State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[jrb0124]

whine....beg....whine....beg

Is that kind of like "la la La La La I can't hear you!' ?

 

[foltster]

I was under the impression it was left on, not that they turned it on. Does anyone know?

Didn't we see a picture of the laptop with the battery already removed? I can't recall clearly and don't know where to look it up.

 

[Danielle59]

I believe so, and Brad apparantly did a beer run on his way home too..I wonder why he didnt pickup milk..oh yeah, he never picked up any of her calls that day did he..so wouldnt have known about the milk shortage:waitasec: But it is odd that Nancy doing her shopping at 245PM that day not to have purchased it IF they were low on milk???.Im with many here who believe Nancy did wear that necklace and earings..and they (friends) could only say, she always wore it, or maybe could have said they recall seeing her wear it whenever they saw her....I just think Defense is wasting so much time trying to make every state witness out to be liars...and had agenda to frame Brad....

She likely did wear it 99% of time.but what is important, was she wearing it that night when she left the party at 1230... when last seen by anyone but Brad...

He did pick up one of her calls that day, while they were at lunch, she told him to make the beer stop. Maybe she forgot to pick up milk when was there, maybe they drank it all before the next day.

What is important about the necklace is that the friends and family said she never took it off, there was speculation BC took it off her because how much it was worth, that he must have killed her because the necklace wasn't on her when she was found, that it was found in the house, and come to find out just the day before she was out and about without the necklace.

I also find it odd that for people so sure he is guilty how much of the actual evidence so many are not aware of.

 

[gritguy]

Only if you care more about getting to the truth than getting to a guilty verdict.

Interesting people can watch him testify without objection and still maintain the belief BC is guilty yet think the jury should not be exposed to this dangerous testimony...

 

[macd]

I've been trying to think how all the these deleted and invalid files could appear, that would not involve someone trying to frame BC.

Browsers today have a Private Browsing feature. What happens is: you turn on private browsing, you surf the web, and then you exit private browsing mode. The browser then deletes all the temporary files, cookies, history, and cache.

I'd like to know if BC had a version of Internet Explorer that supported inPrivate browsing at that time. I'd like to know if that version had any bugs that would leave cache files in some cases. I'd like to know what would happen if a PC crashes or was powered off during private browsing or during the private browsing clean up phase.

 

[jrb0124]

I also find it odd that for people so sure he is guilty how much of the actual evidence so many are not aware of.

...and vice versa for those unsure. Isn't it interesting?

 

[Tipstaff]

IMO BC spent the majority of time on computers. So either he was using yet another computer linked to Cisco system or is it another person who had access to the Cisco system allowing for passwords etc. , according to this last witness.

I thought Cisco Systems was high on security. So how did this occur?

As you can tell I am not a tekkie...but think this might be the same thing jurors will be asking/thinking.

 

[Madeleine74]

Brad had access to his Cisco laptop even if he wasn't physically sitting in his office. As long as that laptop was powered on, and connected to the network, he could access it remotely. So if files were 'tampered' with, and it was a human doing it, it was Mr. Cupper himself. He had 27 hrs in which to get to his own computer. He certainly knew how to do this. He had the secure credentials, passwords needed, etc. He could have used just about any PC to get into his own network remotely.

I've done it myself with my own work laptop.

It's a shame no one bothered to ask SH if BC used his computer at any time or was alone in any room that had an Internet-connected computer in it at any time.

I'd put money on BC accessing his own laptop remotely. It wasn't the CPD and it wasn't the FBI and it wasn't some random neighborhood hacker and it wasn't some other disgruntled Cisco person.

 

[LyndyLoo]

It would depend on when the tampering occured. The computer was deemed in the custody of the police the moment the search warrant was executed on the house. The computer remained powered up and on the network until the detective(s) unplugged it and removed the battery. If the tampering occured after the house was seized but before the computer was powered down, it could still have been Brad. MOO

I think you are right about that..Brad removed cookies, and could have done things remotely thru a Cisco compatible PC at friends who also had access to Cisco systems...for all we know, maybe they (Cisco) finally was able to get ahold of whomever else had PC or Laptop who could access Cisco from back in 2008.....BUT it is the router finally being located that could prove things definatively.

At this point..who knows??? I fear this trial is going to go on forever...and agree with some who feel far too much menusia was introduced out of abundance of caution (due to allegations of lack of Investigations)..

IF hung jury happens, I do think a redo will be much more pared down to include very specific circumstantial evidence..and leave the menusia at the door...IMO

I cannot image just what the jury is thinking right now:banghead:

 

[ncsu95]

Interesting people can watch him testify without objection and still maintain the belief BC is guilty yet think the jury should not be exposed to this dangerous testimony...

Frustrating is probably a more appropriate word.

 

[cassius]

Curious to me that Kurtz said it's not the state's fault they haven't gotten it from Cisco.

HK can be obligatory to a fault sometimes.

 

[Amster]

I'm here for Nancy, the murder victim in this case. I believe Bradley killed her. Sneaky tactics employed by the defense that get shot down by the judge make me VERY happy. Justice for Nancy. Remember her??

 

[Danielle59]

Sunshine - I think the jury has a pretty good idea that the defense can rebut the computer forensics. They have sucessfully rebutted just about everything assessed importance by the pros, and due to the litany of objections and the obvious line drawn as to JW's testimony, they knew JW was prepared to argue the integrity of the files.

But, does the jury know that the prosecution and Judge are not allowing the Defense to have an expert witness to refute it, or does the Jury think since the Defense is not doing it they can't?

 

[iucpa]

I believe he is guilty, but I don't think anyone would mistake me as a charter member of the BDI club. I came into this unbiased, stayed on the fence for the longest time. The google search really just is damning to me. That's the evidence to me that puts the glue to all the other CE. This is how it looked to me..

You have all this CE. Think of them as basically pieces of paper spread out. Some make sense, some don't. Some you can get an explanation for, some you can't. But there is not a whole lot that links them together, they are just kind of out there on their own, like islands. Then you get the google search testimony. Now all of a sudden you start putting it all together, knowing in the back of your mind he searched the dump site the day before. Now a lot of that CE has links to them. Some of the CE makes sense when used in a certain context. The story becomes a little clearer.

That being said, I believe there has been many mistakes made in this investigation and trial. I do believe that a number of NC's friends believed from day one that he was guilty and made sure they were going to do anything in their power to cast him in a negative light, regardless of the truth unless someone else confessed. I do believe that CPD focused on him from the beginning, in part because of these stories by the neighbors. I also believe that because of those two points I just listed, at first glance you look at this case and you see someone who's an introvert and was in a bad marriage and it feels like he's getting railroaded because some people just don't like him (for various reasons). It feels like he's getting railroaded to the casual observer because it happened in Cary and Lord help us if we have a random murder happen in Cary.

I hope that answers your question.

OK, so there was only 1 out of hundreds in the group I queried who felt BC was genuinely guilty based on evidence.

I ask, now that your "glue" has come undone by the proof we saw this afternoon, is there anyone at all left (again, not including those friends/family/2nd hand friends of BC or NC or not any hardcore, long-term WSers who generally believe the defendant to be guilty) who thinks BC is guilty?

I understand this evidence won't be considered by the jury, so I'm not asking whether you think they'll find him guilty - is there a single, unbiased person who can conclude that BC is guilty knowing the google map evidence (weak as it was to begin with) was planted?

 

[jrb0124]

I'd put money on BC accessing his own laptop remotely.

Apparently, the prosecution respectfully disagrees with you.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I've been trying to think how all the these deleted and invalid files could appear, that would not involve someone trying to frame BC.

Browsers today have a Private Browsing feature. What happens is: you turn on private browsing, you surf the web, and then you exit private browsing mode. The browser then deletes all the temporary files, cookies, history, and cache.

I'd like to know if BC had a version of Internet Explorer that supported inPrivate browsing at that time. I'd like to know if that version had any bugs that would leave cache files in some cases. I'd like to know what would happen if a PC crashes or was powered off during private browsing or during the private browsing clean up phase.

That is an interesting thought; that someone could have been in the middle of deleting files/tampering/whatever when the police unplugged the computer.

 

[RR0004]

maybe brad? last ditch effort to cover his tracks?

Well, IMVHO, it wasn't LE.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

or possibly an unnamed computer savvy accomplice who was deeply invested in his getting away with murder? Just a thought. Is that possible?

 

[Shadow722]

It would depend on when the tampering occured. The computer was deemed in the custody of the police the moment the search warrant was executed on the house. The computer remained powered up and on the network until the detective(s) unplugged it and removed the battery. If the tampering occured after the house was seized but before the computer was powered down, it could still have been Brad. MOO

Your right of course, there is no way to know who did the tampering, it could have been Brad, or it could have been "Outlaw Mormon Bikers". But more importantly, this tampering occurred while the computer was in the defacto possession of the State. They allowed the tampering to occur because of poor police proceedure, and not securing the digital evidence properly.

The state allowed the chain of custody to be violated, by persons unknown, and the state should be punished for that failure.......And that punishment is either exclusion of all testimony regarding that computer; introduction of the defenses witness to speak to about the tampering; or the case being dismissed due to lack of evidence; or acquittal of the defendant by the jury.

Take your pick.....

 

[Amster]

I do not "know" that the google map was planted!! Defense spin....gorilla dust....