State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[ncsu95]

Below, in red, is a quote of what I wrote the day of the Fielding Dr. testimony.

I was there. (Remember that big THUD you heard this afternoon?) It was Fielding Dr.

The witness for this testimony was very well spoken and to the point. He boiled down difficult techo-speak for the jury and made it simple to understand. In a nutshell, Brad had to manipulate the map to get over Fielding Dr. and then zoom in several times. I do NOT think the defense will argue that it is not Fielding Dr.

ETA--The way they showed the "zooming in" was to re-create the search on a clean computer. They went through the steps to see what had to be done to get to that
image on google maps. They had it all on a power point presentation.

In the days that followed, I have crept back toward the fence. On cross, Detective Chappell was uncooperative and evasive, and he stonewalled in a big way. When he finally gave answers, they impeached some of his testimony regarding his report, (specifically about time stamps and cookies). I have pages of notes. I don't edit when I take notes, I just write it all down. When he was pinned down, he seemed less than truthful.

Another thing that keeps me at least near the fence is the testimony of the CPD/Detectives/Daniels. If they are telling the truth, why are they hiding behind each other? Why are they being evasive? And I don't believe for one second that they didn't suspect BC from day one. I don't believe they didn't go in knowing JA's concerns that she shared in the phone call to CPD. I don't believe they followed BC for his protection. If they did, why is what he bought at the grocery store relevant? Why did they not have the children under 24-hour protective survaillence? I don't believe that they didn't tape BC's multiple interviews because they "didn't have access to a recorder." I don't believe AS hadn't conferred with them before the custody deposition.

Again, I believe BC probably did it, but the way much of the investigation and the testimony were handled lead me to doubt the information that they are testifying to. If they would just let the truth speak for itself, I'd have an easier time with it all.

That would be work product. It can't be used in discussions of this trial :floorlaugh: (sorry, I had to laugh after todays proceedings).

 

[SleuthSayer]

The maps have changed superficially. Doesn't change the fact that BC manipulated that map with a closed hand icon to find Fielding Drive/Brittaby Ct. Even if he typed in his zip code. [/I]

Thanks for the on-the-scene report for the Google Maps testimony. I was hoping that someone who was there could clarify this. I have seen a number of people describe what you said above -- dragging the map around to find Fielding Dr.

However, I have seen a number of articles such as this WRAL one which say something like:

Chappell said that Brad Cooper's computer files showed that someone searched for the ZIP code 27518 and determined, based on the latitude and longitude, that the center of that area was Fielding Drive.

Through a more in-depth examination, Chappell said, he found that the user zoomed in on the map for multiple views of the area.

These seem to be contradictory statements. If the latitude/longitude at the center was that of Fielding Dr, there was no need for dragging the map around to find Fielding.

So, did you hear this testimony about latitude/longitude? Or, is this something that the media just made up?

 

[NCEast]

Here's the custody order. the hearing was open.

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/coopercustodyorder.pdf

Thank you for including this link. Somehow, I had missed reading this previously.

 

[Cheyenne130]

But the lead detective should have full knowledge of what all his investigators were doing. They should have had weekly (or more) meetings to discuss updates and decide what the next steps should be. If he is as unaware as he seems of what his detectives were working on, that is very concerning.

Knowing about what they were doing and being able to answer for what they meant or what they were thinking in a notation made by them are two different things. The defense was asking him to interpret what was meant in different statements.

 

[ncsu95]

I agree that they were looking at Brad from the first few hours. Based on what JA told them and various other issues. But why they don't just admit it, get it out there and own up to it is stupid. There are few people in the world who don't know that the spouse is always a prime suspect until he/she can be ruled out. That should have been the LE officer's testimony....all of them.

Right...and they were already photographing the house for "prosperity". He was absolutely a suspect on Saturday. I believe that CPD felt this was a homicide almost immediately. Heck, all of us did.

 

[Star12]

And I don't think the cops had anything to gain, either, by being deceptive.

 

[less0305]

We're talking a matter of 48 hrs from the time the cops first arrived at Cooper house on 7/12 to when body was found. And then another 14 or so hrs to final confirmation of ID. Officers arrived and there was nothing to suspect yet. Nancy was missing.

Within several hrs the officers probably understood that she would not just abandon her kids and disappear. But what exactly could they know and to what end? Not much. They were gathering information. No one knew if Nancy was alive or dead at that point. Ditto the 13th.

By early evening the 14th they knew she was dead, or at least were pretty sure it was her that had been found. It's not like dead bodies are just laying around all over town, discarded off of communities. They knew the odds. And yes, at that point Cooper was a person of interest and coming into the crosshairs. That's just the way it is. They begin with the person closest to the victim and see if that person can be excluded. Brad never was able to be excluded.

I don't know exactly what script people think cops follow, but real life just isn't like NCIS or CSI or NYPD or JAG or any of the cop shows out there. Humans make mistakes. They make assumptions. Sometimes they're wrong; sometimes they're right. Just like there's no perfect crime, there's no perfect cop.

I believe most cops are decent and honest people; I don't have a basis for believing otherwise. Obviously others have a great mistrust and think many cops and detectives are devious, conniving and only sometimes tell the truth. And a few think anyone involved in any law enforcement or crime solving related position is in a huge conspiracy to put everyone away for life.

Madeline, you're just too damn smart for words!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[ncsu95]

Agree with most of your post, but you lose me at this. I doubt very much they would be stupid enough to hinge their careers on lying to convict Cooper. I also don't think they're devious in a direct or intentional manner. Saying they are capable of tampering with evidence is, quite frankly, offensive given what we have heard.

The "he was not a suspect" statements are more a term of art than black and white facts. They should have said immediately they had concerns he was involved with "something", but denied he was a "suspect". This is not true of course, they suspected him of something, but not of anything in particular. At this point he wasn't a "suspect" in the proper sense of the word. I would rather that LE just came out and say "we thought he was potentially involved with something", and stay away from the word suspect.

When they won't call him a suspect is troubling is because it is not fully accurate. I prefer a prosecution where LE is completely open, even to the point where it allows the defense to play games with words. Take the high road, let the defense grovel with definitions. They did not take the high road on the "suspect" testimony and that bothers me, but to say that leads to them being reasonably capable of fabricating evidence is a HUGE no.

Neifong risked his career (and lost) on convicting the Duke lacrosse players. It's not that far fetched. Cary doesn't have many murders...this was very high profile.

 

[ncsu95]

That could well be a brilliant defense tactic. Each detective was responsible for a different area. So if the defense knows this and purposefully asks questions of a particular detective that he knows was actually the responsibility of another detective, he can make it seem like they are all "passing the buck". I would need to see that a question asked was passed off by all. MOO

Except it was more like Young:"Det. Daniels was in charge of the investigation...I was just doing what I was told so I can't answer that.". Then Det. Daniels "I tasked Det. Young with doing that so I can't answer that." Well who the hell can answer it then?

 

[gbay]

The 3rd one (actually was the 2nd at 6:34) didn't terminate to the cell. There was another one made at 6:37. Actually, I think this makes the likelihood of it being spoofed even more remote. That would have meant it failed (since we see the attempt on the TWC records) and then a successful call 3 minutes later. But no data usage or calls in between. So how was it re-attempted?

Actually the 6:37 call was a call from his cell to 919-476-2001. This is the # for the Cisco VM. Seisure time of 1 second and on call for 29 seconds. He actually listens to the vm twice on this call. The calls from the house to his cell were as stated earlier.

6:05
6:34
6:40

 

[Cheyenne130]

If Brad isn't guilty, then the 6:05 call was to find the cell like defense said in opening arguments. The 6:34 call would have been Nancy calling Brad. The cell phone records didn't see that call, so it would have meant he was in a dead area (no pun intended). Then she retried at 6:37.

If Brad is guilty, it would have something do do with him testing or initiating the spoofed call.

The 6:05 call was 23 seconds after it was answered. Why would you look for your phone and then talk to yourself for 23 seconds?

The 6:34 call was while he was still at home before he left for the second HT trip.

The other call was at 6:40.

I'm pretty sure I have those times correct. (I have no notes and am going from memory.)

 

[Madeleine74]

Star12,

Thank you for reposting your comments from the Google search day in court. You're right, of course. Some people prefer to think of that evidence as some kind of FBI/CPD conspiracy and the inconsequential minutia surrounding it is providing a seductive distraction from the big picture. The big picture, afterall, is really damning.

If I were a crooked cop hellbent on making sure someone got blamed (framed) for a murder, I sure wouldn't trouble myself with trying to change a timestamp on a secure laptop computer and fiddle with a file with the hope that some computer expert would find this little morsel and say AHA! I mean, what if they didn't find it? What if the thing I changed wasn't convincing? Or what if I effed it up?

No, if getting someone convicted were my goal and I was crooked and I wanted to make sure the perp was fingered and put away and I had to manufacture evidence to do it, I'd put something physical and more obvious in play. Something that definitively ties the perp to the murder or crime scene. Hair, fibers, blood, skin or tissue or some combo of them...something that could be found and tested with DNA and seen. Not some little hidden computer file that may or may not be found.

 

[ncsu95]

We're talking a matter of 48 hrs from the time the cops first arrived at Cooper house on 7/12 to when body was found. And then another 14 or so hrs to final confirmation of ID. Officers arrived and there was nothing to suspect yet. Nancy was missing.

Within several hrs the officers probably understood that she would not just abandon her kids and disappear. But what exactly could they know and to what end? Not much. They were gathering information. No one knew if Nancy was alive or dead at that point. Ditto the 13th.

By early evening the 14th they knew she was dead, or at least were pretty sure it was her that had been found. It's not like dead bodies are just laying around all over town, discarded off of communities. They knew the odds. And yes, at that point Cooper was a person of interest and coming into the crosshairs. That's just the way it is. They begin with the person closest to the victim and see if that person can be excluded. Brad never was able to be excluded.

I don't know exactly what script people think cops follow, but real life just isn't like NCIS or CSI or NYPD or JAG or any of the cop shows out there. Humans make mistakes. They make assumptions. Sometimes they're wrong; sometimes they're right. Just like there's no perfect crime, there's no perfect cop.

I believe most cops are decent and honest people; I don't have a basis for believing otherwise. Obviously others have a great mistrust and think many cops and detectives are devious, conniving and only sometimes tell the truth. And a few think anyone involved in any law enforcement or crime solving related position is in a huge conspiracy to put everyone away for life.

Yes they make mistakes. And when they do, they shouldn't get on the stand and minimize or deny the mistake, be defensive about the mistake, or be arrogant in responding to questions about the mistake. It's up to the jury to determine if those mistakes mean anything.

 

[NCEast]

Neifong risked his career (and lost) on convicting the Duke lacrosse players. It's not that far fetched. Cary doesn't have many murders...this was very high profile.

Neifong or Niefong was an idiot. I'm surprised some of his tactics didn't surface before the lacrosse thing did. I may be wrong but I think most 'normal' people knew the Duke lacrosse case was one huge lie and we just sat back and waited for the shoe to drop. And it keeps on dropping with respect to the 'victim'.

 

[ncsu95]

Actually the 6:37 call was a call from his cell to 919-476-2001. This is the # for the Cisco VM. Seisure time of 1 second and on call for 29 seconds. He actually listens to the vm twice on this call. The calls from the house to his cell were as stated earlier.

6:05
6:34
6:40

Sorry, forgot about the 6:40 call. Thank you for correcting it.

 

[johnfear]

Everyone keeps throwing out the words corruption and conspiracy with regards to things the defense said.

According to Gessner and Kurtz, those aren't the words. The words were "inept" and "dishonest" and I think he proved both of those words. I think the jury thinks it as well.

You guys say "tampered" with like it was intentional. (Or planted). That's not what they mean...think inept. Think, patrol cop opens a file, and clicks on a link. That's where they were headed and I know everybody thinks (thud) with the google map search, but it felt more like a firework show with a really premature grand finale and then a few pops up into the air at the end when people are packing up and getting in their cars.

Also, there was a lot of hullabaloo about the other portions of the google map searched that got lost on the MSM. I have to tell you guys CC was hiding something. Not like "I'm gonna frame this guy" hiding something, but more like "shiiiit, I hope they don't ask me this ONE thing cause that will blow this part of it".

I also have to say I am wholly disappointed in Daniels and Young for not backing each other up. A five minute conversation not related to this case that simply said: Own it. Tell them we don't have a smoking gun, but OWN what we do have. Get out in front of everything and be honest.

They sure as heck didn't do that. They both had it in them to work Kurtz and they both ended up letting Kurtz work them. I believe the coulda taken all the bricks and made themselves the mortar, but they didn't. And they looked really bad in comparison to the more put together witnesses explanations of events.

 

[NCEast]

I love this place--it reminds me of a nice cocktail party where little clusters of people are talking about various topics. We've got cell phone testimony, Google search results, law enforcement officers tampering with evidence, and a few other things going on right now.
Just love it.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Except it was more like Young:"Det. Daniels was in charge of the investigation...I was just doing what I was told so I can't answer that.". Then Det. Daniels "I tasked Det. Young with doing that so I can't answer that." Well who the hell can answer it then?

I can. It was all regarding the cell phone. Det. Young screwed up and erased the phone. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

The 6:05 call was 23 seconds after it was answered. Why would you look for your phone and then talk to yourself for 23 seconds?

The 6:34 call was while he was still at home before he left for the second HT trip.

The other call was at 6:40.

I'm pretty sure I have those times correct. (I have no notes and am going from memory.)

Yes, I made a mistake. The 6:37 call was him calling vm. We know that didn't initiate the spoofed call since the Cisco person said exactly what he did and what buttons he pushed. But it's the same issue....if the 6:34 call was a failed spoof attempt, why did it retry 6 minutes later without something initiating it to do so.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yes they make mistakes. And when they do, they shouldn't get on the stand and minimize or deny the mistake, be defensive about the mistake, or be arrogant in responding to questions about the mistake. It's up to the jury to determine if those mistakes mean anything.

That's your subjective opinion based at least somewhat on a bias going in about the case. The jury may have an altogether different opinion after seeing and hearing what took place in the courtroom.