State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[gracielee]

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

that's done quite a lot lately here. thank you for taking the time to point it out. I'm afraid I'm just not up to correcting today. It's like :banghead: sometimes.

 

[Danielle59]

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.

Who testified about a different SIM card in Nancy's phone? They all have serial #'s and the phone company hands them out programmed with your phone number. Did the phone company testify to a new SIM card being ordered for NC's phone number? Don't you think that would have come into evidence during the State's case if it was true?

There would be nothing for BC to fall back on if he had of wiped the phone or SIM card 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.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

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.

I guess we will have to have differences of opinion on what the expert testified to. My knowledge is based on what I witnessed it in court, I will go with what I heard and saw with my own two eyes and ears.

 

[LyndyLoo]

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.

I might suggest you post the video link where Mr. L. states that..because thats not what he said on the stand today??????????:waitasec: in re-cross exam..thus his confusions and "Deer in Headlight" responses..He had to admit it was a re-creation with facsimle..IF you can show me in testimony what you say..I will be totally corrected and will apologize profusely..TYIA

 

[gritguy]

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.

I recall too that Kurtz cleared that up on the re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-direct that it was NC's phone.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

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.

Thank you for this. Several people on here are stating it wasn't Nancy's phone, and that's just plain wrong. It's been stated all throughout this case that the blackberry in the photos was Nancy's. The prosecution would have had a hissy fit if they had used a "similar" phone for testing.

 

[Danielle59]

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:

You don't know that he did not follow protocol, all you know is that he works on a lot of cases and did not have his notes in front of him.

 

[RaleighNC]

So - since folks have been posting up the defense motion about 47 times per thread, I said to myself I would read it today.

Well guess what - there's the smoking gun!!!!

What smoking gun, you ask?

The defense spelled Brad's name as "Bradly" in that document. So - I am not crazy I knew I saw it someplace that I had "assumed" was more reliable than WRAL's web editing.

Whoo hoo - not insane. The defense team can't spell their client's name either! Ha!

Ok - back to your regularly scheduled differences of opinion.....

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I might suggest you post the video link where Mr. L. states that..because thats not what he said on the stand today??????????:waitasec: in re-cross exam..thus his confusions and "Deer in Headlight" responses..He had to admit it was a re-creation with facsimle..IF you can show me in testimony what you say..I will be totally corrected and will apologize profusely..TYIA

I will gladly look for that--just give me a minute to find it

ETA: They are missing video 5, which is the one I am looking for. Will respond when WRAL posts it.

 

[GhostCrab]

You don't know that he did not follow protocol, all you know is that he works on a lot of cases and did not have his notes in front of him.

Yes, BZ was trying to equate not having his notes on the stand with not following protocol. But it stands to reason that if he DID have his notes up there with him BZ wold have found some way to make an issue out of it. Much ado about nothing.

 

[otto]

Thank you for this. Several people on here are stating it wasn't Nancy's phone, and that's just plain wrong. It's been stated all throughout this case that the blackberry in the photos was Nancy's. The prosecution would have had a hissy fit if they had used a "similar" phone for testing.

I think that as soon as the prosecutor was successful in getting the witness turned around backwards, some people probably heard all they wanted to hear. Kurtz patiently and carefully walked the witness back through the process that he used, and that is where he then detailed how while recreating the steps needed to wipe the phone, they took the actual phone and video-taped the process. On that basis, he was able to confirm that the photos were from the video process of recreating Young's steps using Nancy's phone.

 

[Madeleine74]

Other than confirming that NC's cell phone was wiped clean where there was no recovery of any info, and mcdreamy will be executed at dawn in front of a firing squad, was anything actually gained today from Mr L's testimony?

 

[gritguy]

I think that as soon as the prosecutor was successful in getting the witness turned around backwards, some people probably heard all they wanted to hear. Kurtz patiently and carefully walked the witness back through the process that he used, and that is where he then detailed how while recreating the steps needed to wipe the phone, they took the actual phone and video-taped the process. On that basis, he was able to confirm that the photos were from the video process of recreating Young's steps using Nancy's phone.

In fact, BZ was caught off guard at his answer that it was a sub phone and said I believe it was introduced earlier as NC's phone and offered to print a picture and apologized saying it would print across the hall. I think he did not follow up on that point again during his cx or after Kurtz cleared it up on redirect.

eta: And that was all interesting to me b/c I thought the state wanted to point out that NC's phone did something that they felt the expert said the actual phone could not do w/o an active SIM in it so I was surprised they didn't follow it, though they may in closing.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Wow....lost on that deciding round.....like plucking petals off a daisy.

 

[GhostCrab]

Other than confirming that NC's cell phone was wiped clean where there was no recovery of any info, and mcdreamy will be executed at dawn in front of a firing squad, was anything actually gained today from Mr L's testimony?

More suspicion cast on the CPD that maybe not everything was above board.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Bottom line with the phone expert from my perspective; the defense wanted to present that the CPD intentionally destroyed evidence exculpatory to the defendant. They did not succeed. MOO

 

[Madeleine74]

More suspicion cast on the CPD that maybe not everything was above board.

Hard to imagine more suspicion could possibly exist with that dead horse beating. With mcdreamy facing the firing squad at dawn, that should placate at least some of the masses.

 

[otto]

You don't know that he did not follow protocol, all you know is that he works on a lot of cases and did not have his notes in front of him.

The prosecution kept trying to get the witness to state that he didn't follow protocol. When the witness declared that he did follow protocol, the prosecution then introduced a court order and accused him of violating a court order (returned the phone one business day late) ... with the implication being that because the phone was returned a day late, the expert violated protocol. It's mind games from the prosecutor ... nothing more. Then the prosecutor tried to say that the witness was lying and that the phone was returned 4 days late, so the witness had to point out that it was due on a Friday, he was called out of town, and it was delivered on the Monday. Therefore, one business day, not 4.

The prosecutor is trying to trick people into thinking that protocol was violated when it wasn't, he's trying to trick people into thinking that the court order was deliberately and intentionally violated by 4 days when it wasn't. He's full of nonsense, and it seems some people are falling for it.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I will gladly look for that--just give me a minute to find it

ETA: They are missing video 5, which is the one I am looking for. Will respond when WRAL posts it.

Part 5--Last five minutes of this video.

 

[Madeleine74]

ok CPD bad. BC good. I'm all caught up now, yes?