State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[snowshuze]

Hello. AT&T, Can I help you?

Yes, this is CPD. I need to speak to a special tech for this and that purpose.

Hold please while I locate a special tech.
<one hour later...>

This is special tech dept so and so. Can I help you?

This is CPD. I need instructions....

Hold please while I look up info for that item.

<one hour later...>

Who are you holding for? Oh, right, hold for that tech dept, please?

<one hour later> <migraine from elevator music>

--------------------
Been there,done that. No longer have AT&T services.

Edited to clarify my meaning.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Is there anything that can be done on re-direct? ullhair: I find him credible...and think this was just a HUGE mistake. But, any possibility FBI still got data off the phone?????

We don't know about FBI yet. My guess would be no, but if they did, I would tend to think it would support the defensre or they would not be making such a point of mentioning the potential lost data. We do know that CCBI computer forensic Investigators were not able to recover any data from the phone.

 

[kellyroll]

One comment about 'style' - I noticed that Zellinger seems to frame his questions with, "Is it your understanding that ________" while Kurtz seems to use, "Do you understand that ______." The latter seems more antagonistic IMO and maybe part of the reason (albeit small) Kurtz is coming across that way. Just a thought...

 

[gracielee]

I am still thinking fax via computer for the dialing.

clone a harddrive and place in the PC, have your PC make the call, listen to incessant fax beeping for 38 or so seconds and maybe even let the PC redial since the fax didn't go through, swap the harddrive out to the original one. Toss the one used to place the call.

No evidence and your home phone was used.

I don't know anything about computers, but could one of those little square things one slips into a computer be used to make the computer make a phone call? I remember something about a USB is it? port? we once took a special photo off our computer with this little thing we slipped into the side of the computer, and then took the photo to a shop to have it enlarged and printed professionally. Could something like that, some device, be slipped into the computer for usage, then removed again, with none the wiser? Just asking cause I don't know crap about comptuers.

 

[borndem]

No they didn't. But CPD completely dismissed her (based on what I have read). This is a professional woman (she is an executive assistant at a large company) and was certain of what she saw while Nance was still missing. And this is different than other people because again, she was less than 10 feet from her, made eye contact with her, and actually exchanged greetings with her. It very well could have been someone else, but CPD should have followed up with her in a timely manner. But they didn't because it didn't fit their theory.

So based on what you said, should the police now only request people who may have seen someone in a missing persons case only call if they also know that person? If that was the case, Elizabeth Smart might still be missing. Fortunately, the Utah police followed up on that report and was able to save her.

IIRC, WRAL 6:00 news reported that CPD did interview her, and when they did, she was equivocal -- not positive. You may recall that WRAL tried to have a tidbit on the news nearly every night for a while after NC's body was found.

 

[Lori59]

I completely agree. In his testimony today, he should have simply 'manned-up' about it too IMO.

Yep, His other mistakes are that he should have made sure the person giving the instructions was qualified and assured him he could not cause damage. Did his curiosity just get the best of him???

 

[FullDisclosure]

One comment about 'style' - I noticed that Zellinger seems to frame his questions with, "Is it your understanding that ________" while Kurtz seems to use, "Do you understand that ______." The latter seems more antagonistic IMO and maybe part of the reason (albeit small) Kurtz is coming across that way. Just a thought...

Yes, I agree that Zellinger's questions sound more like it's "over coffee" but I'm guessing that when the defense presents their case, the styles may reverse somewhat. JMO

 

[uncfan]

I feel badly for Det. Y - I'm sure he'd give anything had that phone not wiped. And if that is the very thing that hangs this case or keeps a jury from convicting the inmate, well, then I will just have to know that there is a higher judgement - and BC will face that judgement one day because I'm still completely convinced that he is the guilty party. Det. Y is a fine law enforcement officer and he's also human. Nobody can truly believe that police officers don't make mistakes. I don't think it was a mistake to investigate BC to the fullest. I think it was right on target.

I think NC's cell phone has at least an equal if not higher chance of proving BC not guilty. If BC is guilty, what would you expect to find on the phone that would directly relate to that night? The phone was probably just sitting somewhere while all the killing, cleaning, etc was going on. As someone said, most likely he couldn't even access it. The most you could hope to find is more ammunition to prove they had a crappy marriage.

 

[gracielee]

So now we add cloning/swapping/disposing of harddrives to the list of things BC did between midnight and 6am (kill NC, dress her, clean garage, dispose of body, make Harris Teeter runs, clean house....). It starts to get more and more far fetched.

Nah, he had till noon to clean the house and do more laundry. Even work on the computer. The only thing he had to get done before 7:00 was was body dumping and Harris Teeter shopping. :innocent:

 

[borndem]

No..IF she actually heard Nancy say or saw her do it is valid for the witness. BUT She cannot testify to what someone else said they saw, or heard..THAT would be hearsay :twocents: Hope that helps..

Exactly, LL -- Since Nancy is dead, she can no longer speak for herself, so this is one exception to hearsay.

And while I'm here, let me remind all of us WSleuthers -- let's try not to forget that regardless of whom we think "done it" or which "side" we are on, let's remember that we are all for NANCY and the ones who love her. That should be our mission here. (So sorry to preach, but couldn't help it.)

 

[JiminWilton]

I did not catch the prosecution's opening statement.... those of you who did.... Was there anything along the lines of "... you will hear testimony from FBI specialists who will tell you that BC's computer executed a G45MZal program at 6:40 AM to provide an alibi..."

What, if anything, did the opening statement lead you to believe would be the smoking gun?

 

[sunshine05]

I hope he has a vacation lined up after this. I feel sorry for him sitting there day after day. I really think the wiping of the phone might jeopardize the case. He has to be exhausted. moo!

Don't feel sorry for him. He shouldn't be in this line of work if it's too much for him.

 

[luckyme]

Nah, he had till noon to clean the house and do more laundry. Even work on the computer. The only thing he had to get done before 7:00 was was body dumping and Harris Teeter shopping. :innocent:

Dont forget to clean the car so no evidence found, wipe all phones, clean garage and take care of kids. Thats a pretty short time line to me. moo

 

[ncsu95]

Diet Coke being consumed @ crime scene was a no-no. NOTHING can be introduced to the scene what-so-ever. What if it spilled? Was milling this over last night after Kurtz inqured about it yesterday.

But he was thirsty.

 

[ncsu95]

Now IIRC during direct testimony about this, he said he was told to enter PW's until there was a request by the phone for a PUK code...Sounds like pretty simple instructions...He followed the prompts on the phone, and never got a request for Puk Code, then phone indicated it was deleting..and he shut it down pronto!!

He didn't shut it down pronto. The defense asked if he pulled the battery to stop it and he said no.

 

[sunshine05]

I did not catch the prosecution's opening statement.... those of you who did.... Was there anything along the lines of "... you will hear testimony from FBI specialists who will tell you that BC's computer executed a G45MZal program at 6:40 AM to provide an alibi..."

What, if anything, did the opening statement lead you to believe would be the smoking gun?

Nothing, it was all touchy/feel-y. She talked about the JA paint plans, the call from the worried friend and the fact that BC did not attend the memorials. That was my takeaway.

 

[ncsu95]

I don't think this shows any bias. All the call at 6:40am proves is that the phone from home dialed BC cell's phone. There is a very easy way to have a device, based upon a timer, depress the redial button on the home phone. This same device can then end the call. Receiving a call does not imply that a human actually placed the originating call.

Actually, it would have to hit 2 specific buttons (offhook and redial).

 

[gracielee]

Yep, His other mistakes are that he should have made sure the person giving the instructions was qualified and assured him he could not cause damage. Did his curiosity just get the best of him???

Don't know. One would think he would be smarter than that, ya know?
< shakes head > I remember learning the hard way when I was very young, to ALWAYS get names, date things, keep notes, regardless if it's companies I'm talking to, utilities, what ever. Take names. I remember a couple times someone on the other end of the phone, enquiring "you're taking names?' when I asked for correct spelling of an odd name. LOL, I said "yes, I'm taking names, I always take names!" Often times just that perks 'em up to proper attention. :great: And it taught all my daughters to always 'take names' too. :floorlaugh:

 

[ncsu95]

Yes, I am talking about a mechanical device . And yes, the burden of proof is definitely on the side of prosecution. My response was to indicate that I don't believe that the detectives answer showed any sign of bias.

But the question wasn't if a call was received from the house, wouldn't that indicate she was alive? The question was if NANCY called Brad at 6:40, wouldn't that indicate she was alive. No matter who you are or what you believe, if Nancy called Brad at 6:40, then she was alive at 6:40. It doesn't mean she was alive at 6:41, but would mean she was alive if Nancy called Brad at 6:40. That was a simple question.

 

[LyndyLoo]

He didn't shut it down pronto. The defense asked if he pulled the battery to stop it and he said no.

He actually said in his testimony with the Prosecutor..that he noticed wiping had started and he turned it OFF..and today answered question from Kurtz about removal of battery.he said no..OKAY?