State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[GhostCrab]

Well c'mon CyberPro! Post the picture and put a little pointer thing where you are seeing the necklace.

I saw something around her neck glint in the light when she turned in the video. To me it looked like a part of the necklace chain.

Yes, PLEASE post the picture.

 

[jrb0124]

Think about what defense experts are paid to do.

..or what they are not paid, in the case of JW (pro-bono).

 

[RR0004]

He was not. He and Trenkle made it clear there was no more money this morning in that exchange and another. (Afternoon, morning, day...whatever)

Oh...a pro bono.

 

[sunshine05]

It is interesting that BC rigged the Blackberry to auto-wipe in the hands of LEO.

Tampered with his own computer, even planting incriminating data, knowing that it would some day "appear" that CPD did it.

Spoofed a phone call and magically removed all traces of it.

Packed ducks in a box, knowing it would come out later in the trial thus making all state witnesses look like liars.

So not only did he commit a murder with no trace of evidence, in the process he thought of a way to set up the police department and make it look like witnesses lied.

 

[RR0004]

..or what they are not paid, in the case of JW (pro-bono).

jinx...still dosn't mean a heck of a lot to me.

 

[GhostCrab]

jinx...still dosn't mean a heck of a lot to me.

I can't imagine it would.

 

[LyndyLoo]

She said Brad never answered her calls on Friday. I said he answered the one at lunch. She was saying that's what he told his coworkers. I'm assuming that to mean that she doesn't necessarily believe it was a call from Nancy.

I assume you are talking about me ncsu...and you are right..It might have been or it (that call he took) might have NOT been The Cisco co-worker found it odd to even take the call....Those call logs are so long ago..I dont think anyone could even state it was or wasnt...I just dont necessarily believe as Gospel things that Brad ever said...

I really dont that really matters at this point of complexity of all these testimonies..including Nancy's friends who said what they thought, and defense witnesses who said what they know or recall...BUT the one constant is that Brad was constantly telling lies, and who knows?? IF he tells the truth//One would never figure that one out for certain..

Who knows...Brad was always a quiet sort, people say they have to engage him in convo's..maybe Brad has difficulty relating anything clearly??..Maybe he has ADD, Maybe he just doesnt care about personal details...BUT we do know he was a perfectionist regarding Computers and Voip///oh yeah, reaping his wild oats without having to commit to any longterm relationship..NOW that> he is very good at..:floorlaugh:

 

[cygnusx1]

But why would he plant an invalid file of an incriminating google map search?

I don't think it will turn out that BC tampered with his computer while it was in police custody. Just a hunch.

I didn't say he planted it. I posited that perhaps it was there and an attempt to delete it remotely resulted in it not being deleted and instead the meta-data got munged.

BTW, I haven't heard, but were the Google Map cache files active, or were they found in the drive free space (hence deleted) by the forensic exam application? If the latter, I don't think you can trust the meta-data to begin with.

Also BTW, :fence:

 

[jrb0124]

Still working on it. It is hard to see, but it is there. If someone has Photoshop or something with a contrast tool to lighten the shadows, it will pop out. I have it zoomed @ 214% from what I pulled from WRAL. It is there.

I just did this (used screen cap of NC after she turned to camera at checkout).

I saw something....but its not a pendant, its a tiny speck from the opposite dress strap.

 

[Shadow722]

Unless you've been living the life Nancy was, you have no idea...think about the State's opening statement.

And not attacking you, but I'm sorry neither do you......

 

[cityslick]

I'm trying to do the same thing. I got it zoomed to 250% and removed all shadows and I can't see it. I'm trying real hard but if I zoom any more it becomes pixilated.

 

[jrb0124]

jinx...still dosn't mean a heck of a lot to me.

You indicated that the fact that defense experts were paid was the reason for your mistrust of their testimony.

I point out that in some cases they are pro-bono, and now that doesn't mean anything to you.

I'm confused...which is it?

 

[RR0004]

So now he's lying under oath to protect his client.

Come on now.

It all depends on perspective...dueling experts and all that. It really doesn't matter who we believe...that's the job of the jury.
But I thought this guy's testimony was out?

 

[sunshine05]

I didn't say he planted it. I posited that perhaps it was there and an attempt to delete it remotely resulted in it not being deleted and instead the meta-data got munged.

BTW, I haven't heard, but were the Google Map cache files active, or were they found in the drive free space (hence deleted) by the forensic exam application? If the latter, I don't think you can trust the meta-data to begin with.

Also BTW, :fence:

But why would an attempt to delete it cause all those strange time stamps and .bmp files? Remember 100% of the files involved in this had invalid timestamps. And why would he wait until the 15th to attempt to delete it? why not right away?

It was interesting testimony. The witness said files were added and simultaneously deleted. Very strange. I have no idea what it means.

It would be helpful if BC's whereabouts were established during that 27 hours to eliminate the possibility that it may have been him.

 

[cityslick]

It's not there. You have to be wearing some weird BDI glasses to see it.:great:

I've got it zoomed to 250%, shadows removed and sharpned and I can't see a chain or a pendent. If it's there, I don't know how you can bring it out in the picture (granted I'm not an expert in photoshop).

 

[ncsu95]

That is exactly what he said. Could have been malware that caused those changes. He also noted that file discrepancies started in June 2008 (June 28). Yes, it could have been done at a later date. He could not state this for sure though. This is not proof that CPD tampered with BC computer. It merely shows file and timestamp anomalies and it does not show WHO created those anomalies. You can't say it wasn't BC.

Even if it was BC, the evidence can't be trusted. Now if you could prove it was BC, that would be a big indication of guilt. And if it was BC, then the CPD was even more inept by allowing him an opportunity to do this after the computer had been seized. Either way you look at it, this evidence can't be trusted.

 

[Madeleine74]

It's not there. You have to be wearing some weird BDI glasses to see it.:great:

You can't say that for sure. You can only say you don't see a necklace. She was wearing earrings too and those can't be seen either. We know Nancy wore her necklace and diamond earrings when she went swimming. How do we know this? Because a picture of her in the pool when she was on vacation the week prior with her family was shown...she was in the pool. And you could see the necklace and earrings!

 

[RR0004]

It's not there. You have to be wearing some weird BDI glasses to see it.:great:

I don't think that's really necessary.
This is a serious question...have all the threads gone this way?

 

[CyberPro]

I'm trying to do the same thing. I got it zoomed to 250% and removed all shadows and I can't see it. I'm trying real hard but if I zoom any more it becomes pixilated.

It does get pixelated, and my work with the contrast, gamma, brightness and saturation tools have not yielded a good image yet, but at that zoom level I can see the pendant and a portion of the chain.

Convert to greyscale and it is a bit clearer, but it is hard to pull it out.

 

[cityslick]

Anyone see it here?