State v Bradley Cooper - 3/25/11

[Cheyenne130]

Brad's. Wasn't he supposed to be sleeping?:waitasec:

According to what he told the detectives.

 

[Just the Fax]

Brad's. Wasn't he supposed to be sleeping?:waitasec:

You sure it was Brad's?
I thought he mapped out time and location of Nancy's?

 

[borndem]

I have listened to all the testimony, and I've read all the posts. I'm intrigued by all the phone record discussion, too.

After the day ended, I was mulling over what had been said, and I remembered Zellinger quizzing the ATT expert regarding cell towers and discussing calls from July 11. They went through the list of each call and identified them on the map of the towers, until they got to a call made at 11:32 pm on July 11, and when Zellinger asked which tower it hit, there was some confusion, followed by Zellinger saying, "We'll just skip that call for now."

Think about it. The call was made at 11:32 on July 11. According to the prosecution's original theory (or at least the direction they were going) Brad killed Nancy right when she got home shortly after midnight. They know who was called and what tower was involved. I wonder if it's significant at all. :waitasec:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=6255779 Just after the 1:15 mark.

Hmmmmm. Good one.... and just what IS the big deal about 7/11 calls??

Good point, FD. I hope we'll hear a little more about that biznezz. huh?

:waitasec:

 

[Maja]

No. I would go out of my mind! I talk to my husband about this stuff (and he politely pretends to be listening.) Sometimes I just need to share! I can't imagine being on the jury and being able to say nothing!

My hubby was pretending until I said, "There are 10 women and 4 men on the jury. Believe 8 of the 10 women were selected from battered women's shelters." All ears now

 

[FullDisclosure]

You sure it was Brad's?
I thought he mapped out time and location of Nancy's?

He mapped Nancy's right after the morning break. (It's at the beginning of day 12 part 2). He mapped Brad's right before the break which is when we were all cross-eyed and dizzy from all the tedious (but probably important) testimony leading up to it. I've gone back to double check, and I'm pretty sure I've got this right that it was Brad's phone.

 

[borndem]

fftobed: Good Night, all you Good Sleuthers. A big day. And the Fat Lady is not even in the Concert Hall yet.

 

[Just the Fax]

He mapped Nancy's right after the morning break. (It's at the beginning of day 12 part 2). He mapped Brad's right before the break which is when we were all cross-eyed and dizzy from all the tedious (but probably important) testimony leading up to it. I've gone back to double check, and I'm pretty sure I've got this right that it was Brad's phone.

Ok, later part 2 he talked about Nancy's...seems she made her last call Friday at 9:50PM.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Ok, later part 2 he talked about Nancy's...seems she made her last call Friday at 9:50PM.

Yep.

G'night, all you super-sleuthers!
fftobed:

 

[jilly]

The murderer always misses something though, don't they? In cases like this, they always find evidence. I can't believe they ignored the shop vac after learning how clean the trunk was. Does that make any sense?

No it doesn't. I have a shop vac and that thing will suck anything up. My husband used to go over all our furniture prior to Christmas and it got every single cat hair.

Thing about those things though is that they can be washed out and since Brad was on a cleaning frenzy, I'm sure he would have done that.

 

[BrownRice]

Ok, later part 2 he talked about Nancy's...seems she made her last call Friday at 9:50PM.

I haven't listened to part 2 yet - will later today/tonight. Did it say who she was calling?

 

[BrownRice]

To those of you who think he may be convicted on the phones if the state can show he may have been able to forward the calls (but just can't prove he did). That scares the heck out of me. There's 100 other scenarios that may have happened as well, but no proof. (i.e. picked up by a "white van" while running, mugged and then murdered, killed by one of BC's trysts in jealousy, etc.). And I'm not on the BC bandwagon either - I'm just looking for fair justice.

 

[jmflu]

For those who were confused about JA and the jurors, the article I just read says that JA sent an email to Cummings and left a voice mail for Amy Fitzhugh alerting them to the fact that one of the jurors had been speaking about the trial in public. (Judge said he also got an email.) The juror must have been pro-Brad, because the defense said the talk was vague and he didn't want any jurors taken to task for it for fear it would " chill or intimidate the jurors" in a violation of his client's rights.

 

[carolinalady]

O/T b/c I know that NC's running partner testified to the shoes NC wore on her runs. But, I know there is a barefoot running movement and when I was shoe shopping for the kids, I saw something like these in the store that are said to mimic barefoot running...

Just seeing them made me think of this case.

 

[ncsu95]

O/T b/c I know that NC's running partner testified to the shoes NC wore on her runs. But, I know there is a barefoot running movement and when I was shoe shopping for the kids, I saw something like these in the store that are said to mimic barefoot running...

Just seeing them made me think of this case.

Those are Vibram Five Finger shoes. I actually have 2 pair of them. I tried running in them but didn't like them, so I wear them around the house. They also make great pool and lake shoes (that's what I bought the second pair).

 

[water_dancing]

Trying to say that the 6:05 call was from the home phone to locate the cell phone makes no sense unless he wants us to believe that Brad talked to himself for 23 seconds once he located his phone.

I disagree. I think the following situation makes complete sense.

BC brought the girls home from the party and stated he slept in the room with them. In which case,he probably would have taken the phone out of his pocket.

In the morning, he is trying to find the phone,can't find it so uses the landline to locate it. Meanwhile, NC is upstairs in the girl's room, either tending to KC or getting clothes for her when the cell rings. SHE immediately answers it so it doesn't wake Bella. She then gives him a piece of her mind as she walks downstairs to give him the phone. That would be ~ 23 seconds. This could also explain how Bella stated she saw her mom that morning when she was suppose to be asleep. It is possible NC didn't even realize the phone woke her up. There would have been a bit of sunlight at that time so, to her, "morning".

As for the number of other calls, I want to see what the context of it was. Was this usual given that VOIP was area of specialty? Was he working against a deadline for work? I have several friends and family that work in various areas of computer/cell technology(not for Cisco or VOIP). Given that experience, it doesn't strike me as too strange if he was testing something even at that hour. He may have complete something early as NC told him he had the girls for the weekend.

I think he may have done it but am underwhelmed with the evidence. Still :fence:

 

[cityslick]

Good Morning.

Couple of thoughts on what has been discussed:

As far as the bottle at 4am story, I can't dismiss that as being untrue. As someone who also has young children, I can relate to trying to soothe a child until finally giving up and giving them something else. It is a little suspect that it took two hours but not out of the realm of possibility that something like that would occur.

As for her even being on a bottle at 2, again it's not out of the realm of possibility, especially when I can go to the mall right now and see folks pushing 3 year olds in a stroller with a pacifier in their mouth. I agree that you shouldn't have a 2 year old still on a bottle in a normal situation, but I think we can all agree that living enviroment wasn't a 'normal' situation (for the kids or the parents).

I like the idea of checking previous saturdays to see what his pattern was of checking vm's in the morning. I don't know if it would prove/disprove anything though.

I'm having a feeling that this stuff about the phones is going to get cancelled (or at least largely nullified) when the defense brings up their expert and explains how something can only have a seizure time of 1 second. The guy was already shaking his head when the AT&T guy was illustrating how the towers work for the jury.

My thoughts so far (only working on 1 coffee).

 

[Just the Fax]

To those of you who think he may be convicted on the phones if the state can show he may have been able to forward the calls (but just can't prove he did). That scares the heck out of me. There's 100 other scenarios that may have happened as well, but no proof. (i.e. picked up by a "white van" while running, mugged and then murdered, killed by one of BC's trysts in jealousy, etc.). And I'm not on the BC bandwagon either - I'm just looking for fair justice.

I'm looking for fair justice too. I don't think anyone here has said the state has near enough YET to get a conviction. We may have heard just 1/2 of their case so far. I truly think they are saving their "proof" for last. if they do in fact present the goods, I was just saying the jury can then consider the 6:40 call as likely bogus, as long as the state can show he likely rigged it. Comes down to a simple case of weighing the evidence and deciding what is credible and what is not.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Regarding the defense claim that someone must have hacked into BC's home network and left incriminating evidence on his (work?) computer here's why that is simply not possible:

1. As a Cisco employee who works from home, Brad would be required to use proper security protocols, which includes using a protected network.

2. To access anything within the Cisco network from home, Brad would be going through yet another secure layer (called 'VPN'). This stands for 'virtual private network.' It's the standard used by companies to make sure everyone accessing the company network from outside the company is authorized and the connection is secure and protected.

3. Even if Brad did not get onto the Cisco servers at work early on 7/12 and only used his regular Internet connection at home, his Cisco laptop would have all kinds of special security software on it to make sure only an authorized user could get to it. It would require knowing a password to log on. My company uses a similar approach.

Therefore, if the prosecution can put someone on the stand to verify that Cisco employees are required to use secure wireless networks and confirm that there is special security software on all Cisco laptops, the defense will not be able to reasonably claim that someone hacked into Brad's computer. It simply did NOT happen.

Note: Brad said he was working in his office...this is the location he puts himself as he's 'bouncing around on the Internet, searching Google.' That means he was not using the Apple laptop downstairs.

 

[Just the Fax]

One more point on the "likely" rigged the call.
How many murders are set up with a staged breakin or sexual assault? Many times there is zero proof the suspect actually was involved in such a coverup. However, if the state's case is strong enough, the jury will dismiss what appears to be another scenerio in favor of convicting the suspect....as long as the other evidence shows he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course the state much suggest it was rigged / setup and show the jury he had the means and opportunity to do such a thing

 

[Cheyenne130]

In order to get a complete picture of the phone evidence, we still need to see records for the landline. Right now we only know when the landline called his phone.