State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[SleuthSayer]

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?

I can take a wild guess, although I have no idea. My guess would be that you can't unring a bell. Once the jury hears the Google evidence, they can't unhear it. So, if something blows up with your plan to prove tampering (like the judge arbitrarily decides not to allow you to present a rebuttal), you are screwed. You can't undo the damage.

 

[ncsu95]

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?

Because it is the only "real" (in my opinion) evidence they have. Even if the defense were able to show that tampering likely occurred, there are people on here that wouldn't believe that to be real. I'm sure the jury is the same way. So not having it at all is much better than proving it to be false.

 

[Tink56]

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.

However, with no personal animosity toward you, why in the heck did Brad send that letter anyway. It was highly unusual, IMO. I have never heard of a person from whom LE has subpeoned "stuff," sending a letter to LE asking that the item(s) be handled "carefully." This is a huge WTF(riday) flag for me.

There is something very odd about all of this--Brad and the CPD. :crazy:

 

[NCEast]

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.

I can see mine too.

 

[bloghooligan]

But the DA kept intentionally (in my opinion) wrong information like calling the phone Brad's phone over and over. Or getting the dates wrong. All of us were just as confused from what I read on here today. The witness held firm with what he found during his testing. That never changed.

ITA. Unfortunately some people zoned out during his testimony and heard different things. Hopefully the jury didn't zzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[ncsu95]

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

There could have been something as simple as a text message confirming her plans to run Saturday morning. We simply don't know what was on that phone, even if that something is nothing.

 

[NCEast]

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

Yes, and the man today said both the phone and the SIM card had been wiped. Two wipes, which completely destroyed everything.

 

[Bottle Cap]

The fact that nobody's got records from the provider seems really really weird does it not?

 

[ncsu95]

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

Yes. Which doesn't match the testimony from today.


ETA: Actually, it does match the testimony from today since it appears the sim card was wiped on September 29th.

 

[cassius]

However, with no personal animosity toward you, why in the heck did Brad send that letter anyway. It was highly unusual, IMO. I have never heard of a person from whom LE has subpeoned "stuff," sending a letter to LE asking that the item(s) be handled "carefully." This is a huge WTF(riday) flag for me.

There is something very odd about all of this--Brad and the CPD. :crazy:

BL testified today that the letter was sent at his direction for the very reason that he was there today testifying.

 

[Madeleine74]

mcdreamy fubar'd NC's phone, but he did not have anything to do with examining BC's IBM laptop, according to the testimony of the chain of command from the time of search warrant to evidence lockup.

 

[Tink56]

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?

Am I missing something? I don't quite understand your response. TIA...

 

[NCEast]

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).

But IIRC, that was after he was asked if he had business or whatever with ATT in the past year. Perhaps they have changed their procedures since 2008 and now they required everything to be in writing?

 

[ncsu95]

However, with no personal animosity toward you, why in the heck did Brad send that letter anyway. It was highly unusual, IMO. I have never heard of a person from whom LE has subpeoned "stuff," sending a letter to LE asking that the item(s) be handled "carefully." This is a huge WTF(riday) flag for me.

There is something very odd about all of this--Brad and the CPD. :crazy:

Brad didn't...his lawyers did. I fully believe the reason is that the defense wanted to see what was on that phone. The witness today said that LE messes this up frequently. So it plays into that line of thinking.

 

[SleuthSayer]

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.

The prosecutor has done an excellent job of taking advantage of the judge's lack of knowledge of computers and technical stuff. He intentionally gets things all muddled up and it seems like when he's stumped, the judge just defaults to siding with the prosecution.

 

[MoonFlwr]

The fact that nobody's got records from the provider seems really really weird does it not?

Definitely! And if I were on the jury, it'd cause confusion to me - to my thinking about the evidence.

 

[ncsu95]

But IIRC, that was after he was asked if he had business or whatever with ATT in the past year. Perhaps they have changed their procedures since 2008 and now they required everything to be in writing?

That could be. I have a hard time believing that AT&T support would have given Young those instructions though since that isn't how a phone is unlocked. Even more unbelievable since Young didn't bother to write the name down of the person he was talking to or write down any of the instructions.

 

[cassius]

But IIRC, that was after he was asked if he had business or whatever with ATT in the past year. Perhaps they have changed their procedures since 2008 and now they required everything to be in writing?

I can assure you that every major corporation handled subpoena compliance in writing in 2008 and indeed much father back than that.

 

[Cheyenne130]

There could have been something as simple as a text message confirming her plans to run Saturday morning. We simply don't know what was on that phone, even if that something is nothing.

But they would still have the record of text message sent to/from on the phone records. It's not as if all info was erased. The person on the other end was still alive and could have provided the information in the text.

 

[cassius]

Am I missing something? I don't quite understand your response. TIA...

somebody asked why the D sought to have the comp evidence suppressed instead of just trying to prove tampering at trial...