State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[FullDisclosure]

That's not necessarily true. I don't believe this witness lied. And I don't believe he wasn't confident in his testimony. BZ was throwing crap out there all day. And what ever happened to the important picture he printed out that he had to go next door to get?

I agree. I actually think that this man is very honest, and what came across as "attitude" with Boz was righteous indignation that Boz would imply that he was not being truthful. When it was all said and done, it wasn't pretty for anyone involved.

 

[ncsu95]

Cheyenne,

Sure cell phones have gotten smarter and added functionality in the last 3 years. But Det. Young, bless him, did not know what a dang Sim card was in 2011. He had absolutely no business touching that cell phone, and trying to retrieve anything.

Hindsight is indeed 20/20, but the state mishandled potentially incriminating or possibly exculpatory evidence. The fact is we will never know. But in the end the state failed in its duty, and the jury may well punish that failure, with a NG vote........

I also do not believe, as has been suggested here many times today, that BC had already wiped the phone prior to giving it to LE on the 12th. Part of the theory being that is why the defense wrote the letter. That would make no sense, in my opinion, because if the phone had been handled properly, the wiping of the phone would have been found and would have been incriminating to BC. Based on the testimony today (that was not actually challenged by BZ), the phone was wiped in August and the sim card was wiped at the end of September.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Actually, the defense wants to do an offer of proof so it is part of the record for appeal. Looks like we will get to hear it Thursday afternoon (and probably Friday afternoon). The jurors won't, but I assume it will be broadcast for us.

I hope, hope, hope! I am kidless on Thursday and Friday. (Although I may have to go play golf. Ahhh, the sacrifices I make for the one I love.)

 

[MoonFlwr]

I agree. I actually think that this man is very honest, and what came across as "attitude" with Boz was righteous indignation that Boz would imply that he was not being truthful. When it was all said and done, it wasn't pretty for anyone involved.

Well-summarised!

 

[ncsu95]

Many people use their PIN number when they go to the ATM machine.

You did good.


:floorlaugh:

 

[ncsu95]

Agreed. He screwed up. (If I could get 10 bucks for everytime I have said that during the course of this trial I could go out to dinner....twice!)

At the Angus Barn

 

[Bottle Cap]

Have to confess to having all this whoosh over my head today.

What did we learn beyond that the phone was wiped? That it was wiped twice? On different days?

 

[less0305]

I don't think the cell phone had as much important information as some people do. Geez, NC was not even carrying the cell phone on the alleged "jog run". I suspect the defense is actually relieved that the phone was erased because all it was going to show is that the phone never left the house, as well as NC.

And if the phone records are obtained from the cell provider, they have all numbers in or out. I just am so not impressed by the uproar over the cell phone. The phone was erased. The cell phone records show all activity in or out. I think the defense is certainly making much ado about nothing. Again, their only defense is the inept/corrupt police. They have no other defense and they are going to wring the life out of the inept/corrupt police defense.

 

[ncsu95]

I don't think the cell phone had as much important information as some people do. Geez, NC was not even carrying the cell phone on the alleged "jog run". I suspect the defense is actually relieved that the phone was erased because all it was going to show is that the phone never left the house, as well as NC.

Of course it never left the house that morning. But it could have shown text messages, contacts, or other things on there that could implicate someone else. I honestly doubt they would have found anything, but we'll never know now.

 

[Madeleine74]

If the defense had evidence that the Google search was planted on BC's work laptop, then why did they fight so hard to try and have that computer evidence excluded altogether?

Wouldn't they want the state to make such a claim, show the evidence, and then "ta-da" prove tampering of the info on that computer?

 

[ncsu95]

Today's witness gave me the impression that he has had pretty much a free reign in his expert testimony in previous cases. Another inflated ego much like JW. He didn't get it today, and not very much respect, and it rattled him several times. I think he is probably excellent at what he does, although his expertise didn't shine through during his testimony-- mostly his anger, frustration and distaste for Boz is what we saw.
I don't know about that print out because I don't think they ever got back to it.

He did like to hear himself talk.

 

[NCEast]

Have to confess to having all this whoosh over my head today.

What did we learn beyond that the phone was wiped? That it was wiped twice? On different days?

That's about it. I don't think there were any breath taking moments.

 

[cassius]

Kind of a bummer here is that, after the judge's ruling this morning, I guess we will never know what the prosecution was so intent on keeping from being exposed in the computer evidence.

We knew that the defense worked incredibly hard to keep the computer evidence out and then we ultimately learned why, the Google Maps thing. But, now we've seen the prosecution do the same thing (far more successfully) and we will never know what they were hiding.

I suppose if he wins the appeal and gets a new trial we may learn, but otherwise it will remain a mystery.

the double super secret national security stuff really bothers me. it's just incredible to me that the judge has allowed them to withhold their procedures and reports and at the same time disallow the defense to offer any testimony to rebut their conclusions. if anything, in light of the the super secret stuff, the judge should bend over backwards to ensure that the defense has a fair shot at this evidence, but instead he has gone completely and steadfastly the other way.

i guess the motto down there is that if bc is acquitted, the terrorists win and that a convicted bc is helping catch pedos and keeping the terrorists from blowing up our stuff again.

also, i have little faith in bc's chances on appeal, should it get that far. from experience, i know that the overturn rate is very low in this state.

 

[ncsu95]

I hope, hope, hope! I am kidless on Thursday and Friday. (Although I may have to go play golf. Ahhh, the sacrifices I make for the one I love.)

Me too. I really want to clear up this google search business in my mind.

 

[AnotherSleuth]

Of course it never left the house that morning. But it could have shown text messages, contacts, or other things on there that could implicate someone else. I honestly doubt they would have found anything, but we'll never know now.

But in the (unlikely IMO) event someone else killed her, likely was a stranger, so there would be no contacts/texts in that case.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't know what was available on AT&T in 2008 - 2010 via their website, but I am able to see all my call logs as well as the phone numbers sending and receiving txt messages on my provider website. This data can be downloaded to a spreadsheet. I can see how many picture or premium texts as well. Lots of info available through the provider.

 

[cassius]

If the defense had evidence that the Google search was planted on BC's work laptop, then why did they fight so hard to try and have that computer evidence excluded altogether?

Wouldn't they want the state to make such a claim, show the evidence, and then "ta-da" prove tampering of the info on that computer?

well no, it would make sense to have the one piece of physical evidence never see the light of day, even if they could show tampering. you know how everyone around here was waiting for the smoking gun? well, how would everyone feel if it never came to be?

 

[Bottle Cap]

Please bear with me for being slow, all the info is overwhelming. Ok, so did the detective testify to wiping it only once?

 

[ncsu95]

Have to confess to having all this whoosh over my head today.

What did we learn beyond that the phone was wiped? That it was wiped twice? On different days?

I think we learned more than that. We learned that Young either mis-remembered or lied in his report. Young said he received the puc over the phone. He actually received it via fax. We learned that what Young said happened to the phone doesn't match what the witness found with the phone (ie, the sim card doesn't appear to have been wiped until the end of September). We also learned that AT&T wouldn't give instructions over the phone because they are something compliant (I can't remember the word he used several times) and only give written instructions (like fax or email).

 

[Cheyenne130]

At the very least, the prosecutor does not need to tell a witness what they are saying on the stand is different from what they told police (child psychologist). That was a lie. The prosecutor lied a few times to mislead the jury and confuse the witness. Today the prosecutor repeatedly said the defendant's phone instead of Nancy's phone. He wanted to confuse the testimony so that if the jurors try to go back and review the transcripts, it will be a jumbled mess. The prosecutor is using mind games or head games, and I think those tactics have no place in determining whether a man is innocent or guilty of murder.

The defense also did this numerous times with witnesses without any foundation to back up their assertions.