State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[LAWsy_ME]

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?

one thing that was significant, is that the judge ruled that Levitan could not testify to McDreamy's intent.....ie wiped it intentionally...said intent is not in the scope of his expertise.
he could only say it was wiped.....and may I add, he can't say who or when either....cause he just doesn't really know does he. He just had a wiped clean phone and his evaluation software just could not help him out...nothing to report.

 

[gritguy]

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

You forgot Mr. L is a certified diver!

 

[RaleighNative]

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?

I thought a lot was gained. I thought the CPD was inept, but I didn't think they intentionally deleted the phone.

After this testimony, I think it was deliberate. And I don't believe it's possible the phone was "innocently" wiped of data.

Plus parts of the phone not controlled by the SIM card were wiped...pros has no explanation for this. And there is a documented use of the phone while it was in CPD custody, which the investigators had denied.

So I thought a lot was gained by today's testimony for the defense.

 

[otto]

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.

I guess the prosecutor was getting lost in his own mind games at one point.

 

[otto]

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

Very definitely. No matter how hard the prosecution tried to mess up the witness testimony, we know that Young did something to the phone; something that he should not have done, something that did not follow protocol, and this resulted in the total loss of information from the phone.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't think NC's cell phone was accidentally wiped either. I do think it was tampered with.

I just disagree that mcdreamy is the one who caused it to wipe completely. I believe that phone was tampered with by the defendant. It was in his possession for at least a day or more. I think by the time mcdreamy got that phone, it was already tampered with.

 

[GhostCrab]

one thing that was significant, is that the judge ruled that Levitan could not testify to McDreamy's intent.....ie wiped it intentionally...said intent is not in the scope of his expertise.
he could only say it was wiped.....and may I add, he can't say who or when either.

He did say that the phone had not been wiped as of September 29 (?), 2008 when Detective Young stated it was wiped in August 2008.

 

[FullDisclosure]

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?

I believe that the Defense's intention was to show CPD intent on the cell phone wipe. I'm not sure that they were successful on that, but if there were any jurors paying attention, even if they couldn't understand the testimony, they'll understand that what they did get was a huge dose of Boz bullying and obfuscating, which may leave a negative impression. MOO

 

[gritguy]

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

I agree with this. Having said that, they went a long way toward showing the CPD did not from the start have good forensic control over electronic media.

This may lead to a closing theme that you have eyewitnesses that saw NC doing what BC said she was doing, after the state claims he killed her, and the CPD had little interest in these witnesses. Instead, they lay their case on an alleged zoomed in search, but it has been shown that you cannot really tell whether he did that or not, and in fact all electronic equipment in this case has been shown to have been poorly secured or altered by CPD. Can you put a man into prison for this? Not a single fingerprint where it shouldn't be, not a single hair in the trunk, not a single witness to BC driving to Fielding, just no evidence at all.

I don't agree with this. I think BC killed his wife. But the defense objective to show the state's case as inadequate has some clear themes.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Very definitely. No matter how hard the prosecution tried to mess up the witness testimony, we know that Young did something to the phone; something that he should not have done, something that did not follow protocol, and this resulted in the total loss of information from the phone.

It has been known since pretty much day one that Det. Y followed procedures provided by AT&T and erased the phone. What is not known is who deleted the SIM card? After today's testimony, that is still not known. IMO

 

[GhostCrab]

I don't think NC's cell phone was accidentally wiped either. I do think it was tampered with.

I just disagree that mcdreamy is the one who caused it to wipe completely. I believe that phone was tampered with by the defendant. It was in his possession for at least a day or more.

But you have nothing to support that instead you have a lot of odd behavior by the CPD concerning this phone.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation

 

[fran]

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?

I understood from the expert's testimony that it is very COMMON for LE to mishandle these cell phones. That's why this expert's job includes TRAINING LE on HOW TO HANDLE THE EVIDENCE OF CELL PHONES.

Pretty well explained, in other words, it was NO conspiracy on LE's part to erase the cell phone memory, thus to entrap BC while the real killer runs free!

just sayin'
fran

 

[Madeleine74]

But you have nothing to support that instead you have a lot of odd behavior by the CPD concerning this phone.

Mcdreamy letter & testimony was of entering wrong password 10 times. However, it takes a total of 20 times to wipe both phone and sim, 10 for ea. I have my suspicions of who did the first 10. I don't trust the word of BC. He has been proven to be a liar.

 

[RaleighNative]

It has been known since pretty much day one that Det. Y followed procedures provided by AT&T and erased the phone. What is not known is who deleted the SIM card? After today's testimony, that is still not known. IMO

But that would have wiped ONLY the SIM card. How did everything else get wiped out?

 

[GhostCrab]

It has been known since pretty much day one that Det. Y followed procedures provided by AT&T and erased the phone. What is not known is who deleted the SIM card? After today's testimony, that is still not known. IMO

He followed procedures from a guy at AT&T a week after he spoke to him going by his memory of what the guy said. And he doesn't even know the guys name that gave him the instructions, so of course the defense can't confirm anything. I don't doubt that the SIM card was somehow destroyed somewhere in all that.

 

[unc70]

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.

From what I see, it is only the long-time BDI posters who are "falling" for this. Those of us who have been watching the evidence and testimony with fresh eyes are dealing with it much differently. That has resulted with some hopping over the wall from side to side, others painfully straddling it, and still others clinging on to one side or the other.

Think about those poor jurors who still can't talk to anyone about any of this! Sounds cruel to me.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I agree with this. Having said that, they went a long way toward showing the CPD did not from the start have good forensic control over electronic media.

This may lead to a closing theme that you have eyewitnesses that saw NC doing what BC said she was doing, after the state claims he killed her, and the CPD had little interest in these witnesses. Instead, they lay their case on an alleged zoomed in search, but it has been shown that you cannot really tell whether he did that or not, and in fact all electronic equipment in this case has been shown to have been poorly secured or altered by CPD. Can you put a man into prison for this? Not a single fingerprint where it shouldn't be, not a single hair in the trunk, not a single witness to BC driving to Fielding, just no evidence at all.

I don't agree with this. I think BC killed his wife. But the defense objective to show the state's case as inadequate has some clear themes.

I have to disagree with the "little interest in these witnesses" there were four out of how many? In each case the witnesses gave all of their information to the police. In each case they had nothing else to add. In each case they were upset that the police did not follow up. Why? Did they just want to know if their information had any relevance to the case? Why was there a need for a follow up when they had already given all the information that they had?

 

[gritguy]

Mcdreamy letter & testimony was of entering wrong password 10 times. However, it takes a total of 20 times to wipe both phone and sim, 10 for ea. I have my suspicions of who did the first 10. I don't trust the word of BC. He has been proven to be a liar.

Agree with you on BC. But, what's his motivation to delete her SIM card?

IF CPD had happened to have a cell expert and could have shown the phone was tampered with when received by CPD but, shown by phone records, the phone was working up to the time of her death or close, BC's goose would be cooked.

 

[GreenPlum]

Hi. I'm a long time lurker, first time poster.

I've been watching the trial live on wral.com, but I missed part of this afternoon's testimony (including some of the cross on BL, and anything by SH). Can someone tell me where they post each day's video? I'd like to catch up before tomorrow morning.

Thanks.