State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[WolfpackWoman]

That would be understandable because most people don't clear their cache after every search. If it is the .bmp file, it would not have the same values unless the cache was cleared. If the work computer was set to clear cache at log off, that would make sense if the search he did that day was the only search he did that day.

I honestly have no idea! I really wish we could hear more of the computer testimony. I really hope wral will be able to show the offer of proof tomorrow afternoon.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I still cannot believe that Cummings said in front of the jury, to Mrs. Cooper, that her not telling the state about the ducks makes his witnesses look like liars right after telling her that it blows there theory of a struggle breaking the ducks. I mean did he really say that? I don't know how Boz didn't get up and object to Cummings just to shut him up.

I hope it is Cummings that continues on with the rest of the case. He seems a bit frazzled and frustrated. He could actually be helping the defense more than he'd care to admit

 

[jrb0124]

Like I had mentioned previously, something about her and JP just strikes me as odd. I feel they are both hiding something important. Wondering if the defense will bring JA back up on the stand? I hope so, because I think we will hear things that will give us more insight as to why she lied / gave misinformation throughout from the very begining

sunshine, you might want to edit this part:

Painting plans - She called police and told them NC was due to arrive by 9AM to help her paint (for no money)

Painting plans - She called police and told them NC was due to arrive by 8AM to help her paint (for no money). She was still in bed at 8AM.

 

[phillygirl]

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.

Detective Daniels and some of NC's friends made a big deal out of the ducks because they believed they were 'busted up' (to use the prosecutors term) in a struggle. Cummings said out loud that the theory was the ducks were damaged in a struggle in the entry. And the CPD never looked in the boxes, another failure in the investigation. Who cares how the ducks got in the box, the DA was made to look like a fool today. A number of times.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

It was pretty interesting today, listening to MH's theory that the killer could have been a woman. I'm really surprised they brought that out. It casts more doubt, no?

By the way, I didn't catch all of it, but it seemed to make a lot of sense. The ground in dirt on her knees, indicating the struggle occurred outdoors, maybe on a running path.

So why did Cummings do that? I don't think it made MH look bad at all. He believed his friend is innocent and was trying to figure things out.

I think Cummings just gave the jurors another reason for them to place more emphasis on "reasonable doubt". He questioned a friend of BC and NC's and he gave a pretty accurate description on how NC may have been murdered....not at all like wht the CPD considered. I think Cummings is helping the defense team more and more. Hope he continues on.

 

[calgary123]

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

We're now up to and over 1000 posts per day. I'm not going to do that for the same reason I did not respond to them in the first place when the daily threads were more manageable, and now also because if I started I could spend days doing it.

I want those posts to continue. All viewpoints should be considered, and were I to respond to those posts, "you are wrong because _________" it would just devolve into insults. I can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Here's a counter example, but just one. Look at ncsu95's post history. If you look at the early trial thread history I engaged him in debate and questions and challenged his posts, and even tried to provoke him. That's because I thought he was making some good points and I wanted to see how he responded to someone questioning him. Its a matter of engaging in debate and arriving at a reasoned conclusion. His posts opened me to alternatives, though I certainly don't always agree with him. There are many others who fit that description (from my point of view) here but I'm just using an example.

Anyway, I'm not claiming to be perfectly reasoned any more than anyone else, I'm sure my views have a certain slant as well, but I am getting weary from the random bickering that is popping up as people get more emotionally involved in the outcome.

If you follow the twitter thread #coopertrial, you'll find the absolute worst of the worst. At least here you can post more than 140 characters and have a discussion, the twitter hashtag has highlighted the worst that twitter can become, an endless "Yes he did", "No he didn't". It's like the screaming match Brad and Nancy had in the parking lot.

 

[unc70]

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

They certainly had a "real expert" on the second attempt. I think they did on the first, just not a forensic expert.

By default, anyone in LE is according greater authority than almost any civilian could ever attain.

 

[SleuthinNC]

sunshine, you might want to edit this part:

Painting plans - She called police and told them NC was due to arrive by 9AM to help her paint (for no money)

Painting plans - She called police and told them NC was due to arrive by 8AM to help her paint (for no money). She was still in bed at 8AM.

She originally said no later than 9 then changed it to 8 then didn't get out of bed until 8.

 

[ncsu95]

That would be understandable because most people don't clear their cache after every search. If it is the .bmp file, it would not have the same values unless the cache was cleared. If the work computer was set to clear cache at log off, that would make sense if the search he did that day was the only search he did that day.

If the computer was set to clear the cache at log off, it wouldn't have been there when the "FBI" examined it. It does seem odd that BC would clear the cache before a search but not after.

 

[kljohnson0458]

No pun intended but "carry" on. I am back up on the :fence:.

This trial is unlike I've ever followed and I thought the Peterson West case was bad. This one keeps me awake when I first go to bed.

 

[sunshine05]

sunshine, you might want to edit this part:

Painting plans - She called police and told them NC was due to arrive by 9AM to help her paint (for no money)

Painting plans - She called police and told them NC was due to arrive by 8AM to help her paint (for no money). She was still in bed at 8AM.

I know. She said 9 on the call, but somehow along the way it got shifted to 8. The state's opening, for example stated 8AM.

It's so interesting too that their opening was all about the painting plans, the "friends" stories, the lack of money, that BC didn't attend the memorial, etc. That's when I pretty much knew they didn't have anything of substance in this case. I had no idea they planned to spend 6 weeks presenting absolutely nothing.

 

[NCEast]

We're now up to and over 1000 posts per day. I'm not going to do that for the same reason I did not respond to them in the first place when the daily threads were more manageable, and now also because if I started now I could spend days doing it.

I want those posts to continue. All viewpoints should be considered, and were I to respond to those posts, "you are wrong because _________" it would just devolve into insults. I can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Here's a counter example, but just one. Look at ncsu95's post history. If you look at the early trial thread history I engaged him in debate and questions and challenged his posts, and even tried to provoke him. That's because I thought he was making some good points and I wanted to see how he responded to someone questioning him. Its a matter of engaging in debate and arriving at a reasoned conclusion. His posts opened me to alternatives, though I certainly don't always agree with him. There are many others who fit that description (from my point of view) here but I'm just using an example.

Anyway, I'm not claiming to be perfectly reasoned any more than anyone else, I'm sure my views have a certain slant as well, but I am getting weary from the random bickering that is popping up as people get more emotionally involved in the outcome.

If you follow the twitter thread #coopertrial, you'll find the absolute worst of the worst. At least here you can post more than 140 characters and have a discussion, the twitter hashtag has highlighted the worst that twitter can become, an endless "Yes he did", "No he didn't". It's like the screaming match Brad and Nancy had in the parking lot.

I so agree with everything you wrote, thank you. A couple of last night's posters became unbearable to me that I decided I didn't need that conflict. I spent a couple of hours researching old affidavits instead of debating/arguing. I am still thinking Brad did it, but will admit the State has done a poor job in presenting this case....with no evidence thus far.

 

[FullDisclosure]

He said the state and Trenkle jumped up and said that the witness had no obligation to help the state prove their case, which the judge sustained.

What Trenkle really wanted to say is, "OBJECTION! The witness had no obligation to help the State prove their case. It isn't her fault that the State didn't have their ducks in a row!"

 

[Cheyenne130]

If the computer was set to clear the cache at log off, it wouldn't have been there when the "FBI" examined it. It does seem odd that BC would clear the cache before a search but not after.

1. That was just an example of what might create the same time stamps
2. We don't know what the FBI was able to retrieve even if it was cleared/deleted because we were blocked from that testimony.

 

[Bottle Cap]

If Brad did it, in the foyer, and transported her body in his trunk, then he had reason and time to clean them, and did an outstanding job because he left no traces.

If he murdered her in the front yard, and carried her body to the dump site, in her car, then why clean the foyer and create a forensically pristine trunk? My thesis is so that's where the CPD looked first and no other places. They would find nothing, and he using the police to provide reasonable doubt.

If that's not it, then he is innocent......take your choice.

This actually makes more sense to me than just about anything else I've read here. If he's smart enough to spoof the call he's smart enough to do the other stuff. Its hard to see him as an emotional person. More cold/rational, sometimes those folks can be capable of sorta machine-like thought. Depending on how long he'd thought about this stuff, he coulda thought around some definite problems that would arise in an investigation.

 

[ncsu95]

We're now up to and over 1000 posts per day. I'm not going to do that for the same reason I did not respond to them in the first place when the daily threads were more manageable, and now also because if I started now I could spend days doing it.

I want those posts to continue. All viewpoints should be considered, and were I to respond to those posts, "you are wrong because _________" it would just devolve into insults. I can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

Here's a counter example, but just one. Look at ncsu95's post history. If you look at the early trial thread history I engaged him in debate and questions and challenged his posts, and even tried to provoke him. That's because I thought he was making some good points and I wanted to see how he responded to someone questioning him. Its a matter of engaging in debate and arriving at a reasoned conclusion. His posts opened me to alternatives, though I certainly don't always agree with him. There are many others who fit that description (from my point of view) here but I'm just using an example.

Anyway, I'm not claiming to be perfectly reasoned any more than anyone else, I'm sure my views have a certain slant as well, but I am getting weary from the random bickering that is popping up as people get more emotionally involved in the outcome.

If you follow the twitter thread #coopertrial, you'll find the absolute worst of the worst. At least here you can post more than 140 characters and have a discussion, the twitter hashtag has highlighted the worst that twitter can become, an endless "Yes he did", "No he didn't". It's like the screaming match Brad and Nancy had in the parking lot.

Thank you for that comment. I really appreciate you saying that.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I so agree with everything you wrote, thank you. A couple of last night's posters became unbearable to me that I decided I didn't need that conflict. I spent a couple of hours researching old affidavits instead of debating/arguing. I am still thinking Brad did it, but will admit the State has done a poor job in presenting this case....with no evidence thus far.

I can't agree with no evidence but do agree with the poor job done by the prosecution. Today's outrageous display by Cummings was the worst I've seen in a court of law by either side. MOO

 

[Maja]

Realize this is O/T; This young lady's body was found in "Duck" pond today.

www.thebostonchannel.com/r/27694228/detail.html

 

[johnfear]

I have a really outrageous theory. (Completely Nuts, mind you)

Nancy did not have illicit relations with her sister's fiance, but someone who looked very much like her might have.

And maybe they switched lives. And maybe that someone said: Ummm, THIS sucks! I want out!

And maybe, that someone decided to get their life back. And that someone really liked JA. Maybe DD or JA and that someone decided to get a lil something going. HENCE, we have the conspiracy AND the unwillingness to do a DNA panel.

Also, if they switched in 2001 or so, the dental records would match up.

PS: I think Trenkle should hire HC after today.

 

[ncsu95]

1. That was just an example of what might create the same time stamps
2. We don't know what the FBI was able to retrieve even if it was cleared/deleted because we were blocked from that testimony.

Fair enough. I really wish we could have seen or at least heard it.