State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[GhostCrab]

Nope...but think Henry Lee.

How about sticking with the case at hand?

 

[CyberPro]

She IS wearing the necklace in the picture!

It is in the shadow, but is to the right and close to the strapline on the cover.

It is HARD to see. I had to pull the image into Irfanview and zoom it a lot. I don't have a tool to change the contrast, but I can clearly see the pendant.

 

[sunshine05]

Well, if that is the procedure then they need to somehow transfer the computer into evidence in some sort of Faraday cage to isolate it from any electro-magnetic signals (WiFi) until they can disable the WiFi radio.

If it was on while they were transporting it, he could have accessed it after it was seized while it was being transported to CPD. Maybe attempts to wipe it remotely spoiled the NTFS meta-data on the files. Thus the files weren't deleted, but they look tampered with.

Citrix allows you to access a computer remotely via any web browser with no VPN software on the client computer. He could have gone to the library and opened a browser and logged into another machine at work and then accessed his laptop from that machine over the VPN. But there should be logs on the Citrix server (if they have one) and the VPN router at Cisco to indicate that type of access took place.

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.

 

[jrb0124]

How could you put someone in jail with that as part of your reasoning?

GhostCrab, you are arguing with folks who would have been satified to put BC away for life without a trial.

 

[RR0004]

They stated she wore that necklace every day like gospel and today proved that was not the case.

I wouldn't use the word 'exactly'.

They knew her better than we did. Life in that house has nothing to do with her not having a necklace on. Do we know why she wasn't wearing the necklace? I can talk about missing valuables...knowing exactly where they were one minute...gone the next. Not so funny games go on in a house where control means everything.

 

[Madeleine74]

You can't say it was BC..at best then it is a wash. How could you put someone in jail with that as part of your reasoning?

No one proved the Google map search was planted. Not even this guy. This evidence wouldn't by itself nail BC as guilty. Even if I threw out the Google search altogether and disregarded it completely I can still look at everything else in the case and see if it takes me beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Cheyenne130]

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.

That's another coincidence that the date that the discrepancies began is the same date that Nancy left on her vacation.

 

[Danielle59]

I think they confiscated all the computers. And I don't think Cisco would allow you to connect from a non-Cisco computer (although I could be wrong on that). But, if it was BC, why wouldn't he have cleaned this up before the 15th. He had plenty of time to do so. I can't believe this would be BC.

The real question is why was it on an open network after LE confiscated it.

 

[iucpa]

I did it after all the stalker-talk last few nights. Decided we needed a peeper.

eye_believe your avatar is pretty cool.:floorlaugh:

 

[RR0004]

How about sticking with the case at hand?

Think about what defense experts are paid to do.

 

[kljohnson0458]

She IS wearing the necklace in the picture!

It is in the shadow, but is to the right and close to the strapline on the cover.

It is HARD to see. I had to pull the image into Irfanview and zoom it a lot. I don't have a tool to change the contrast, but I can clearly see the pendant.

Can you post it. I was thinking given the halter tie it probably was pullled up and over.

 

[GhostCrab]

She IS wearing the necklace in the picture!

It is in the shadow, but is to the right and close to the strapline on the cover.

It is HARD to see. I had to pull the image into Irfanview and zoom it a lot. I don't have a tool to change the contrast, but I can clearly see the pendant.[/QUOT

If she was wearing the necklace in the video the state would have pointed that out and disputed the testimony. There really is no point arguing whether she had the necklace on. For a group of prosecutors that will submit a witness' FB to impeach him, believe me, there was no necklace if it wasn't disputed.

 

[iucpa]

No one proved the Google map search was planted. Not even this guy. This evidence wouldn't by itself nail BC as guilty. Even if I threw out the Google search altogether and disregarded it completely I can still look at everything else in the case and see if it takes me beyond reasonable doubt.

Wow. Really? That's quite a statement.

 

[RR0004]

No one proved the Google map search was planted. Not even this guy. This evidence wouldn't by itself nail BC as guilty. Even if I threw out the Google search altogether and disregarded it completely I can still look at everything else in the case and see if it takes me beyond reasonable doubt.

Exactly...

 

[Madeleine74]

They stated she wore that necklace every day like gospel and today proved that was not the case.

I wouldn't use the word 'exactly'.

It was not proved at all. Just like that red herring they posted on their website back in 2008 and only removed weeks before trial started, you could not easily see any details in that grainy HT video. Now, had they put up a high res quality picture showing no necklace then yes, they would have proved it. They didn't. And the more they enlarged their shot the grainier the shot got. More grain = less quality of detail.

 

[GhostCrab]

Think about what defense experts are paid to do.

And state's experts are paid as well, maybe as in a salary, or on a per case basis, but EVERYONE is paid.

 

[Cheyenne130]

It was in LE custody, it shouldn't have been on connected to a network.

I am not positive and the testimony was quite some time ago but I understood that the initial officers that came in to do the search did not touch the computer. It was left exactly as Brad left it. The officers who were charged with collecting the electronic evidence did not take the computers and other devices until 27 hours after the search warrant was executed.

 

[Danielle59]

Originally Posted by Danielle59
All that is in evidence of the morning of the 11th, and has not been disputed that I am aware, is that BC was home helping NC with the children that morning. I would assume based on that that he saw her that morning.

Actually, he was at Lowes buying the drop cloth. It was Brad who said he was home helping nancy, resulting in him being 'late for work.' But he was on video at Lowes, buying the drop cloth.

So what if it was BC saying he was home helping NC with the kids, are you disputing that he was at some point in his own home Friday morning before he went to work, that he most likely saw NC before he left the house and possibly could have seen her in the black dress? Has it been disputed that he was not at his home on Friday monring, or that he did not see NC on home on Friday morning? The only evidence we have is that he was home, helping NC with the children, he left late for work, stopped at Lowe's and went on to work. Of my original comment, what specifically, in context of the conversation that was taking place when I replied, was incorrect? Please cite specific evidence, not just "Oh, BC's a liar."

 

[Madeleine74]

She IS wearing the necklace in the picture!

It is in the shadow, but is to the right and close to the strapline on the cover.

It is HARD to see. I had to pull the image into Irfanview and zoom it a lot. I don't have a tool to change the contrast, but I can clearly see the pendant.

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.

 

[CyberPro]

Can you post it. I was thinking given the halter tie it probably was pullled up and over.

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.