 2,271 (members: 123, guests: 2,148)

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
2,148
Total visitors
2,271
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,105
Messages
18,134,720
Members
231,233
Latest member
Shablee
Back
Top