State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[WolfpackWoman]

They've suppressed the testimony of two defense expert witnesses. One because they prosecution didn't have "time" to prepare. And you all agreed with that, because it was so last minute. But at the end of the defense case, you're okay with the prosecution introducing last minute testimony. Would you then be okay if the defense got to put their computer expert on? To refute both the new "evidence" and the old?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Only if they let us see an alternate interpretation of the MFT and the google maps searches.

What does that have to do with the Cisco logs showing that he was using that particular router to access their network at 10 p.m. on July 11th, 2008?

 

[Tipstaff]

I heard that as well but in rebuttal to what? The state's own witnesses?

Rebuttal to Mr. Ward

 

[johnfear]

They've suppressed the testimony of two defense expert witnesses. One because they prosecution didn't have "time" to prepare. And you all agreed with that, because it was so last minute. But at the end of the defense case, you're okay with the prosecution introducing last minute testimony. Would you then be okay if the defense got to put their computer expert on? To refute both the new "evidence" and the old?

It was actually a Cisco email that said "Your new router is ready for pickup."

 

[unc70]

Does it really have a strong bearin on this case where anyone had sex with anyone else? Both NC and BC were completely wrong. Noone was worse or better than the other. They both were wrong in their extramarital affairs. Just because one did it on the couch and the other in the closet (with our without kids present) really makes no difference in cheating on your spouse.

This was a a major downfall in their marriage. Lack of trust and respect. They should have gotten divorced a long time before all of this happened. We probably would have a much different outcome today.

You should consider the possible impacts on lots of other people. Everyone has secrets, and like on Wisteria Lane, sometimes secrets lead to death.

A large number of people connected with this case have had their secrets revealed publicly or are still at risk. Just posting at WS seems almost enough connection. I am relatively new at WS, but I gather that this case is unusual in the number of witnesses posting at WS and other sites. There also appear to be an unusually high number of posters who also who have also been in the courtroom during this trial.

I will be interested to see which if any posters here and other sites decide to suspend their participation online following the last two weeks. The interplay between having the trial video online, the differences among the MSM, the blurring of lines between the "real" world and the "on-line" world, between journalism and publishing, between technology and proof, between a fair trial and manipulation of procedures, between disclosure and hiding behind national security or other fig leaves -- these and more are on display for the world to see. And the world is seeing it.

When all reality is virtual, where are truth or justice? Where is anyone?

BTW I started looking at this case closely while waiting at the vet (VSH) near the former Cooper neighborhood. Having all the technology issues sucked me into spending more time than I can justify, except through my responsibility as a citizen to ensure fair trials for all -- whether the issues are too technical or the accused "obviously" guilty.

 

[ncsu95]

Seriously? They have evidence that the router that the defense has continually pointed out was not found in the house and now evidence shows that such a router was known to be used as late as 10 p.m. on Friday, July 11th and the prosecution should not be allowed to introduce that? Do you want a guilty man to walk???

No, and if you read my other post I said I hope we get to hear it because it could clear up some confusion. But there are rules associated with trials. You didn't seem to take that stance when the judge decided not to allow the defense expert to testify about potential tampering because the prosecution didn't have time to prepare a cross. Yet you see no issue with the state introducing new evidence after they have rested, which would also give the defense very little time to prepare a cross? Which is it? Fairness or guilty at all costs? Because there seems to be a hint of a double standard. Personally, I wish we could hear both because it would potentially clear up a lot of outstanding confusion.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

It was actually a Cisco email that said "Your new router is ready for pickup."

That's not accurate. Mr. Trenkle pointed out that the purchase in question was not one made by BC.

 

[Cheyenne130]

They've suppressed the testimony of two defense expert witnesses. One because they prosecution didn't have "time" to prepare. And you all agreed with that, because it was so last minute. But at the end of the defense case, you're okay with the prosecution introducing last minute testimony. Would you then be okay if the defense got to put their computer expert on? To refute both the new "evidence" and the old?

If they had a real expert that would be fine. If they just go out and find someone to say what they need him to say, that's not fine. MOO

 

[gritguy]

They've suppressed the testimony of two defense expert witnesses. One because they prosecution didn't have "time" to prepare. And you all agreed with that, because it was so last minute. But at the end of the defense case, you're okay with the prosecution introducing last minute testimony. Would you then be okay if the defense got to put their computer expert on? To refute both the new "evidence" and the old?

I'm BDI and I did not agree with the judge's decision. I think they could have split the baby by letting the expert testify later in the week, like apparently he will do during the offer of proof.

That being said, if they come up with actual evidence of his guilt, you'd want that excluded (and let's say it's solid evidence) simply due to an error before?

I'd say it comes in and the defense should have the time and assets given to them necessary to rebut it.

If the judge's prior ruling was error, it is subject to appeal. I'm going with two wrongs don't make a right on this one.

ETA: if the evidence were of a webcam found that showed a video of BC dumping NC's body, that shouldn't be held out due to a prior error on another witness. Take each thing as it comes.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

If they had a real expert that would be fine. If they just go out and find someone to say what they need him to say, that's not fine. MOO

There has been no question that Mr. Masucci is a real expert.

 

[calgary123]

This has probably already been mentioned (there's no way I can wade through the 37 pages here), but I still believe the ducks were removed the night of 11th/12th morning. Who is to say that Brad didn't clean the ducks from something and then place them in a box during his wild night of clean and dump.

Here's the thing... many of the SODDI posts on this board where they attempt to explain away damaging evidence suggests a large number of alternatives which are complicated and just not supported by any evidence. In fact, one of the reasons I keep sticking with the BDI camp is that many SODDI posts suggest such outrageous alternatives that it leads me to believe Brad really did it.

I adhere to Occam's Razor most of the time. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Sure maybe Nancy puked on the ducks and Brad cleaned and hid them, but the more likely explanation is the ducks had nothing to do with anything.

Another was of stating Occam's Razor is the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). Another way of stating it is, use plain common sense.

I say BDI. I'm certain of that beyond a reasonable doubt. The ducks issue hurts the prosecution because they postulated a theory that probably wasn't true. They didn't need to add the ducks to the equation but did. Now they get the downside of overstating what they know.

I always appreciate your posts by the way, and I think Brad should go to jail. But if the defense keeps chopping away at the circumstances, I'm liable to change my mind.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I'm BDI and I did not agree with the judge's decision. I think they could have split the baby by letting the expert testify later in the week, like apparently he will do during the offer of proof.

That being said, if they come up with actual evidence of his guilt, you'd want that excluded (and let's say it's solid evidence) simply due to an error before?

I'd say it comes in and the defense should have the time and assets given to them necessary to rebut it.

If the judge's prior ruling was error, it is subject to appeal. I'm going with two wrongs don't make a right on this one.

I agree with you on this. If the defense is given the time (and data) to prepare, then it can come in. And their witness should also be allowed to testify at that point. You can't just keep out the defense expert, and let in the prosecution. That's what I have a problem with.

I also think it's telling that the data the FBI couldn't share with the defense for national security reasons was emailed to Cisco.

 

[johnfear]

What does that have to do with the Cisco logs showing that he was using that particular router to access their network at 10 p.m. on July 11th, 2008?

It has to do with the State's case having rested and the court disallowing most of the testimony related to technology from the defense perspective (having very little wiggle room to call it rebuttal, if any) and basically having painted themselves into a corner.

At this point, what's basically being said is: We had three years to do this your honor, but our phrasing was incorrect. We had to ask for ____________. (Which proves why most of this is beyond the court dealing with this technologically anyways)

All those times that Boz intentionally obfuscated the technology to the judge will likely bite him in the tushy on this one. The judge will consider it too late to be part of the case in chief and highly unlikely candidate for rebuttal.

 

[ncsu95]

If they had a real expert that would be fine. If they just go out and find someone to say what they need him to say, that's not fine. MOO

That wasn't why he wasn't allowed to testify. It "wasn't enough time" for the prosecution to research his facebook page.

 

[sunshine05]

You'd have an easier time convincing me the world is flat, frankly.

Yeah, because of the way she was found (clothing-wise), it seems likely to be a man, but found it odd they let him read that. It was pretty interesting.

 

[Tipstaff]

I missed this afternoon's testimony. Will check up on it in a bit. Who claimed to post on WS?

MH as eye_ believe (hope that is right) go back to about Page 20. He posted a theory of how NC was killed based on the autopsy. Interesting prosecution questioning of this guy.

 

[Cheyenne130]

No, and if you read my other post I said I hope we get to hear it because it could clear up some confusion. But there are rules associated with trials. You didn't seem to take that stance when the judge decided not to allow the defense expert to testify about potential tampering because the prosecution didn't have time to prepare a cross. Yet you see no issue with the state introducing new evidence after they have rested, which would also give the defense very little time to prepare a cross? Which is it? Fairness or guilty at all costs? Because there seems to be a hint of a double standard. Personally, I wish we could hear both because it would potentially clear up a lot of outstanding confusion.

I do apologize. I came back from a dinner and didn't read all the posts. Most were about the ducks and I didn't see that as relevant so I skipped to the end. I have to say that I don't blame the prosection for being suspect of the late additon "expert" when his report said something to the effect that I agree with everything Mr. W said.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm BDI and I did not agree with the judge's decision. I think they could have split the baby by letting the expert testify later in the week, like apparently he will do during the offer of proof.

That being said, if they come up with actual evidence of his guilt, you'd want that excluded (and let's say it's solid evidence) simply due to an error before?

I'd say it comes in and the defense should have the time and assets given to them necessary to rebut it.

If the judge's prior ruling was error, it is subject to appeal. I'm going with two wrongs don't make a right on this one.

ETA: if the evidence were of a webcam found that showed a video of BC dumping NC's body, that shouldn't be held out due to a prior error on another witness. Take each thing as it comes.

I think both should be allowed in. It might actually lead to the truth of what happened (whatever way that might be...I'm still unsure).

 

[gritguy]

I agree with you on this. If the defense is given the time (and data) to prepare, then it can come in. And their witness should also be allowed to testify at that point. You can't just keep out the defense expert, and let in the prosecution. That's what I have a problem with.

I also think it's telling that the data the FBI couldn't share with the defense for national security reasons was emailed to Cisco.

Agree totally.

 

[unc70]

Does it really have a strong bearin on this case where anyone had sex with anyone else? Both NC and BC were completely wrong. Noone was worse or better than the other. They both were wrong in their extramarital affairs. Just because one did it on the couch and the other in the closet (with our without kids present) really makes no difference in cheating on your spouse.

This was a a major downfall in their marriage. Lack of trust and respect. They should have gotten divorced a long time before all of this happened. We probably would have a much different outcome today.

You should consider the possible impacts on lots of other people. Everyone has secrets, and like on Wisteria Lane, sometimes secrets lead to death.

A large number of people connected with this case have had their secrets revealed publicly or are still at risk. Just posting at WS seems almost enough connection. I am relatively new at WS, but I gather that this case is unusual in the number of witnesses posting at WS and other sites. There also appear to be an unusually high number of posters who also who have also been in the courtroom during this trial.

I will be interested to see which if any posters here and other sites decide to suspend their participation online following the last two weeks. The interplay between having the trial video online, the differences among the MSM, the blurring of lines between the "real" world and the "on-line" world, between journalism and publishing, between technology and proof, between a fair trial and manipulation of procedures, between disclosure and hiding behind national security or other fig leaves -- these and more are on display for the world to see. And the world is seeing it.

When all reality is virtual, where are truth or justice? Where is anyone?

BTW I started looking at this case closely while waiting at the vet (VSH) near the former Cooper neighborhood. Having all the technology issues sucked me into spending more time than I can justify, except through my responsibility as a citizen to ensure fair trials for all -- whether the issues are too technical or the accused "obviously" guilty.