State v Bradley Cooper 5-3-11

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
If BC had returned that router, Greg M. would have known about it since it was his job to keep track of their equipment. He struck me as a guy who does a good job at work. Honest, forthright, detailed, follows through. It was an $11K router and not a tiny little piece of something. BC told him he borrowed that router. Documented!

If it's missing it's because Brad Cooper got rid of it on July 12th.

Let's not forget that a witness from Cisco was prepared to testify that this same 3825 router was found in a log file to be connected to BC computer on the night of July 11, 2008. The jury didn't hear this evidence, but we know about it. BC had that router; there is no question about that.

And the previous testimony that there were no records can be explained how?

Honest huh, not so much. Remember the MAC address question?

Yes the jury was supposed to hear that evidence weren't they. I believe in the networking business that would be known as vaporware!
 
Paying for your kids living with you is totally different lifestyle than if she left with the kids. He would basically be paying for 2 houses.
If she left him he would have to pay for child support and alimony. He would not even try to negotiate after she said 2100 for child support so they never got that far. He knew he would be paying her a lot of his income and then having to live in a van down by the river and he wasn't up for that.

Yeah, 'three hot's and a cot' have worked out so much better for him. :great:
 
"I need a place to move to NOW." < nancy cooper's call to realtor >

Followed by JA coming over to make plans on how to organize, especially the girls clothes and toys so things would be nice for them

Which are we supposed to believe?
 
But the defense produces a document that shows another CISCO test group "UCBU" has a router with that exact same serial number and the router they have was received from the mfg in Sept 2008... it throws GM's testimony/inventory into question. And, the fact that his inventory database is not updated when equipment is borrowed by an employee and physical inventories are not periodically performed tells me that GM can't state with any certainty where that piece of equipment went after 1/2008 and that BC may have actually returned it as he said he would.

No, it wasn't the exact same router. Even Kurtz admitted that at the end of the testimony. Plus no one verified that the Chicago invoice was legit. The witness did not know what it was. Anyone could have printed it. It was a worthless piece of paper Kurtz threw out there to mislead and confuse.
 
Didn't NC have dresses on hold for Katie's birthday? She was supposed to pay the balance Saturday, IIRC.

Does that ring a bell?
Like you I feel she hounded him all day Friday for her $$. She wanted to get those dresses. It was said they were $150, but later IIRC $50.
Either way no mulla to pay for them. I feel he was irritated with her already by evening.
 
No, it wasn't the exact same router. Even Kurtz admitted that at the end of the testimony. Plus no one verified that the Chicago invoice was legit. The witness did not know what it was. Anyone could have printed it. It was a worthless piece of paper Kurtz threw out there to mislead and confuse.

As opposed to the worthless database that only GM uses that only surfaced last week?
 
Yes, Nancy had dresses for the girls on hold. The shop later gave the dresses to the Rentz family for the girls to wear at Nancy's memorial.
HI Skittles! I forgot who told us, but I understand that was the case.
 
No, it wasn't the exact same router. Even Kurtz admitted that at the end of the testimony. Plus no one verified that the Chicago invoice was legit. The witness did not know what it was. Anyone could have printed it. It was a worthless piece of paper Kurtz threw out there to mislead and confuse.

I just listened to that testimony. Kurtz made no such admission. GM had no explanation for that CISCO document that showed a piece of equipment with the exact same serial number in someone else's possession.
 
As opposed to the worthless database that only GM uses that only surfaced last week?

At least GM testified to his database. No one testified to verify the Chicago invoice. Plus Brad is the one who said he was taking the 3825.
 
I just listened to that testimony. Kurtz made no such admission. GM had no explanation for that CISCO document that showed a piece of equipment with the exact same serial number in someone else's possession.

Kurtz blew smoke. What happened to the 3825 that Brad said he took home in January, 2008?
 
I just listened to that testimony. Kurtz made no such admission. GM had no explanation for that CISCO document that showed a piece of equipment with the exact same serial number in someone else's possession.

The Chicago " invoice" did not list the 3825. The last thing Kurtz said is he agreed with GM that it was not the 3825 that Brad had.
 
Go back and watch the discussion from last Friday. I didn't make this up.

You are correct...Kurtz stated they asked for additional funding and was denied. That was when BZ was called unethical for saying defense did not call an expert witness from the witness list, one was an NCSU employee.
 
ahhh, thanks! (On the other thread)

Just got called to do an out-of-town work trip for tomorrow evaluating enterprise e-scrap recycling in Knoxville....should I be looking for Cisco gear?
 
You are correct...Kurtz stated they asked for additional funding and was denied. That was when BZ was called unethical for saying defense did not call an expert witness from the witness list, one was an NCSU employee.

that whole argument sparked my rant...fyi
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
1,867
Total visitors
2,042

Forum statistics

Threads
606,000
Messages
18,196,953
Members
233,702
Latest member
mascaraguns
Back
Top