State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[cassius]

I was wondering why BZ didn't go retrieve his picture.

my brain's not working right today either, but i think they got to the point where they agreed that the phone in the pictures was not NCs phone, it was just another phone used to show the process that you had to go through to wipe the phone. that's what i ultimately got at the end there.

 

[unc70]

No, but we do on occasion visit Flowers store. we aren't *native*, we moved out here from north raleigh a couple years ago to enjoy the country lifestyle. We love it. No traffic, no noise, except the occasional gunshots. :great:

Sounds like you might be some of them there Yankee guest workers.

Just remember to keep the skeeter blood washed off your car finish.

Glad you are enjoying your stay.

 

[RaleighNative]

I will say, when my kids were little our neighborhood was very much like these people. Many of us wives were very close, especially the ones who were not native N.C.'ers, and had husbands who did some traveling on occasion for their jobs. We had to have each other to depend upon for help if we needed it. In fact, we used to tease that my husband was an expert on breaking & entering, having broken into almost every home on our street at one time or another for various reasons, all legit, I might add. Women locking themsselves out, neighbors accidentally leaving on vacation and forgetting to leave a key behind for petsitting, etc. But I don't know of anyone having any affairs with anyone else in the neighborhood. Heck, most of the husbands were AWOL, that's why we women/mom's needed each other so much.

Our neighborhood is a lot like you describe as well.

With one huge exception ... my neighbors aren't sleeping with one another's spouses. And it's certainly something they wouldn't be non-chalant about if it did happen!

Yes, many more examples are to come. Been hearing around town for over a year that a lot of people's dirty laundry is about to come up, and people have been trying to avoid testifying for that reason. The pretrial documents on WRAL's site lists NC's alleged affairs.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

my brain's not working right today either, but i think they got to the point where they agreed that the phone in the pictures was not NCs phone, it was just another phone used to show the process that you had to go through to wipe the phone. that's what i ultimately got at the end there.

No, the phone in the pictures was NC's phone. The exact phone.

 

[Madeleine74]

Hope everyone had a lovely Easter weekend. I feasted. You know, this having to work for a living really gets in the way of trial watching.

Caught a little bit of Levitan. Just enough to know I was glad to not watch the whole thing.

 

[Madeleine74]

S.H. must be one of the most forgiving people. I mean we all learned it was good to share our toys in kindergarden, but SH took that lesson to a whole new level! :wink:

 

[unc70]

Our neighborhood is a lot like you describe as well.

With one huge exception ... my neighbors aren't sleeping with one another's spouses. And it's certainly something they wouldn't be non-chalant about if it did happen!

Yes, many more examples are to come. Been hearing around town for over a year that a lot of people's dirty laundry is about to come up, and people have been trying to avoid testifying for that reason. The pretrial documents on WRAL's site lists NC's alleged affairs.

The Cooper motion from Feb 2011 mentioned a page or two back irt the cell phone records also has some of "laundry", starting about page 61. Expect several more pieces will be hung out to dry.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2011/02/17/9132146/coopermotion.PDF

Rumors in the greater community down here and on other sites strongly suggest that several of NC's day friends will be making appearances for the defense as will several reluctant witnesses. Should continue to be interesting.

IMNSHO

 

[LAWsy_ME]

In their world....which I can't relate to....where it is OK to have a best bud relationship with the man who slept with his wife, where does SH draw the line when helping out a friend whose wife is missing and who considers himself to be the CPD's only suspect?

How much did SH trust brad in his home? Did he lock down the computers? Was HM's computer locked down, or did brad access. If not locked down and password protected, HM loaned him the car.....just wondering...did she let brad go online?

 

[LyndyLoo]

No, the phone in the pictures was NC's phone. The exact phone.

I respectfully disagree..The pic of phone re-enactment of deletions was NOT Nancy;s..It was a facsimile..provided by Defence..Please do re-listen to the testimony..right near the end of today's re-cross by Boz...NO pictures were taken of interactions with Nancy's phone...2 different interactions ..Nancys phone (evidence#3) was Nancy's phone and interacted with in 2009..no pictures or report/documentations by Mr. L/..pics from re-enactment 2010 with facsimile phone with all documentations..Sorry..I have been glued to testimony all day....:banghead:

You made this statement as fact..and it just isnt IMO

 

[RaleighNative]

In their world....which I can't relate to....where it is OK to have a best bud relationship with the man who slept with his wife, where does SH draw the line when helping out a friend whose wife is missing and who considers himself to be the CPD's only suspect?

How much did SH trust brad in his home? Did he lock down the computers? Was HM's computer locked down, or did brad access. If not locked down and password protected, HM loaned him the car.....just wondering...did she let brad go online?

I think we're about to get a whole lot more information on the lives of these neighbors. Sounds like their section of Lochmere should have been dubbed "Swingtown".:crazy:

 

[LAWsy_ME]

I respectfully disagree..The pic of phone re-enactment of deletions was NOT Nancy;s..It was a facsimile..provided by Defence..Please do re-listen to the testimony..right near the end of today's re-cross by Boz...NO pictures were taken of interactions with Nancy's phone...2 different interactions ..Nancys phone (evidence#3) was Nancy's phone and interacted with in 2009..no pictures or report/documentations by Mr. L/..pics from re-enactment 2010 with facsimile phone with all documentations..Sorry..I have been glued to testimony all day....:banghead:

You made this statement as fact..and it just isnt IMO

Levitan himself was confused which phone....errrr....ahhhh....well.....let's see,
quizicle look, roll eyes to jury.....he said it all. It was and it wasn't Nancy's phone, he just did not say with confidence and did not write down his method.

 

[Amster]

Our neighborhood is a lot like you describe as well.

With one huge exception ... my neighbors aren't sleeping with one another's spouses. And it's certainly something they wouldn't be non-chalant about if it did happen!

Yes, many more examples are to come. Been hearing around town for over a year that a lot of people's dirty laundry is about to come up, and people have been trying to avoid testifying for that reason. The pretrial documents on WRAL's site lists NC's alleged affairs.

NC's "alleged" affairs? Won't Brad and his posse have to have more than alleged affairs to smear Nancy?

 

[Madeleine74]

The different SIM card in NC's cell phone has me thinking it might have been switched after 7/11/08. And do we know for sure that NC always had a passcode on that phone? Just because BC claimed it was locked on 7/12/08 doesn't mean it had a passcode on it on 7/11/08. I am suspicious that BC may have done something to that phone before mcdreamy ever got it.

 

[RaleighNative]

To answer an earlier question...Yes, HM worked at Cisco, but I believe she left Cisco several years earlier. There was testimony that she was in the MBA program with BC.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

To answer an earlier question...Yes, HM worked at Cisco, but I believe she left Cisco several years earlier. There was testimony that she was in the MBA program with BC.

I thought I remembered that, and at time, he was out until midnight on nights when there were classes.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

You made this statement as fact..and it just isnt IMO

It 100% is fact. And that's not my opinion. Those pictures had been introduced several times before in this trial, particularly through opening, and it has been made very clear that it was in fact Nancy's phone. No pictures were taken in 2009, but pictures were taken in 2010, and those were the ones displayed. I'm sorry if Boz's statement confused you, but it is fact that the phone in the picture was Nancy Cooper's phone.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Levitan himself was confused which phone....errrr....ahhhh....well.....let's see,
quizicle look, roll eyes to jury.....he said it all. It was and it wasn't Nancy's phone, he just did not say with confidence and did not write down his method.

You know his flumixed reaction to that line of questioning, realizing his errors actually made me snicker abit..after his berrating of ignorance, ineptness of every body else, and lack of knowledge and following procedures...He really did look totally "Caught" in NOT following his own advice..and was somewhat embarrassed......He sure left the stand in a hurray...wondering just how he had been perceived??..:floorlaugh:

 

[jilly]

I think we're about to get a whole lot more information on the lives of these neighbors. Sounds like their section of Lochmere should have been dubbed "Swingtown".:crazy:

I really liked that show!!:crazy:

 

[LAWsy_ME]

It 100% is fact. And that's not my opinion. Those pictures had been introduced several times before in this trial, particularly through opening, and it has been made very clear that it was in fact Nancy's phone. No pictures were taken in 2009, but pictures were taken in 2010, and those were the ones displayed. I'm sorry if Boz's statement confused you, but it is fact that the phone in the picture was Nancy Cooper's phone.

it would have helped the defense if you had testified instead of their expert, but since you didn't, the jury will have rely on the expert's admission that it was not her phone that he tested.....but another phone.

 

[otto]

It 100% is fact. And that's not my opinion. Those pictures had been introduced several times before in this trial, particularly through opening, and it has been made very clear that it was in fact Nancy's phone. No pictures were taken in 2009, but pictures were taken in 2010, and those were the ones displayed. I'm sorry if Boz's statement confused you, but it is fact that the phone in the picture was Nancy Cooper's phone.

It was. The prosecutor tried to confuse the witness and at one point, the witness "blanked". On cross, the witness was able to step by step explain that it was Nancy's phone.