State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[RaleighNC]

It has been my interpretation, based on the internal purchase of the FXO router @ Cisco by BC in Jan 08, the "suicide" searches (not privy to the jury) in Feb 08, the e-mail interception of NCs by BC in Apr 08, the initial sep agreement Apr 08, BC confiscating the birth certs etc in Apr 08, there appears to be evidence of what could be interpreted (hind-sight) as planning as early as Jan 08.

This murder was not undertaken lightly. Or without much planning. He'd been stewing over how to do this for a while, IMO, and it all came together that night.

 

[otto]

Is this witness going to be allowed to testify again?

 

[RaleighNative]

If they prove one was there July 11 but not July 12, then the only logical explanation for me is that he ditched it somewhere. And the only reason to ditch it is to hide the evidence associated with it. So it makes the spoofed call much more of a reality. But I have a feeling if it is allowed, it's not going to be so straightforward, and the defense will be able to show that it was accessed through the vpn tunnel. Pure speculation on my part.

My apologies, this is they hypothetical I answered:

Anyone want to talk on a hypothetical?
Let's say that the log on the laptop indicates that a Cisco 3825 was in BC's house on July 11 at 10:30pm. Remembering that a 3825 would support an FXO port that could be used to spoof a call.
Would this move anyone to the G side of the fence?

BBM

Somehow I missed the date and time of it being hypothetically PROVEN the router would be in BC';s house. If it could be proven the router was there at that time, then disappeared, yes that could then sway my opinion.

 

[TigerBalm]

I feel that if this comes in then the Defense should be able to have their expert. We won't know if it is coming in until next week. In the interim, I think that if this Judge is ever going to do another case with any computer technology then he needs to have a course on at least some basics, not be an expert, but not even knowing about facebook was ridiculous.

I also think that Boz needs to be called out on his constant lying and taking advantage of the Judge's ignorance. When the Judge asked him today if the information from JF was from the IBM laptop, Boz lied, it is not from the laptop, it is information from a Cisco server and I feel confident that Boz knew that. He also has to stop the lies about they have all the information on the hard drive while refusing to acknowledge that only certain LEO's have the technology to extract the information he wants to put into evidence.

The defense has experts listed on their witness list, as stated by Zellinger today, not sure why they weren't called (but I can guess why, no $$).

The reason why GM is not allowed to testify, is because he was not retained by the defense until last Thursday.
It is a violation of the rules (stated by the judge).

As much as the defense doesn't like it, they knew what they were risking by trying to have JW admitted as an expert, when he told them himself he wasn't an expert, as well as stated, in open court on the witness stand.

Not the state or judge's fault, that is what they get for going for the pro bono guy (looking for his 15 mins of fame, I might add) instead of hiring an expert from the beginning.


I find it interesting, that one would state they were confident, the ADA was constantly lying and needed to be called out on it.

JMO of course
:innocent:

 

[cityslick]

My opinion has been he started planning it for sure as early as April. I have posted that I thought February was just as likely. And I can certainly even fit January into my frame of mind. Falls in line with when he admitted the affair and that he loved HM. My opinion is when NC didn't pack up and move back to Canada immediately upon the confession then he started trying to figure a way to get rid of her while keeping his money in his pocket and adding $75,000 to the coffer to boot. He underestimated Nancy's grit and resolve to not make it easy on him to be a free man. I believe he thought she was so miserable she would hit the trail back to Canada ASAP and not ask him for a thing - and that didn't happen. I truly wish Nancy had taken the opportunity then to run - run as fast as she could back to Canada.

BBM

If I remember correctly it wasn't NC's choice at that point. AS had told her that she should not leave.

 

[foltster]

The defense has experts listed on their witness list, as stated by Zellinger today, not sure why they weren't called (but I can guess why, no $$).

The reason why GM is not allowed to testify, is because he was not retained by the defense until last Thursday.
It is a violation of the rules (stated by the judge).

As much as the defense doesn't like it, they knew what they were risking by trying to have JW admitted as an expert, when he told them himself he wasn't an expert, as well as stated, in open court on the witness stand.

Not the state or judge's fault, that is what they get for going for the pro bono guy (looking for his 15 mins of fame, I might add) instead of hiring an expert from the beginning.


I find it interesting, that one would state they were confident, the ADA was constantly lying and needed to be called out on it.

JMO of course
:innocent:

Trenkle specifically noted financial reasons as being the reason they did not call the other computer witnesses but that is really a ridiculous claim my Jr. anyway. Why didn't the Prosecution call all 200 of their witnesses?

 

[gritguy]

I know comments about posts are discouraged but your replies are very useful and insightful. Can you shed any light for me on american law as it pertains to civil trial and the burden of proof? I seem to Remember with a trial like O.J. it was lower and easier to convict. Also if it's nc's family (canadians) and they are suing BC (canadian) can it be done in U.S. as that is where the alleged crime took place?

Civil trial is usually a more likely than not kind of burden of proof, so it is much lower.

However, from what I've seen and the people from the legal field here seem to agree, the statute of limitations has likely run on any causes of action directly related to the crime.

As to the child custody stuff, I have no clue on what will come of that if the verdict is not guilty and assuming it is reopened by BC (that's not an indication I think he wouldn't want to, just don't know his inclination on it or what would be good timing). It would be hard to see how his children could be kept from him though.

 

[Danielle59]

The defense has experts listed on their witness list, as stated by Zellinger today, not sure why they weren't called (but I can guess why, no $$).

The reason why GM is not allowed to testify, is because he was not retained by the defense until last Thursday.
It is a violation of the rules (stated by the judge).

As much as the defense doesn't like it, they knew what they were risking by trying to have JW admitted as an expert, when he told them himself he wasn't an expert, as well as stated, in open court on the witness stand.

Not the state or judge's fault, that is what they get for going for the pro bono guy (looking for his 15 mins of fame, I might add) instead of hiring an expert from the beginning.


I find it interesting, that one would state they were confident, the ADA was constantly lying and needed to be called out on it.

JMO of course
:innocent:

It's the Judge's court, he could have broken that rule.

 

[foltster]

It's the Judge's court, he could have broken that rule.

Introducing new evidence that does not directly refute claims by the opposite party during rebuttal is also against the rules but it seems like will likely be allowed now... A bit of a double standard IMHO. Hopefully we will get some answer on it this afternoon.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I will say it as well, Boz is a liar who lies and a sleazy sleezeball lawyer. You can watch his body language when he does it. If you would like to call it twisting words to the point of no longer being valid then so be it.

He keeps trying to say that "The defense has this information it's all on the hard drive" without saying but to interpret that information and tie it back to an actual device you have to be able to access the records from Cisco. So the defense does NOT have all the relevant data.

He pulled this same stunt with the MFT.

He takes advantage of the judge's lack of technical knowledge and desire to appease the jury with such a smug attitude that he can barely contain his own laughter when he gets away with it to the point he is making a mockery of the judge.

He is trying to get this information in as a rebuttal to the size of the router brought up by JW. Interesting concept, your honor we would like to show that not only could BC use a router the size JW showed he can even use a much larger router. When his whole initial argument was "Look how small this FXO is BC could easily throw it away."

He also appears to be trying to attempt complete trickery to get CF to introduce the new evidence and PG to act as the expert to explain the evidence.

Today Trenkle called his statements unethical and I think that sums up his performance in this trial.

 

[less0305]

BBM

If I remember correctly it wasn't NC's choice at that point. AS had told her that she should not leave.

I meant back in January 08 before there was an AS.

 

[TigerBalm]

I missed where the Defense made out that Cisco was inept? When did they do that?

The words don't have to come out of the defense attorney's mouth.

That has been my opinion from watching the trial. I'm not saying that CISCO is, just saying that the line of questioning went along that way.

 

[Shadow722]

Let me see if I understand the hypothicals being floated regarding the Router(s).

1) There is only one (1) entry indicating use of a 3825 router and no others. So he connected it just before the murder, and disconnected it after spoofing the call?

2) The one entry indicating use of the 3825 router is on HIS (BC's) laptop or Cisco's?
records?

3) If it is on BC laptop, is the record not subject to the same spoilage and tampering as everything else on that laptop??

4) If it is on Cisco records only, why is there no corresponding info on BC laptop showing what was done during that one connection @ 10:30 PM JUly 11th???

5) Assuming BC had the router, and made the connection, how is it possible for him to spoof a 32 second call, without a server/computer. Call Manager cannot make an automated call longer than 22 seconds.

The above are not facts, just questions I have.....

 

[SleuthinNC]

Oh and one other thing. If they can see the 3825 in the logs on the laptop they should also be able to tell exactly what kind of interaction happened between the laptop and the router so they really need to prove that he did something to make those calls himself.

 

[unc70]

The defense has experts listed on their witness list, as stated by Zellinger today, not sure why they weren't called (but I can guess why, no $$).

The reason why GM is not allowed to testify, is because he was not retained by the defense until last Thursday.
It is a violation of the rules (stated by the judge).

As much as the defense doesn't like it, they knew what they were risking by trying to have JW admitted as an expert, when he told them himself he wasn't an expert, as well as stated, in open court on the witness stand.

Not the state or judge's fault, that is what they get for going for the pro bono guy (looking for his 15 mins of fame, I might add) instead of hiring an expert from the beginning.


I find it interesting, that one would state they were confident, the ADA was constantly lying and needed to be called out on it.

JMO of course
:innocent:

K had just said that the defense did not employee one of those experts was because they had no money to pay them (and I believe they had requested and been denied additional moneys by the State). It was commenting on the lack of funds that was against the rules was had it seemed to me, but I could be wrong.

 

[otto]

Do we know when we'll hear if this witness is allowed to testify again?

 

[jrb0124]

Oh and one other thing. If they can see the 3825 in the logs on the laptop they should also be able to tell exactly what kind of interaction happened between the laptop and the router so they really need to prove that he did something to make those calls himself.

I may have missed it, is it clear that Frye intends to testify that this 3825 corresponds to the MAC address purportedly on the Cisco logs?

There is also this 3825, which can also handle VPN - but obviously not an FXO.

On another point...the modems & routers were seized in October. By that time, BC knew investigators (advised by NC friends) were trying to gather proof that he spoofed the calls.

I can accept that if BC had possession of the Integrated Services 3825 router, and if he did not spoof the call, that he would not cooperate in its discovery because he knew it would be self-incriminating.

There were items listed on the seizure list that were not in photographs or paraded before the jury.

 

[cassius]

no time to read through all the pages, can someone give me a recap on this morning?

 

[macd]

Oh and one other thing. If they can see the 3825 in the logs on the laptop they should also be able to tell exactly what kind of interaction happened between the laptop and the router so they really need to prove that he did something to make those calls himself.

I hope we (and the jury) get to find out exactly what that log says.

 

[Shadow722]

I may have missed it, is it clear that Frye intends to testify that this 3825 corresponds to the MAC address purportedly on the Cisco logs?

There is also this 3825, which can also handle VPN - but obviously not an FXO.

On another point...the modems & routers were seized in October. By that time, BC knew investigators (advised by NC friends) were trying to gather proof that he spoofed the calls.

I can accept that if BC had possession of the Integrated Services 3825 router, and if he did not spoof the call, that he would not cooperate in its discovery because he knew it would be self-incriminating.

There were items listed on the seizure list that were not in photographs or paraded before the jury.

Maybe the 3825 was in the same box with the ducks?????? After all the CPD in throughly examining the contents of the Cupper house pursuant to a SW missed the damn duckies, makes you wonder what else they missed......