State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[Madeleine74]

Confrontation makes me uncomfortable, and when BZ is on the offensive it makes me very glad I'm not the one at the receiving end of it. I'd be in tears in 5 min flat, no doubt. I hope whoever is doing the x-exam is a bit more gentle with SH. He's not the enemy--he's just a guy who got caught in the middle of a really bad situation not of his own making.

 

[Shadow722]

The witness today was awful; BOZ was reaching and not effective, and unfortunately the most important part of today's testimony is that the CPD is indeed inept. Whether through accident, stupidity, or just plain malice an important piece of evidence, NC cell phone was destroyed and it's value to either side was rendered nil.

What the jury will take away from this mess is not known. But what I see, IMHO, is that the CPD is not to be fully trusted in the handling of electronic/digital evidence. And so much of this cases important evidence rests solely on digital media.

If the inference is, that evidence entrusted in the care of the state, is lost or destroyed, even with the best of intentions, they may just disregard anything the state produces with regards to digital evidence.

I again believe BC is guilty. If he happens to get acquitted, the bugling of NC cell phone will have played a big part. And it is a damn shame.....

 

[Lori59]

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.

I'm not sure if the DA did it intentionally......I will admit the word of the day is confusion.......who started it, why, at what point???? Fact is, he wasn't a good witness. With all the jurors have to look at.....when his name is brought up, I suppose they will yell out NEXT! Good luck with your interview by the way. :rocker:

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I disagree. I think the witnesses are not that strong in their convictions. The defense tried to do the same thing with the prosecution witnesses and it didn't work. If a witness is truthful and convinced of the evidence being presented, they will not be "tripped up". MOO

While I truly do not agree with this, because I see BZ as very confrontational when witnesses do not agree with him or answer in the manner he expects. As you state: "if a witness is truthful and convinced of the evidence being presented, they will not be tripped up" - keep that in mind when the defense brings back NC's friends and the Lochmere clique. Betcha some of them, if not all, will get "tripped up".

 

[NCEast]

The prosecutor is fighting for one side only. Noone expects him to be neutral. A witness on the other hand should not be steering his evidence to benefit one side or the other. The evidence should just be what it is.

Levitan....is that his name? What really riled me were the distasteful faces he was making at the jurors when he became disgusted and his little, under the breath, remarks. I was hoping Judge Gessner was going to call him on those.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I honestly think that is the geek in him. Kind of like a cringe when people say ATM machine.

Yes, but I wouldn't make fun of someone. Mine is IP provider. I don't make fun of people for that.

Dang! I think I just used the wrong example. (Feel free to make fun of me.)

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

The witness today was awful; BOZ was reaching and not effective, and unfortunately the most important part of today's testimony is that the CPD is indeed inept. Whether through accident, stupidity, or just plain malice an important piece of evidence, NC cell phone was destroyed and it's value to either side was rendered nil.

What the jury will take away from this mess is not known. But what I see, IMHO, is that the CPD is not to be fully trusted in the handling of electronic/digital evidence. And so much of this cases important evidence rests solely on digital media.

If the inference is, that evidence entrusted in the care of the state, is lost or destroyed, even with the best of intentions, they may just disregard anything the state produces with regards to digital evidence.

I again believe BC is guilty. If he happens to get acquitted, the bugling of NC cell phone will have played a big part. And it is a damn shame.....

I agree. I think both witness and BZ were awful today. Almost unbearable to watch. However, if the jury was a annoyed as many of us were with this testimony, I think the main thing they will come away with is that the CPD (namely JY) erased all of NC's phone info (whether accidentally or intentionally really doesn't matter). It adds some value to Kurtz's opening statment that the CPD are inept. That is just my opinion.

 

[NCEast]

I honestly think that is the geek in him. Kind of like a cringe when people say ATM machine.

Oh dear, I say ATM machine. What's wrong...the double machine?

 

[ncsu95]

The prosecutor is fighting for one side only. Noone expects him to be neutral. A witness on the other hand should not be steering his evidence to benefit one side or the other. The evidence should just be what it is.

Do you feel this witness steered his evidence? If you do, in what way? Did you find it appropriate that the "FBI" witness offered his opinion that BC used the google search to find a location to dump the body? That was an opinion and he shouldn't have offered it. Do you find it appropriate that the "FBI" witness didn't review the security CSA logs until the night before he testified? Did you find it appropriate that even though he couldn't explain why the files associated with the google search had invalid timestamps (even though he had an explanation for all the others that were associated with system updates) freely offered an opinion that the PC had not been tampered with? I mean honestly...if he is the forensic expert, how can he say with certainty that the PC had not been tampered with if he had no explanation for why the files had invalid timestamps. Seems to me that it should be inconclusive with regards to tampering.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The witness today was awful; BOZ was reaching and not effective, and unfortunately the most important part of today's testimony is that the CPD is indeed inept. Whether through accident, stupidity, or just plain malice an important piece of evidence, NC cell phone was destroyed and it's value to either side was rendered nil.

What the jury will take away from this mess is not known. But what I see, IMHO, is that the CPD is not to be fully trusted in the handling of electronic/digital evidence. And so much of this cases important evidence rests solely on digital media.

If the inference is, that evidence entrusted in the care of the state, is lost or destroyed, even with the best of intentions, they may just disregard anything the state produces with regards to digital evidence.

I again believe BC is guilty. If he happens to get acquitted, the bugling of NC cell phone will have played a big part. And it is a damn shame.....

That was in 2008. We're now in 2011 and phones have come a VERY long way in the last three years. I will be shocked if that is not brought up in closing by the state.

 

[NCEast]

I'm not sure if the DA did it intentionally......I will admit the word of the day is confusion.......who started it, why, at what point???? Fact is, he wasn't a good witness. With all the jurors have to look at.....when his name is brought up, I suppose they will yell out NEXT! Good luck with your interview by the way. :rocker:

I had already forgotten his name tonight--so maybe the jury will have too by the time they have to start remembering and sorting things out.

 

[NCEast]

While I truly do not agree with this, because I see BZ as very confrontational when witnesses do not agree with him or answer in the manner he expects. As you state: "if a witness is truthful and convinced of the evidence being presented, they will not be tripped up" - keep that in mind when the defense brings back NC's friends and the Lochmere clique. Betcha some of them, if not all, will get "tripped up".

The only times people can get tripped up is if they have lied or they are not sure of what they are saying in the first place. If NC's friends and the Lochmere crowd get tripped up, then they did it to themselves. I am very much looking forward to further testimony from that group.

 

[ncsu95]

The witness today was awful; BOZ was reaching and not effective, and unfortunately the most important part of today's testimony is that the CPD is indeed inept. Whether through accident, stupidity, or just plain malice an important piece of evidence, NC cell phone was destroyed and it's value to either side was rendered nil.

What the jury will take away from this mess is not known. But what I see, IMHO, is that the CPD is not to be fully trusted in the handling of electronic/digital evidence. And so much of this cases important evidence rests solely on digital media.

If the inference is, that evidence entrusted in the care of the state, is lost or destroyed, even with the best of intentions, they may just disregard anything the state produces with regards to digital evidence.

I again believe BC is guilty. If he happens to get acquitted, the bugling of NC cell phone will have played a big part. And it is a damn shame.....

What bothers me most about today was the witness story about using cell phone technology to help track down a missing girl. BC turned the phone over on the 12th. Even though she obviously was dead on the 12th, I simply don't understand how they didn't get an immediate search warrant to open the phone and examine its contents to potentially help find a missing person. I hope they learn from this and will do that if the situation arises again.

 

[cody100]

The prosecutor is fighting for one side only. Noone expects him to be neutral. A witness on the other hand should not be steering his evidence to benefit one side or the other. The evidence should just be what it is.

I agree the experts should be neutral. I think witnesses on both sides have shown at times mild to extreme partiality. I did not though think that the defense experts were overly partial. I did question partiality of some of the prosecution witnesses. IMO

 

[MoonFlwr]

Yes, but I wouldn't make fun of someone. Mine is IP provider. I don't make fun of people for that.

Dang! I think I just used the wrong example. (Feel free to make fun of me.)

What I got from that, was the witness realising how inexperienced the report writer was at calling it a PUCK code and not a PUK. He was trying to emphasise that a knowledgeable person wouldn't make that mistake.

 

[SleuthSayer]

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.

 

[ncsu95]

Levitan....is that his name? What really riled me were the distasteful faces he was making at the jurors when he became disgusted and his little, under the breath, remarks. I was hoping Judge Gessner was going to call him on those.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. The little smirks to the jury were not appropriate as well as his inability to shut up when the judge sustained an objection. I do believe his testimony was truthful and thorough though...but he didn't help himself up there.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Do you feel this witness steered his evidence? If you do, in what way? Did you find it appropriate that the "FBI" witness offered his opinion that BC used the google search to find a location to dump the body? That was an opinion and he shouldn't have offered it. Do you find it appropriate that the "FBI" witness didn't review the security CSA logs until the night before he testified? Did you find it appropriate that even though he couldn't explain why the files associated with the google search had invalid timestamps (even though he had an explanation for all the others that were associated with system updates) freely offered an opinion that the PC had not been tampered with? I mean honestly...if he is the forensic expert, how can he say with certainty that the PC had not been tampered with if he had no explanation for why the files had invalid timestamps. Seems to me that it should be inconclusive with regards to tampering.

This seems to have all been allowed, because the judge seems to be very biased in this case. I thought things were changing a bit when Kurtz asked him to recuse himself and for a mistrial, but that seemed to only last for a couple hours. I really don't think this judge is showing inpartiality at all.

 

[ncsu95]

Yes, but I wouldn't make fun of someone. Mine is IP provider. I don't make fun of people for that.

Dang! I think I just used the wrong example. (Feel free to make fun of me.)

I understand what you are saying and I agree...it was unprofessional (an yes, IP is internet protocol :crazy: )

 

[Cheyenne130]

Do you feel this witness steered his evidence? If you do, in what way? Did you find it appropriate that the "FBI" witness offered his opinion that BC used the google search to find a location to dump the body? That was an opinion and he shouldn't have offered it. Do you find it appropriate that the "FBI" witness didn't review the security CSA logs until the night before he testified? Did you find it appropriate that even though he couldn't explain why the files associated with the google search had invalid timestamps (even though he had an explanation for all the others that were associated with system updates) freely offered an opinion that the PC had not been tampered with? I mean honestly...if he is the forensic expert, how can he say with certainty that the PC had not been tampered with if he had no explanation for why the files had invalid timestamps. Seems to me that it should be inconclusive with regards to tampering.

I can answer almost none of those questions because I didn't get to hear the testimony or the cross of the state computer expert. I will say that if he did testify that the search was to locate a body dump location, I would disagree. He would have no way of knowing why the defendant was searching that location prior to the murder.