State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[WolfpackWoman]

To clarify, when you say "tampering" do you mean "someone planted evidence"? When GM, the disallowed defense witness, said "tampering" he meant only "at least one bit changed after the search warrant was executed".

No amount of automated updates or other types of "spoilation" are going to create a file with a dump site map or a log entry with a missing router's mac addresses.

The only question is: do you believe this evidence was planted or not?

Unequivocally yes.

 

[Cheyenne130]

It was in the defense motion in February that they never got the detailed phone reports so therefore could not provide them to Levitan.

That defense motion was full of supposition and innuendo. I do not see that as a factual document. MOO

 

[RaleighNative]

Seriously? They appear on mine. I have details for phone/text/data including all the information I mentioned for all the phones on my account. (You have to click the "details" button, but it's all there.)

Text details are definitely not on my bill. If they had been, there are certain times I would have had some serious explaining to do...

 

[macd]

When did those "indications of tampering" occur? Do you think Brad tried to delete those files but wasn't successful?

Indications of tampering were described loosely as bad timestamps, bad hashes, and missing cookies. GM said thousands of files, including every single google cache file, had those symptoms. This is not indication of the planting of a single file and single log entry, but an indication of something systemic that happened to thousands of files.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I don't. I can get the incoming/outgoing calls. I cannot see anything about my texts except how many they want to charge me with.

I just went and checked because I wanted to make sure I'm giving correct info. You do have to click "text details" but this is what I get:

Date

Time

To

From

Direction

Message Type

 

[RaleighNative]

I just went and checked because I wanted to make sure I'm giving correct info. You do have to click "text details" but this is what I get:

Date

Time

To

From

Direction

Message Type

Okay, so let's say I believe that the SIM card data is irrelevent, because all the call logs/texts/data info was logged.

Why was none of that text data presented at any time in the last 3 years?

 

[Maja]

Whatever happened to BC's phone/SIM?

 

[jrb0124]

Thinking about the blackberry.

Maybe, Young looked at the data in August, took it to his superiors, it didn't fit with BDI.

They decided, we better get a SW for the phone and do this right.

Once they got the SW, they wiped the phone of all data permanently.

I wonder what was on that phone.

If I had to guess what would be on that phone that would be significant enough to threaten the ongoing investigation it would be txt mssg'ing w/JP.

We know they talked more in May/June/July than JP admitted. He never did explain the three calls (I think 3 min, 5 min, 8min) after the last one he explained and admitted to before being shown the phone records.

Was NC a texter? probably, that's not unreasonable. Some people text much more than they phone. If there were calls JP didn't fess up to were there texts? probably.

None of the above hypotheticals are a leap by any means.

Text messages can be recovered from deletion, if NC was deleting them.

If there were text messages exchanged between them, did any of them implicate a relationship with JP which would force the CPD to take a closer look? possibly.

 

[gracielee]

Believe all 3 musketeers were behind the defense props.

Wonder if Kurtz & Trenkle know the truth of this murder?

My guess would be they do. It's pretty hard to be exposed to all the evidence and not know what is what. Remember Joe Mcginnis and Jeffrey MacDonald.

 

[SleuthinNC]

You forgot the forged Google watermark /deleted cookie. Yes, GM said it was forged - not corrupted, not spoiled, - forged. So BC did that? really? why?

And let's not forget the files had the metadata stripped off.

 

[gbay]

Whatever happened to BC's phone/SIM?

I thought there was testimony that Cisco wiped it when Brad'e employment was terminated...or in late Oct.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Okay, so let's say I believe that the SIM card data is irrelevent, because all the call logs/texts/data info was logged.

Why was none of that text data presented at any time in the last 3 years?

Maybe because there was nothing relevant? I do remember a page shown at some time showing the amount of usage for NC's phone for calls and texts. So they did have that information. I'm pretty sure it was a defense exhibit but I'm not positive.

 

[jrb0124]

Smoke and mirrors? I am totally digging the video from both sides today.

Sooooo glad that Cisco is in charge of a large majority of internet security and the consumer products affiliated with it.This is sad. (Both ways)

What did they have to get him indicted on? (Other than Daniels sitting there reading a police report)

Yah, as an aside to this trial they've dropped halfway down the ladder in my esteem. Field Engineers ordering $10K 3825 integrated routers (GM in this case not BC) and taking them home without having any idea of the specs or how to use them??? are you kidding me??? Not knowing another piece of said equipment was missing for 3 years???

 

[sunshine05]

GM discussion of why tampering was suspected, dunked files and how invalid time stamps are issued.
(23.00-25.00)

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9518313/#/vid9518313

 

[unc70]

BBM

Could you please explain how you believe the phone was wiped of all data?

1) LE says he "accidentally" wiped the phone itself by putting in the wrong code 10X and ignoring repeated warnings that the data would be wiped.
2) No explanation at all for the SIM card. And those cards are not deleted without something catastrophic.

I truly do not understand how someone is unable to believe police tampered with NC's phone and therefore tampered with the evidence in this case. How else did it happen? The state offered a shoddy explanation for the phone itself, and no explanation for the SIM.

The problems with the cell phones are even worse than you describe. None of the CPD actions make any sense to me, not just what they did or failed to do, but their entire timeline. CPD got her phone when she first went missing, but did nothing with it because it was locked, and just ignored week after week. Did CPD have or have access to a Cellebrite or similar device and somehow access her phone without a SW?

http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html

The Spoliation of Evidence of both her cell phone and his laptop are very serious on many levels; possible felonies. Erasing her cell phone was not an accident, and certainly not two accidents -- one for the phone shell, a separate one for the sim. Sworn statements and testimony (e.g. following instructions received by telephone and not even writing them down) plus getting the search warrant after the phone was already erased, requesting only the extended billing records from AT&T for her phone and not the forensic quality records as they did for his phone, and using various excuses and ploys to avoid disclosing the erased cell phone until it was well past the date the data would have been retained by AT&T for defense to get the most detailed logs because they were no longer retained by AT&T.

Gone too were any pictures, text msgs, browser history, contacts, gps except during calls. When they failed to find any solid forensic evidence and little to support the claims of abuse or much else, the CPD was pressed on all sides to find evidence against BC, their investigation ground along with a growing number of people being interviewed by CPD and becoming afraid of things private being made public -- their secret lives, sexual, financial, almost anything including some that are illegal.

Why did CPD and FBI wait all those weeks before making the forensic copies of the PC disk, looking at her phone, or requesting forensic quality logs from AT&T? Not many murders, but CPD should have followed the same procedures used in cases involving drugs, *advertiser censored*, pedo, etc. Wait, maybe they did.

What else was going on at roughly that time? The autopsy reports, the "crime scene", and similar efforts were coming up empty. Same for evidence to confirm the gossip scenario. The approaching 2008 election, the public perception of the investigation, and the media coverage were likely a factor? Of as a CT, was the investigation getting a little too close to someone well connected politically or otherwise, or to some thing big.

No matter the verdict, we must look more closely at a lot of what we have seen in this case.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Unequivocally yes.

OK, I'll bite on this one. Sorry, but I can be annoyingly logical.

When a sane adult makes a decision to do something wrong, they have typically done some mental evaluation of the risk vs reward of doing it and have decided that the reward outweighs the risk.

In this case, we know what the risk is. Evidence tampering is a felony in most states, I assume it is in NC as well. The maximum sentence that I see for this crime in many states is 10 years. I would guess that if caught, the person doing the tampering would also face perjury and possibly obstruction of justice charges. If multiple people are involved, there would also be conspiracy charges.

Thus, they would not only lose their job and their family's livelihood, they are facing prison time. Obviously they would never work in LE again and will face a challenge finding any employment after their sentence is complete as many companies do not hire convicted felons.

So, we understand the risk. What exactly is the reward that would outweigh this risk? Improving the odds of one single conviction in a career of investigations, arrests, and prosecutions? This isn't taking down the head of some major crime family or something similar that would be a "career making" case. Furthermore, it's not even guaranteeing a conviction. It's just boosting your chances.

What is the logical explanation of why a LEO would put everything he and his family have at risk to improve the chances of convicting BC?

 

[SleuthinNC]

That defense motion was full of supposition and innuendo. I do not see that as a factual document. MOO

If you read the whole thing you see the prosecution response. The response is not "that's false" or "that's supposition" Pretty much everything that is listed in that document has come out in court and not been refuted. not really understanding why people still claim these things to be fictitious.

 

[Madeleine74]

It's takes a lot more stretching to make someone else responsible for NC's murder. Say, like JP. First you have to manufacture some motive that claims him as the father of NC's 2nd child, him finding this out, even though NC told him baby K wasn't his, him having a problem, him wanting to kill NC to avoid detection as baby K's father. Mmmmkay.

Then you have to make sure he knows where she is on 7/12/08 by 7am, is able to murder her with no defensive wounds, is able to dispose of evidence of that murder, dumps her body in broad daylight, not have anyone see him...oh...and it really, really helps that BC played along on his side, with all that cleaning, early morning HT visits, throwing away of his own shoes, disposing two mismatched shoes of NC's, guessing correctly the jogging bra NC was found in, lying and lying and lying, doing searches on the family computer that look like ones Nancy would do.

Yep, stretching to the point it could be a new advanced yoga pose.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Indications of tampering were described loosely as bad timestamps, bad hashes, and missing cookies. GM said thousands of files, including every single google cache file, had those symptoms. This is not indication of the planting of a single file and single log entry, but an indication of something systemic that happened to thousands of files.

You keep saying that as if it is fact and it continues to not be correct. All the Google files associated with the 41 second time of the search.

 

[Cheyenne130]

OK, I'll bite on this one. Sorry, but I can be annoyingly logical.

(I do appreciate your posts.)