State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[gritguy]

Bottom line, you don't know that he rode on Holly Springs Rd. Because you did it and would do it you assume he did also, but, you don't know. No one said anything about being sequestered in his home, but you still don't know if he rode there or rode somewhere else, you are making an assumption based on what you would do.

Right. I believe he did many times. I didn't see him do it. I believe he would have run on loch mere, but I didnt see that either.

Brad stated he didn't think Nancy would have run on holly springs due to no sidewalk. That's pretty reasonable even though he didn't see her do it, or not do it, on every time she went running.

I could be wrong in my belief.

 

[sunshine05]

Albert, I'd like your head to meet this wall. Become friends, you're going to know each other very well.:banghead:

It's a shame some of you get so upset you feel a need to bang your head against a wall. Really, maybe another hobby would be something to consider?

 

[dramamama]

And further, I have heard the Innocence Project quoted here. I am in full support of their mission, and just so we are clear, I wanted to post their top six reasons for fighting:

•Eyewitness Misidentification
•Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science

•False Confessions / Admissions

•Government Misconduct
•Informants or Snitches
•Bad Lawyering


So, is ther an eyewitness that the defense claims is incorrect?
Do they have a problem with the forensic science that claims in truth their faults, rather than impeach themselves in testimony to support a weak prosecution?
Do we have a false confession due to police badgering?
Do we have an informant who could benefit with a plea bargain and snitched on BC?
So we have bad lawyering?

There is only one item in my mind that could even involve someone from the Innocence Project. And can we please dedicate their efforts to cases that fit their main descriptions? Unless of course you want to concede he has had bad lawyering.....

 

[Albert]

That is how this trial has appeared from the beginning. We have a bunch of neighbors convinced that they know more about Brad and his family than Brad does. They decided he was guilty of murder by noon on the day she disappeared, and I agree that the neighbors guided police to the evidence that has been presented. It is believable that if the neighbors thought the police needed a little help that they would work together to help them along.

It must be time for all cary residents to move, obviously the police are not professional as they are mindless lemmings.

 

[less0305]

It's a shame some of you get so upset you feel a need to bang your head against a wall. Really, maybe another hobby would be something to consider?

Thank you for your kind advice and concern for my well being. I'll take that under advisement. Let me know when you need a little friendly advice.

 

[Tink56]

After watching this trial, do you really not think they were being evasive and purposely forgetful/borderline lying? (long sleeves versus short is a "typo")? They are not doing the citizens of Cary any favors with their obvious incompetence.

Seems to me that you need to add MOO to your post or provide extensive proof before you make a blanket statement about "obvious incompetence" and "being evasive and ...borderline lying" (whatever that is...),

IMO, the LE officers involved are testifying about something that happened over 2.5 years ago (almost 3). They may have forgotten "why" they did some things...they may have had overlappiing reasons for actions they took...etc. However, they were trying to establish timelines, motivation, relationships, all the while working with a husband who was not overly cooperative and his in-laws who were strongly suggesting that BC "did something" to their child/sister. It would be a precarious road for any individual...

My father was a judge (various levels...city, county, federal district, etc.). One of his biggest complaints about LE was when they cut corners and forced him into one. So, I'm not naive about the Blue Wall...but the testimony that I've heard, read, etc., IMO, does not rise to deliberate curtailment or encroachment on Brad's rights....

 

[Cheyenne130]

He is not a third rate hack and I don't want him getting NEAR my computer, EVER. However, I do think some of his pros fits were set-ups. I am betting Kurtz went over the real questions and Blum came in and tore him apart, ala Zellinger to get some reactions. Why? Because the detectives were so stoney, it made him seem real.

I knew of him beforehand and googled him after. I think the whole point of his (whatever that V word is where they prequalify you sans jury voir dire?) was to get Zellinger riled at the forensic part only to then have Kurtz focus on the network idea. (And this is something that the Cisco Security team and CPD could have easily done ala forensic preview/blackberry debacle, so it comes across nicely).

I am just excited that it wasn't a blow out for either side. I knew both sides were very talented coming in and it has been awesome to watch the meltdowns it has created. (The technology stuff really is going to be the thing to watch in the future, so that has me more captivated than the actual trial itself)

You're right and many here are captivated by the technolgy involved. I'm not sure the jury has the same level of interest in the tech side. I think 100% of the people here (O.K.....I exaggerated.) could come away with an idea of guilt or innocence and the jury could come up with a total opposite verdict.

I followed a trial recently (husband killed wife) where I was on the side of the defense. I did not feel that the state proved their case at all. The jury came back in record time with a guilty verdict. One reason given in post interviews was, "The dog barking in the background on the 911 call told us that he had killed her and that's why the dog was barking". Another reason given, "We just didn't feel that the defense proved his innocence". What we focus on as "trial junkies" and what juries focus on are two different things. MOO

 

[jrb0124]

iMO, his zeal is not for his client that he believes is innocent (what a joke).
He is playing for the cameras for much needed publicity for his firm.

I can't say I am surprised that this is your take on it. You seem to assess a negative and self-serving motive to anyone on the defense side of the aisle. You really should take a step back, and I mean this in the best possible way. The "us against them" mentality is never as clear cut as you think. There are no absolute white (to quote you) and black hats in anything.

Although I don't doubt that attorneys will play for the camera when they can, its not usually at the expense of the representation they provide.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Bottom line, you don't know that he rode on Holly Springs Rd. Because you did it and would do it you assume he did also, but, you don't know. No one said anything about being sequestered in his home, but you still don't know if he rode there or rode somewhere else, you are making an assumption based on what you would do.

I am a runner and enjoy running in the Lochmere / Cary Parkway / Regency area, but would never run along Holly Springs Road. There is no running area and no sidewalks. Let alone - cars fly up and down that road. I find it quite dangerous and rarely see anyone riding or running along Holly Springs Road. That is not saying that noone does, but I would find it very hard to avoid any sorts of dangerous situations (cars, traffic, etc) on that particular stretch

 

[Just the Fax]

It's a shame some of you get so upset you feel a need to bang your head against a wall. Really, maybe another hobby would be something to consider?

One of my hobbies (among many) is seeking justice for innocent murder victims and their families. I have a special interest in seeing husbands that kill their wives pay for their misdeed.

 

[Tink56]

And further, I have heard the Innocence Project quoted here. I am in full support of their mission, and just so we are clear, I wanted to post their top six reasons for fighting:

•Eyewitness Misidentification
•Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science

•False Confessions / Admissions

•Government Misconduct
•Informants or Snitches
•Bad Lawyering


So, is ther an eyewitness that the defense claims is incorrect?
Do they have a problem with the forensic science that claims in truth their faults, rather than impeach themselves in testimony to support a weak prosecution?
Do we have a false confession due to police badgering?
Do we have an informant who could benefit with a plea bargain and snitched on BC?
So we have bad lawyering?

There is only one item in my mind that could even involve someone from the Innocence Project. And can we please dedicate their efforts to cases that fit their main descriptions? Unless of course you want to concede he has had bad lawyering.....

Interesting...I have seen this list before. Obviously, two of the issues that Kurtz is trying to hone are the amendment violations and rush to judgement. I understand, the rush to judgement has been a reason for granting several appeals in recent history.

Are all the law schools in the Raleigh area affliated with the Innocence Project? I encountered difficulty when trying to access the local NC offices. I couldn't find their street address.

 

[Danielle59]

But less035, unlike the SBI from years ago, calling out CPD for dishonesty has absolutely no validity. Kurtz is the one that has hurt himself with LE and the DA's office. "Deals" for his clients may be harder to come by now.

So you admit that LE and the DA are underhanded and would deny someone a deal because they didn't like their attorney, thank you for admitting that they can be childish, easily influenced and that they play games with people's lives.

 

[unc70]

Unfortunately I was not able to catch JW testimony this afternoon, I will have to watch it later. But it is my understanding that JW showed how easy it is to hack into a WEP network to learn the network password. Did JW also show how easy it is to hack into computers connected to that same network? It is quite a different story on how to hack into a computer.

My guess is that the second short video by Ward will pick up with that. The first one was just to the point of looking around at the files on the hacked network.

The pros. probably did not realize that Ward would stop the video and comment at each command, explaining to the jury what was going on. Am expecting a strong objection before the second video is presented.

Try to catch the meat of his testimony, following all the CV stuff, starting just before the video of the screen while hacking the WEB. You need that before tomorrow am.

 

[sunshine05]

Seems to me that you need to add MOO to your post or provide extensive proof before you make a blanket statement about "obvious incompetence" and "being evasive and ...borderline lying" (whatever that is...),

IMO, the LE officers involved are testifying about something that happened over 2.5 years ago (almost 3). They may have forgotten "why" they did some things...they may have had overlappiing reasons for actions they took...etc. However, they were trying to establish timelines, motivation, relationships, all the while working with a husband who was not overly cooperative and his in-laws who were strongly suggesting that BC "did something" to their child/sister. It would be a precarious road for any individual...

My father was a judge (various levels...city, county, federal district, etc.). One of his biggest complaints about LE was when they cut corners and forced him into one. So, I'm not naive about the Blue Wall...but the testimony that I've heard, read, etc., IMO, does not rise to deliberate curtailment or encroachment on Brad's rights....

Did you watch the cross examinations of DD and Det. Young? Because if you did, you will see clearly what I am talking about.

 

[Just the Fax]

I can't say I am surprised that this is your take on it. You seem to assess a negative and self-serving motive to anyone on the defense side of the aisle. You really should take a step back, and I mean this in the best possible way. The "us against them" mentality is never as clear cut as you think. There are no absolute white (to quote you) and black hats in anything.

Although I don't doubt that attorneys will play for the camera when they can, its not usually at the expense of the representation they provide.

We are talking about this case, right?
Why would you say I would always assess a negative and self-serving motive to anyone on the defense side?
Just because i personally feel 100% that Cooper is guilty, doesn't mean I don't believe in fair justice for the wrongly accused.

 

[Danielle59]

The laptop was shown to be in a locked state, ctrl-alt-del and then password.

Were you there when the CPD secured the house? It was up and running when they got there, they testified to that, how do you know that someone did not move the mouse or change the screensaver setting so that it did not come back on which would cause the PW state to not engage? They could have then changed the password settings back before they turned it off 27 hours later.

 

[jrb0124]

It's a shame some of you get so upset you feel a need to bang your head against a wall. Really, maybe another hobby would be something to consider?

sunshine, I really am starting to worry about both the physical and mental toll following this trial can take on some folks so emotionally invested in it, especially if it ends in a NG.

 

[CyberPro]

All you computer experts out there - are 'we' crazy to be using wireless laptops etc?

No, Please keep using it... I enjoy seeing the pictures of your family....

:great:

Seriously, computer security is like any other security. You cannot keep someone out of something they are determined to get into, you can only make it harder and more costly.

If someone wants to break into your house, they will. You can make it hard, you can get alarms, strong doors, locks and dogs, but they will keep working it until they get it, IF they are determined. Same thing with computers.

WEP = Really insecure these days.
OPEN = OK, you are asking for it....
Public - I use them, but KNOW what you are attaching to, and don't access private information that is not on a secure website on a public WiFi.

WPA - Tough to crack, but can be done with enough time. What you have to ask yourself is what is the most important, secret thing that I have on my computer, and what would happen if it was on the front page of the newspaper tomorrow, and take security precautions accordingly.

You also want to ensure that your home network is secured, because even if you have nothing that you care about anyone else seeing, someone can use your Wireless Signal to launch attacks that can point back to you as the attacker. When the RIAA was filing rampant lawsuits about music downloads, I am pretty sure they caught some innocent folks in the wreckage by this happening.

 

[Just the Fax]

So you admit that LE and the DA are underhanded and would deny someone a deal because they didn't like their attorney, thank you for admitting that they can be childish, easily influenced and that they play games with people's lives.

Not childish and underhanded,,,,just human nature.
People tend to do special favors for those they like and respect.
I know I do.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I've got one. Based on your described demographics and your living in Lochmere, have you slept with HM? If not, you may be the only one.

(Peace. I'm kidding... Just trying to lighten the mood here.)

LOL. She did seem to be quite popular amonst the Lochmere crowd. In all honesty, though, I didn't know her. But, she does have quite the reputation.
Your post made me chuckle. Thanks. Needed that