State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[ncsu95]

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

See, that wasn't so hard.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

I think that regardless of this case. The detectives should testify to what they did, what they found, and their theory. But they should be somewhat unbiased about it regardless of the conclusion they reached.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Whatever the merits of the criminal case, those who feel sorry for BC getting busted in his depo are misguided IMO.

1. Any speculation the custody judge ruled on information not available to both sides is, as far as I know speculation.
2. During the deposition, BC was represented and his lawyers could have stopped the deposition at any time if they thought something improper was going on. They could have instructed him to plead the 5th at any moment. They could have, on his behalf, been combative at least if they felt it was warranted. The fact the other side was well prepared is not much of an answer for the obvious fact that he lied - a bunch.

Well, FWIW, I don't have much experience with legal proceedings, but even I knew back in 2008, before he was even arrested, that he was getting awful advice from his lawyers and that the deposition was going to come back to bite him in the butt. Here is what I posted back then.

I remember that the judge who was handling the custody matter said that she was going to have to decide whether he killed his wife. So, even at the time, it was clear that he was effectively giving testimony for a murder trial.

 

[johnfear]

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.

Fax machine on auto re-dial! Easiest way on the planet to make a land line call. And if it's busy the first round, you have 4-6 minutes and it will do it again for you. But, let's make it more complicated and Vonage-ize it.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

But in many instances, we knew the answer better than DD. How can one explain that away? There is no doubt he was evasive and not forthcoming. Changed dates, typos, no knowledge, etc. It was very obvious.

 

[Cheyenne130]

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.

The 6:05 may have been a set up and that didn't work on the first trip. He did something at 6:25 that involved "data". Purely speculation, the 6:34 could have been practice for the 4 year old to call his phone. The oven timer set to go off with a "do it again when the bell rings" would be the simplest way to "spoof" that call. No equipment necessary. MOO

 

[gbay]

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.

We don't know how it was in initialized...he may have used a computer or the old voip system... we don't really know.

 

[Madeleine74]

He was doing something with his phone at 6:25am because he's on video at HT. Pushing buttons, accessing something. He wasn't talking on the phone, he wasn't listening to a call on the phone. He was using the phone and its data capbilities.

 

[Cheyenne130]

But in many instances, we knew the answer better than DD. How can one explain that away? There is no doubt he was evasive and not forthcoming. Changed dates, typos, no knowledge, etc. It was very obvious.

It doesn't really matter what he knows. I can pretty much answer the question, "What does sunshine05 think about this case?" but I wouldn't presume to answer for you. I would say, "You'll have to ask sunshine05 that question."

 

[Tipstaff]

I agree with both of you.

They should acknowledge this predisposition to look at the spouse in a missing person's case / eventual homicide. By bringing it out in the open, you admit that you are influenced by the irrefutable statistics (and then parade them out), but since you are aware of this - you take extra precaution to ensure you have looked at all other possibilities. That, to me, gives you credibility - esp on an issue that is so darn obvious to even a layman.

In the same vein - BC should have acknowledged that he and NC were in the process of separating. Him playing the devoted and distraught husband didn't do him any favors.

It's folks that lie about things that will obviously be disproved that concern me - why do it? Do you really think anyone will buy that lie?

Throw the truth out there - we're all smart enough to recognize it (as it makes sense....) and we'll appreciate your honestly. Also, you don't have to keep remembering what story you told to support the initial lie and it makes your life a whole lot easier.

So while I think CPD should acknowledge the statistics and where they look first - they could have negated worries about them look at BC ONLY (and not just first) by admitting the predisposition.

Do I think that they failed to find the killer? No. But it scores more points with the jury when you treat them like they are somewhat intelligent.

Once LE names someone a Person of Interest or a Suspect doesn't it change they way they can engage/talk/discuss and have access to that person.

Might it be the protocol they must follow to ensure that the rush to judgement switch isn't pulled from the get go?

 

[SleuthSayer]

Fax machine on auto re-dial! Easiest way on the planet to make a land line call. And if it's busy the first round, you have 4-6 minutes and it will do it again for you. But, let's make it more complicated and Vonage-ize it.

I agree that there are a number of far simpler ways than all this VoIP magic to make an automated call. But, as far as the fax idea, someone here a couple of weeks ago claimed that fax calls show up as data (not voice) calls on a TWC log. I can't confirm or deny it myself, but whoever stated that was confident in their info. (But, it wouldn't be a first time that someone sounded confident but was stunningly wrong.) :wink:

 

[NCEast]

Once LE names someone a Person of Interest or a Suspect doesn't it change they way they can engage/talk/discuss and have access to that person.

Might it be the protocol they must follow to ensure that the rush to judgement switch isn't pulled from the get go?

I think perhaps the biggest issue when they declare a person of interest or a suspect is that the person lawyers up and then they don't have access to them any longer, verbally.

 

[Star12]

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:

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?

They did not make it up. Unfortunatly, my mind was pondering something else when I heard the words longitude and latitude. So I am not sure what that referred to. Obviously every shift in position is a change in L&L. I don't even kno if he said the numbers. Frankly, I don't think it as all that important. The important thing is that BC did the search at 1:15 pm on Friday July 11, before Nancy was murdered. But I encourage you to try it yourself. See where the map opens up, and then move it ovet to Fielding Drive. The area is unmistakable.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think perhaps the biggest issue when they declare a person of interest or a suspect is that the person lawyers up and then they don't have access to them any longer, verbally.

At what point do they have to disclose info to defense? When a person is named a suspect or not until they are arrested?

 

[Albert]

His co-worker testified they left for lunch between 1 and 1:30.

So, BC must have done this search on his laptop just before they left while connected to the cisco wireless - thus knowing full well he would leave a trace on at least the cisco network. This is the same guy the pros would have you believe initiated a remote call with no data trace on the cisco network.

For those of you who will raise the "10 different ways" protest, yes but they would all leave a trace if its a remote call. The 6:25 data would leave a trace - no way he was in range of an in-house home setup to do it without using the cisco network.

Pre-programmed call? sure. I could do that with a fax machine and no cisco equipment or routers...but that's not what the pros said (probably because there is no evidence of this).

If you control the PBX, callmanager, at your house, which is very easy, then there is no trace on any other network. So it no surprise that there is no trace evidence on the Cisco network.

 

[Danielle59]

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.

After JA's phone call you really believe they did not go in there with a bias?

 

[Tipstaff]

I think perhaps the biggest issue when they declare a person of interest or a suspect is that the person lawyers up and then they don't have access to them any longer, verbally.

Yes, and BC lawyered up on the 15th right. He was on his computer looking up lawyers on the 13th IIRC.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

What bias did I have going in to this case? We've talked about this many times. I thought going in that he was most likely guilty because he's the most obvious suspect. I was surprised he was ever arrested based on what was known at the time. And I felt that the prosecution had to have something major on him given the DAs record on arrests in high profile cases. So what exactly is my bias?

 

[SleuthSayer]

They did not make it up. Unfortunatly, my mind was pondering something else when I heard the words longitude and latitude. So I am not sure what that referred to. Obviously every shift in position is a change in L&L. I don't even kno if he said the numbers. Frankly, I don't think it as all that important.

To me, it does seem kind of important. If he googled his zip code and it happened to land with Fielding Dr in the middle of the display (as these articles claim) and then he zoomed, there are probably ways that it can be explained away. Not sure that you put a guy in jail for googling his own zip. If, on the other hand, he googled his zip code and it landed him somewhere else and then he purposefully drug the map over to Fielding Dr and zoomed, it seems way more incriminating.

 

[ncsu95]

He was doing something with his phone at 6:25am because he's on video at HT. Pushing buttons, accessing something. He wasn't talking on the phone, he wasn't listening to a call on the phone. He was using the phone and its data capbilities.

For all of a couple of seconds.