State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[johnfear]

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

I was kidding, mostly. I think it's actually a MAC record log from the night before the murder where BC logged into do something unrelated (email, etc) that recorded the address of a piece of machinery that Cfrye was able to say had not yet been intro'd as part of anything.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Does this go to inept police work? Since JA said they were missing and here they are.

This all shows the incompetence of this police department during this investigation. They simply took the word of NC's friends without thoroughly investigating this crime. Doesn't make me feel very confident in how the CPD handles crimes. I guess JA can embellish like the best of them

 

[jrb0124]

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'm with you - I want to hear everything: if there is new router info...fine lets hear it! ... and the rebuttal ... but I want to hear the defense forensic expert on the Google maps/MFT too. This unassailable FBI "evidence" is BS.

Having said that - I did pick up from the post-jury chatter that there is FBI interpreted data involved with the router. I would not want this evidence admitted if it winds up being treated in the same manner (i.e. you can't question the methods and results, move on).

 

[sunshine05]

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.

I'm curious what you consider an "outrageous" theory that's been discussed here. TIA

 

[ncsu95]

I was kidding, mostly. I think it's actually a MAC record log from the night before the murder where BC logged into do something unrelated (email, etc) that recorded the address of a piece of machinery that Cfrye was able to say had not yet been intro'd as part of anything.

I guess that answers my question from this morning about having logs of the mac address of the router. How the hell did they not think to check that before now?

 

[Cheyenne130]

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

I disagree. The new expert boiled down his report to "I agree with everything Mr. W. said". We've have been shown on here that Mr. W. was wrong in a major assertion of his regarding the open and closed hand files. I would say that brings into question the expertise of Mr. Masucci.

 

[Cheyenne130]

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

Not worthy. You are better than that. MOO

 

[johnfear]

I guess that answers my question from this morning about having logs of the mac address of the router. How the hell did they not think to check that before now?

I wondered the same thing. In fact, I assumed they had checked with Alpha, come up empty and THAT is why we weren't seeing it.

Apparently, someone somewhere said...He checked his email? His voicemail? And he got a test call in to _____________. What do they need to show that?

This is one of those things that as a juror, I would have to say: Why did that little snarky DA not catch this when he was googling people and stalking their facebooks?

 

[jrb0124]

I'm curious what you consider an "outrageous" theory that's been discussed here. TIA

I'd like to know too, and also if any which include BC being NG are "not outrageous" in your opinion.

For instance, it was pointed out here yesterday that if...if JP is the youngest daughter's father (a good possibility) - and if NC had been discussing child support obligations...you could easily assign the same motive to JP that is assigned to BC. As for means and opportunity - that's there as well.

 

[sunshine05]

I'm with you - I want to hear everything: if there is new router info...fine lets hear it! ... and the rebuttal ... but I want to hear the defense forensic expert on the Google maps/MFT too. This unassailable FBI "evidence" is BS.

Having said that - I did pick up from the post-jury chatter that there is FBI interpreted data involved with the router. I would not want this evidence admitted if it winds up being treated in the same manner (i.e. you can't question the methods and results, move on).

Personally, I don't want to hear from them anymore. They play dirty, not allowing defense to question the most (only) incriminating evidence in this case. Having 3 years to work on this and now this last minute thing, probably from reading posts here. I'll be surprised if the judge doesn't allow it but IMO he should not. They don't deserve it. And if he does allow it, I want JW back to interpret ALL of the FBI logs. (but I know that won't happen). It will more of the same. Top secret, you can't see it.

Also, I think if it was something big, Cummings wouldn't have thrown that temper tantrum over the ducks.

 

[ncsu95]

Not worthy. You are better than that. MOO

It was a joke because that is what Kurtz said to Zellinger during the discussion of that witness.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

I disagree. The new expert boiled down his report to "I agree with everything Mr. W. said". We've have been shown on here that Mr. W. was wrong in a major assertion of his regarding the open and closed hand files. I would say that brings into question the expertise of Mr. Masucci.

Ward wasn't wrong in his assertion of open hand and closed hand files. I've yet to see anyone be able to have a file with 8 timestamps down to the nanosecond that are identical with the exception of 1 Invalid Column. Even the FBI AGENT JOHNSON stated in open court (I was there that day) that there is no reason for an open hand file to have the same time in all columns. This was just before he was shown the actual times on that file.

 

[Grammy Jean]

What do you think was the reason while Cummings was cross examining Mrs. Cooper he introduced into evidence a family picture taken at Brad's MBA graduation?

 

[FullDisclosure]

She is out getting mani/pedi for court appearance.:great:

I'd suggest a waxing might be in order too..... just sayin' :great:

I'm just catching up, and you guys are cracking me up! Do you think I could claim the mani/pedi and the waxing as business expenses?

 

[jrb0124]

Also, I think if it was something big, Cummings wouldn't have thrown that temper tantrum over the ducks.

Yah, I actually suspect as well that the new evidence they want in is not too incriminating. It may also be an attempt to prop up a failing case with more technical jury/judge confusion.

 

[jrb0124]

What do you think was the reason while Cummings was cross examining Mrs. Cooper he ....

You can actually stop right there, because regardless of the rest of that sentence the answer will be the same: :waitasec:

 

[Cheyenne130]

It was a joke because that is what Kurtz said to Zellinger during the discussion of that witness.

It was inappropriate at that time as well. I felt sorry for JW during the "facebook" exposition but after finding out that he either wasn't an expert at all and didn't realize what he was looking at with the "hand" files or he totally mislead with his answers because he wanted to "do something for the defense", I think the prosecution was right to "de-frock" him. MOO

 

[Cheyenne130]

Ward wasn't wrong in his assertion of open hand and closed hand files. I've yet to see anyone be able to have a file with 8 timestamps down to the nanosecond that are identical with the exception of 1 Invalid Column. Even the FBI AGENT JOHNSON stated in open court (I was there that day) that there is no reason for an open hand file to have the same time in all columns. This was just before he was shown the actual times on that file.

If I had heard the testimony and saw the exhibits during that portion of the case, I would have a reference. Was this during direct or cross?

 

[jrb0124]

It was inappropriate at that time as well. I felt sorry for JW during the "facebook" exposition but after finding out that he either wasn't an expert at all and didn't realize what he was looking at with the "hand" files or he totally mislead with his answers because he wanted to "do something for the defense", I think the prosecution was right to "de-frock" him. MOO

JW has performed forensic analysis on 9 computers.

State's forensic expert (former airport cop) has performed 5.

Regardless of what this court considers "qualified" I would trust JW over the State expert for an accurate analysis.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

If I had heard the testimony and saw the exhibits during that portion of the case, I would have a reference. Was this during direct or cross?

During direct. Keep in mind this was the defense case (first five minutes), so it was Kurtz's questioning. Then Kurtz passed out the actual cursor file printed out to each juror. Had him verify each time was identical to the nanosecond.