State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[NCEast]

Ok, this time I'm really going to bed.
See you all in the morning.

 

[sunshine05]

That's very unusual - you probably ovulated a few days into your next cycle.

This discussion is sort of an analogy to all the CE discussion here in that there are some explanations which have a higher probability of being true than others. In this case, and without any further knowledge of NC cycles/history, the higher probability is that she had a normal cycle.

Yes, supposedly she was on Clomid too.

 

[sunshine05]

Ah-ha. Watermark must mean a signed cookie.
The values for input to create a signed cookie are: value, key, and timestamp.
If you have an invalid timestamp, you necessarily have an invalid watermark.

If you read my post, one page back I had just listened to the watermark testimony. He said this deleted watermark had an invalid time stamp. That raised a red flag.

 

[cassius]

I beg to differ. The determining factor as to the location that has jurisdiction over a custody issue is residency. Most places have residency requirements of 6 months to a year. I am not EXACTLY sure of Canada's residency requirements, but I am sure it is less than three years (which is when this will hit a custody court when he is found not guilty). Canada and the province they live in will be deemed to have jurisdiction.

Zen, it doesn't matter what Canada's laws are. North Carolina has jurisdiction and until they relinquish it jurisdiction stays here. The Rentzes voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction and laws of North Carolina and they are bound by them.

 

[lilypearl]

It's his defense team that did it. MOO

Yes I know, but that doesn't mean he approves. I do not know either way - and surely he was shocked when he was told that Katie might not be his.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Was there any explanation provided about what the nature of the invalidity of the timestamps was? I noticed something mildly interesting on one of my laptops. I checked my TIF and there are a number of files with 1/1/1970 dates, which I would consider to be invalid. Interestingly, all of those come from Google. See attached.

 

[Maja]

I believe there's an accusation of suicidal tendencies in about 95% of custody case that go to trial.

Is there evidence of the father spending time on an alt.suicide group?

 

[macd]

If you read my post, one page back I had just listened to the watermark testimony. He said this deleted watermark had an invalid time stamp. That raised a red flag.

Got it.
So, all files with invalid timestamps have invalid watermarks, and vice versa.
100% of google files (per today's expert's pie chart) had invalid timestamps.

Ergo: 100% of google files were "planted" (i think hundreds of them) OR... something systemic happened to invalidate the timestamps, and all of the files (including the fielding drive zoom) are valid.

Hey Prosecutors: let this guy testify, you'll kill him on cross.

 

[macd]

Was there any explanation provided about what the nature of the invalidity of the timestamps was? I noticed something mildly interesting on one of my laptops. I checked my TIF and there are a number of files with 1/1/1970 dates, which I would consider to be invalid. Interestingly, all of those come from Google. See attached.

Quoted for awesomeness.
Apparently hax0rs are trying to frame you for a crime too.

 

[otto]

The Canadian Court System will determine what happens should brad 'get off'.

Why do you think that?

 

[otto]

Nope, North Carolina still has continuing jurisdiction over the children.

I think so too. However, if both parties agreed, it could be transferred to Ottawa. The problem with that is that I think Brad would have a more difficult time arguing that he should have custody in Ottawa. I also think it would require that Brad move to Ottawa until it was sorted out. In NC, if Brad could demonstrate that custody was transferred because the Judge believed he was guilty, he should be able to have the decision immediately reversed.

 

[CyberPro]

Was there any explanation provided about what the nature of the invalidity of the timestamps was? I noticed something mildly interesting on one of my laptops. I checked my TIF and there are a number of files with 1/1/1970 dates, which I would consider to be invalid. Interestingly, all of those come from Google. See attached.

I noticed that the files with the 1970 dates are Javascript and Cascading Style Sheet files, and according to the path seem to indicate that they are related to support/account. This might be indicating that you have an account on Google and have logged in/or visited the support pages.

Nothing wrong with that, but they are not, technically speaking, cookie files. Now the term "cookie" might be being used in a very wide sense, meaning all temporary files that are accumulated while browsing, I can't say.

Also, I am not in any way demeaning your results, it was just an observation of the file types. :seeya:

 

[gracielee]

I remember JP saying he couldn't remember exactly when the Halloween party was just sometime the week of Halloween. I can't remember which year the child was born, 2006? I just checked and Oct. 31 for 2006 was on a Tuesday night.

IIRC, he said it was a saturday night, close to halloween. Could have been the saturday before, probably was. Most parties are held prior to the holiday rather than after IMO.

 

[cassius]

I think so too. However, if both parties agreed, it could be transferred to Ottawa. The problem with that is that I think Brad would have a more difficult time arguing that he should have custody in Ottawa. I also think it would require that Brad move to Ottawa until it was sorted out. In NC, if Brad could demonstrate that custody was transferred because the Judge believed he was guilty, he should be able to have the decision immediately reversed.

It won't be immediate and it really shouldn't. Looking at the children's best interests, there needs to be a phased in reconciliation. Brad will need to adjust to being free and the children spent some formative years not knowing him. They will need a lot of counseling and time to re-establish their relationship. Also, the Rentzes still have a claim to at least visitation with the children, and I think that should be granted, assuming they were good care givers and did not action in violation of the court order in regards to discussions about BC or NC. I trust the Rentzes handled this appropriately, I'm more skeptical about KM.

Now, if BC were to move back to Canada, then jurisdiction should rightfully so be transferred, as there would no longer be any parties to the action in North Carolina. But so long as BC stays in North Carolina, jurisdiction stays in NC. And I also believe that Canada is a signatory the Hague Convention, so should they refuse to cooperate with North Carolina courts, BC would have remedies available through their international child abduction compacts.

I don't know how Canadian courts deal with custody, so I couldn't even begin to advise BC on the best forum to deal with this. It's apparent the Judge in the custody matter didn't like BC to begin with and I'm not sure how she'd react with egg on her face. She will be the judge in any future proceedings, assuming she's still on the bench, although I'd imagine a motion to recuse would be filed.

 

[ncsu95]

Was there any explanation provided about what the nature of the invalidity of the timestamps was? I noticed something mildly interesting on one of my laptops. I checked my TIF and there are a number of files with 1/1/1970 dates, which I would consider to be invalid. Interestingly, all of those come from Google. See attached.

Looks like 1/1/1970 has something to do with "Unix Time". I just googled 1/1/1970 timestamp and it came back with a lot of hits. Here is the wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time

 

[gracielee]

Nope, North Carolina still has continuing jurisdiction over the children.

Uh huh, tell that to the Canadians.

 

[ncsu95]

I am new here, and have most of the abbreviations figure out. However I can't figure out MOO - the only thing I can think of is My Opinion Only - but really not sure if that is what it is. Thanks!

I believe it is My Own Opinion (although My Opinion Only certainly will work).

 

[SleuthSayer]

I noticed that the files with the 1970 dates are Javascript and Cascading Style Sheet files, and according to the path seem to indicate that they are related to support/account. This might be indicating that you have an account on Google and have logged in/or visited the support pages.

Nothing wrong with that, but they are not, technically speaking, cookie files. Now the term "cookie" might be being used in a very wide sense, meaning all temporary files that are accumulated while browsing, I can't say.

Well, I definitely have never been to their support pages because I actually didn't know that there was such a thing as Google Support. Sounds like an Oxymoron.

I haven't seen it said here that it was all cookie files that were invalid. But, with 45+ pages of posts, I may have missed that.

Also, I am not in any way demeaning your results, it was just an observation of the file types. :seeya:

Oh, you're not, but there will be plenty of folks from BC's team that will be along soon to demean them. Kind of like when they blasted me for not knowing what I was talking about despite the fact that I proved that the cursor files were .bmp files, because, you know, the "expert" said that they wouldn't be.

I'm not trusting the "experts" from either side. I'm doing my own research. Unlike them, I have no vested interest in the results.

 

[ncsu95]

I don't think NCs cycle really matters here. The real question is if KC was born on or near her due date. If she was, then the likely conception was on or near 10/31/2005.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Looks like 1/1/1970 has something to do with "Unix Time". I just googled 1/1/1970 timestamp and it came back with a lot of hits. Here is the wikipedia article on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time

Correct. A timestamp of 1/1/70 means that the timestamp field is 0. (Again, which in my world would be 'invalid'.)