State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[FullDisclosure]

I just had a LIGHT BULB moment!

We keep pointing out that DY waited days to follow the instructions he got on the phone from the AT&T rep. Think about this:
1. JY has no notes naming the AT&T rep.
2. JY has no notes on the procedure he followed that he got from the unnamed AT&T rep.
3. In his testimony, Levitan said that AT&T always provides written instructions (fax or email) for said procedure. According to Levitan, they never provide the instructions by phone.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[LyndyLoo]

And at minute 40:55 it all gets cleared up.

For the user who asked about daily videos, they are on WRAL's website, here is the link for today's: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9491600/

IMO that was smoke and mirrors...What about puting his own simcard in a phone provided by defense dont you get?? He tried to replicate wiping phone of data using another phone..not Nancy's///I guess I will just go bang my head on the wall some more..Defense wont admit, not Mr. L. and yet his testimony says he used another phone?? Wonder what the jury will remember..They take notes you know...
NOW..IF this was nancy's phone..why would he recall facsimile provided by defense?? I am sure his reversing his thoughts have not been lost on the jury??.. Credible//We shall see IF jury buys his confabulations and altering his recalls??

 

[unc70]

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.

Evidence today shows that the unlock code was not supplied verbally over the phone. It was faxed in response to a subpoena.

I need to go back and luck as some time-lines about this.

BTW Her cell phone should have been examined immediately, certainly no later than Sunday, 13 July 2008. That was pointed out indirectly in today's testimony.

IMNSHO

 

[NCEast]

At minute 33, the confusion about the phone begins.

WolfPackWoman, you are right. Levitan changed his testimony from test phone to Nancy's phone. I didn't hear that during the actual testimony. My apologies.

 

[Lori59]

BZ has confused you - it was in fact NC phone in the pics.

Perhaps that was his strategy....after all, this is a game of chess between these two attorneys. If he makes it appear that the witness doesn't know or leaves it confusing, then chances are the jurors will not rely on the testimony. JMO.

 

[jrb0124]

It has been known since pretty much day one that Det. Y followed procedures provided by AT&T and erased the phone

Its pretty well known by now that Det. Young had no business fiddling around with the phone to begin with - especially when you have a lab with experts to handle evidence like that. I'm sure he wanted a sneak peek at what was on there after the preservation letter, I guess he just couldn't help himself?

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I'm not going to argue any more over whether or not it's Nancy's phone. It clearly is--as evidenced by the wral feed. Call it smoke and mirrors if you want, but that's what the report says, that's what the ADA said, that's what the defense has said. It was clearly Nancy's phone, has been throughout the trial. I am not sure why anyone is still contending this.:banghead:

 

[fran]

I see. But I wonder how this information is beneficial to the defense?

Well, it APPEARS the def is trying to get into testimony on behalf of THEIR client that he was upset AFTER his wife disappeared and was found murdered.

THEN it APPEARS the def MAY want to get into testimony, via this witness that the FRIENDS of NC were hostile to HIM because he was spending time with the now defendent.

I also believe the def was trying to get in some {dirt} type stuff on the Duncan husband who testified for the pros. But the def was trying to introduce it as third person hear-say, judge sustained the objection by the pros, so it didn't work.

JMHO
fran

 

[WolfpackWoman]

WolfPackWoman, you are right. Levitan changed his testimony from test phone to Nancy's phone. I didn't hear that during the actual testimony. My apologies.

No need for apologies. I heard exactly what you heard, and it threw me as well, before it was corrected. And I am glad this is getting cleared up. I don't think Levitan was a strong witness--but I can't blame him for not knowing every detail of one of his dozens of cases.

 

[jrb0124]

Perhaps that was his strategy....after all, this is a game of chess between these two attorneys. If he makes it appear that the witness doesn't know or leaves it confusing, then chances are the jurors will not rely on the testimony. JMO.

I am sure that was exactly BZ's strategy. Kurtz did clear it up on redirect, and once the jurors start discussing the case it will be cleared up by one of them and/or review.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Its pretty well known by now that Det. Young had no business fiddling around with the phone to begin with - especially when you have a lab with experts to handle evidence like that. I'm sure he wanted a sneak peek at what was on there after the preservation letter, I guess he just couldn't help himself?

Probably so. The expert on the stand testified to that. LE is not equipped to deal with this area of evidence. That's why he goes around doing training. And this is 2011. Imagine had bad it was in 2008 when all of this was even newer to law enforcment.

 

[RaleighNative]

I'm not going to argue any more over whether or not it's Nancy's phone. It clearly is--as evidenced by the wral feed. Call it smoke and mirrors if you want, but that's what the report says, that's what the ADA said, that's what the defense has said. It was clearly Nancy's phone, has been throughout the trial. I am not sure why anyone is still contending this.:banghead:

So if on this board, we are arguing amongst ourselves over what was said, can you imagine what it will be when the jury deliberates?

Looks like Boz's technique was at least somewhat effective.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

So if on this board, we are arguing amongst ourselves over what was said, can you imagine what it will be when the jury deliberates?

Looks like Boz's technique was at least somewhat effective.

Absolutely. Especially when we've got the benefit of rehashing it as it happens, and playing back the videos to correct each other.

 

[gritguy]

I am sure that was exactly BZ's strategy. Kurtz did clear it up on redirect, and once the jurors start discussing the case it will be cleared up by one of them and/or review.

This part I saw differently. BZ wanted to ask a question about how NC's phone responded to the test and the witness denied it was NC's phone even after BZ said it had been introduced as NC's phone. The witness then went on a flight of fancy about a substitute phone. In doing so (which I don't think really was intentional - I think he was flustered), they never got the original point.

Kurtz then cleaned it up on his final redirect and that was that.

 

[gritguy]

Absolutely. Especially when we've got the benefit of rehashing it as it happens, and playing back the videos to correct each other.

Also, taking it in the doses we want, sitting where we want, and drinking what we want! :rocker:

 

[FullDisclosure]

I just had a LIGHT BULB moment!

We keep pointing out that DY waited days to follow the instructions he got on the phone from the AT&T rep. Think about this:
1. JY has no notes naming the AT&T rep.
2. JY has no notes on the procedure he followed that he got from the unnamed AT&T rep.
3. In his testimony, Levitan said that AT&T always provides written instructions (fax or email) for said procedure. According to Levitan, they never provide the instructions by phone.

Draw your own conclusions.

...And discuss while I forage for some food. I think this part of the testimony got lost in the fustercluck.

 

[fran]

who on earth would cheat on that guy for BC? I just don't see it.

Now, now, we don't want him to have a big head with all these gals on here talking about how {hot!} he is?!:innocent:

Did I just say that?


:wave:....................Oh, hi Scott!....................:wave:


fran

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Now, now, we don't want him to have a big head with all these gals on here talking about how {hot!} he is?!:innocent:

Did I just say that?


:wave:....................Oh, hi Scott!....................:wave:


fran

Finally! Something we agree on!! :great:

 

[borndem]

JW's true self and ego forced him to come right to WS, the very night he testifed, to blow his own horn once again. And yet again, it tripped him up IMO.

Ga-ah-ah-lee!! I have really missed it this morning!! I got back home at 2:00pm or so, watched the trial, and I am catching up on the posts. This JW thing, Gee Whill-a-kers, Lassie!

Well, we all essentially agreed that if JW was JW, he was prolly being a bit foolish. And it may have really hurt him...

And I figured I would miss another parade of "BC is a nice guy, I never heard him yell at NC or the kids." What a surprise! I think I'm caught up now....

Did I miss any other humdingers from this morning??? Thanks.

 

[Cheyenne130]

WolfPackWoman, you are right. Levitan changed his testimony from test phone to Nancy's phone. I didn't hear that during the actual testimony. My apologies.

When all is said and done, it doesn't really matter in the entire scheme of things regarding the trial. It doesn't impact guilt or innocence one iota. But it is interesting that it generated pages of discussion due to the confusion created. And this was just one day.