State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[gbay]

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

I am now thinking about this call (6:05). He must have had his cell call forwarded to vm and not realized it. What is a bit funny though is he didn't go into HT until 6:21. If this was supposed to be a spoofed call he would have had to leave the house at 6:00. He would have known what time the call was to be made...so he could have just come home without going to HT if it didn't ring. He would have been driving around for awhile. Also the neighbour did not notice the garage door open at 6:00. Conclusion...not sure it was a spoofed call that failed. Maybe a test call....

 

[Albert]

I am having the same problem you are with losing credibility in the testimony of the Detectives.

The NC cell phone issue REALLY bothers me after seeing the probable cause documents, hearing Det. Dismukes conversation with HP and listening to Det. Young testify about how he was not aware of the capabilities of smartphones and the data that could be important evidence contained on them. That was a boldface lie coupled with the fact that he "mistakenly" erased the cell phone and did not notify the defense team nor mention that fact in the search warrant for the phone which was obtained AFTER he erased the phone. That is a huge problem for me and leads me to believe they are capable of lying and tampering with evidence.

Which lie is more extreme, CPD not fully understanding smartphone features or BC not knowing how to view call history on his blackberry?

 

[less0305]

Is there recourse for a witness who the defense attempts to pin the murder on or make look guilty or as an accessory if there is no evidence that person was involved?

 

[Star12]

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.

But it doesn't land with Fielding Dr in the center. BBM - is hat he did. Scrolled that map to the right to get to the dump site and zoomed it up.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am now thinking about this call (6:05). He must have had his cell call forwarded to vm and not realized it. What is a bit funny though is he didn't go into HT until 6:21. If this was supposed to be a spoofed call he would have had to leave the house at 6:00. He would have known what time the call was to be made...so he could have just come home without going to HT if it didn't ring. He would have been driving around for awhile. Also the neighbour did not notice the garage door open at 6:00. Conclusion...not sure it was a spoofed call that failed. Maybe a test call....

What I meant was that the 6:05 was the set up to make a remote call. The Cisco guy said that the call to set it up would be 23 seconds. The call didn't come and at 6:25 he did some data check on his phone but whatever he set up with the 6:05 call didn't work. My speculation is that he went to "Plan B". All speculation based on trying to make sense of these three calls from the home phone to his cell phone.

 

[Madeleine74]

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

I listened to JA's phone call. She sounded like a worried friend who wasn't sure if something happened to her friend or not. She answered questions posed by the female police officer on the other end--the person staffing the non-emergency police number. The computer report typed up and sent out to dispatch did not say anything about death or murder or anything beyond missing person, worried friend. I was in court that day so I heard the testimony. This JA pointing finger baloney came from little K's mouth, not from testimony.

 

[less0305]

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

And Air Canada - I'm surprised he didn't flee in those first few days.

 

[Albert]

I agree and this bothers me too. Given JA's call to the police they must have been looking at him, and we know they were, but they refuse to admit it. I think that hurts their credibility. This is not enough to put me on the fence, I think if you actually review the testimony, as opposed to the news stories or the tweets, there is a great amount of damning evidence.

But denying the obvious looks bad. Why not just put the facts out there and let the jury decide? This is not a game.

So, jA called non-emergency police number and told her story. Some point after that LEO was notified and told of the address. Do we know exactly what was told to LEO initially? Is it possible that JA's thoughts were not provided to the LEO responding to the scene?

 

[LyndyLoo]

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?

Maybe its just me..but when an attny asked one party about another parties reasoning for doing things....Party One tasked Party Two do followup on a lead, and Party Two understood they were tasked to followup ...BUT how the heck can either party testify to WHY or What the other party thought or believed?...And those are the types of questions Kurtz was asking
Ya have to ask other parties to know what they actually did and why..

Far too many questions about theories whys and wherefore....interesting to those listening maybe, but how can anyone recall specifically what
they "thought" at that moment in time...when all they understood was they were asked to followup something or someone....Investigations are just that..They are constantly moving, adapting to whatever new or additional information gathered..JMO and thoughts about claims of corruptness going on...

Kurtz is doing what all defense teams do..and they always bring into contention..LE did a BAD JOB and had an AGENDA.. Well..YEAH and their AGENDA is to find the perp....not create a perp out of thin air :twocents:

 

[NCEast]

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

Brad lawyered up quickly. Normally a person doesn't have a defense team until they are arrested. It was his right to refuse to talk with them, and he exercised his right after the first couple of days, even before he became a person of interest. Although I think he was a person of interest by nightfall on the 12th.

 

[Star12]

fftobed:

 

[Madeleine74]

LOL poor Star12 with the inoperable 'W' key on her keyboard.

So Star12, you're saying Brad did the more incriminating thing with that map...the thing no one wants to believe he really did?

 

[less0305]

Which lie is more extreme, CPD not fully understanding smartphone features or BC not knowing how to view call history on his blackberry?

Add to that the obvious lie of how his marriage was going fine when, in fact, NC contacted the realtor and BC had accessed that communication via stealing emails.

 

[FullDisclosure]

FD, is this also true? I read it on another site.

My understanding from people in the courtroom that day, that I have read on other sites, is that in those 41 seconds, he searched on 27518, zoomed in and scrolled around to a few areas, that the Jury only saw the images from Fielding Dr. not the other areas. That the images of Fielding Dr showed no drainage pond , no steets, just some graded areas. We don't the what areas he viewed first, or if Fielding Dr was first or last. We also don't know if he was already zoomed in when he was over Fielding Dr.

Danielle, in my notes I have nothing about Detective Chappell testifying that he zoomed and scrolled around to any other areas. I don't remember seeing the pond on the map (maybe it wasn't there at the time it was photographed) but it was definitely Fielding Dr. in its undeveloped state.
The testimony was as follows--not verbatim, but as close as I could get scribbling my notes:

State's Exhibit 630 published. Google images of what appear to be area of Fielding Dr. (put 4 images together like puzzle pieces) in power point presentation.

Zellinger- What compiles these images? How are they created in google maps?
Detective C- Only by zooming in.
Z- How did he zoom in?
Kurtz- Objection!
Gessner- Overruled
DC- There was no zoomed image in the initial cache. The map had to have been zoomed in. You couldn't even see where Nancy's body was located at first. The map had to be manipulated (moved over) and zoomed.

AC- Said that he tried to find an innocent explanation but could not. Said that his conclusion is the only way the content was the size and location achieved was by zooming in after physically moving the map over to Fielding Dr.

On cross, DC said that he Brad had to scroll and zoom, scroll and zoom, to get the image. That may be where people get the idea that he went to different areas. I don't know. It sure looked like he was looking for Fielding Drive to me in the demonstration. And if that's what happened, I think he had chosen the location prior to that day. I don't believe he could have found and decided on a dump site that quickly. MOO

 

[SleuthinNC]

Which lie is more extreme, CPD not fully understanding smartphone features or BC not knowing how to view call history on his blackberry?

CPD claiming to not understand smartphones after stating in their own search warrant they have both knowledge and experience with data on cellphones and have worked several cases involving such evidence. Hearing Kurtz specifically ask about email, video, text messages just as they are listed in the probable cause statement and hearing Det. Young claim he has no knowledge of these things.

To me this is more extreme.

 

[Palomine]

Thanks. This was during the actual recorded depositions I believe, right? [ Attorneys could consult with the judge during their questioning, etc ].

But ultimately, the subsequent hearing conducted by the custody judge I don't recall as being public record (where both sides presented their case for custody). Ultimately, the judge ruled (prior to arrest) in favor of the R's, and all along an assumption was that she (custody judge) may/must have had insight to *some* piece of compelling evidence that wasn't public record (yet).

Now that all the prosecution's cards are on the table (at least in theory), is it reasonable to assume that the judge somehow had insight to the google bit?
[ Or, did she make the pre-arrest custody decision based on even a subset of what the prosecution has presented? ]

its my understanding they all did depositions, Nancy's sister, her parents

 

[Madeleine74]

So, jA called non-emergency police number and told her story. Some point after that LEO was notified and told of the address. Do we know exactly what was told to LEO initially? Is it possible that JA's thoughts were not provided to the LEO responding to the scene?

The call was recorded! Then a 'CAP' report was typed up and put into the system that LE accesses to give them a quick summary of the sitch and the address. No where in that report did it state Nancy was murdered, or even dead, or that her husband did something to her. They went over the CAP report in court...in detail. Now people are trying to reword testimony and make stuff up. Why?

 

[jumpstreet]

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

IIRC, BC was never officially named a suspect or POI.

IIRC the issue with declaring someone officially as a suspect, or POI was that it would (or might) obligate the prosecution to share more info with the defense/defendant prior to any subsequent arrest. [ I'm a little fuzzy on it, and it's based on memory of what others on WS who seemed knowledgeable enough at the time were posting...]

Clearly LE was 'interested' in him from at least the time of discovery. Declaring him officially as such though would have supposedly 'tripped' something 'official' that LE didn't see the need to trip. [ again, just going off memory from some of the 2008 discussions... ]

"They're taking his kids, but LE isn't even officially stating they're interested in him..."

 

[Cheyenne130]

Brad lawyered up quickly. Normally a person doesn't have a defense team until they are arrested. It was his right to refuse to talk with them, and he exercised his right after the first couple of days, even before he became a person of interest. Although I think he was a person of interest by nightfall on the 12th.

Yes. My question is at what point do the police/DA have to share what they have with the defendant? I guess I answered my own question. Not until the person is declared a defendant.

 

[borndem]

I don't disagree, I just think it's sad that it's more accepted to point the finger from the very beginning, before seeing any evidence than the other way around.

Guess it's a societal thing.

BBM
I am not sure what you mean when you say, "from the very beginning" -- for some of us, the very beginning was 7-12-08, when the N&O reported that a Cary woman was missing. Most of these folks were local, of course, and some were WS'ers, and it piqued our interest. So some of these posters have been "in it" for nearly 3 years -- that's our very beginning -- so yes, by the time this trial began, we certainly did have opinions on BC's guilt or innocence.

Speaking for myself, my opinion was created bit by bit, little detail by little detail. We have followed the media accounts, etc., and we formed our opinions based on what we read, saw on TV, and discussed on this forum. So our opinions have been a long time coming, and I'm sure there are those who began this same journey in 2008, and feel that he is not guilty. But I just want to let some folks know that we did not decide his guilt during the last 30 days.