State v. Bradley Cooper 4-12-2011

[Palomine]

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense: Were there wildly erratic time stamps? FBI agent: Not that I noticed. Defense: From year 2300? FBI: Not that I recall.

 

[Palomine]

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Court breaks for lunch. Will return at 2:15 p.m. #coopertrial

 

[less0305]

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense: Were there wildly erratic time stamps? FBI agent: Not that I noticed. Defense: From year 2300? FBI: Not that I recall.

Can you say "grasping at straws"?

 

[gracielee]

I don't think you can use full names of any innocent witnesses (some have gotten yelled out because of spelling out HM's name, for example).

Thanks. All the witnesses are innocent though, right? If we say something like Diana D. testified to such and such,' is that banned? I'm just trying to understand, because I admit, my mind gets very confused at all the initials, especially in this trial. There are so many initials, and I'm not good with names to begin with. I still can't think of the name of the person, the sight witness, being discussed right now, but I have caught on to what the discussion is about anyway. As we age, it gets harder and harder to remember stuff. :banghead:

 

[cityslick]

Can you say "grasping at straws"?

He did say there were some erratic time stamps from July 9th on. Doesn't mean much though.

 

[Tipstaff]

I wonder if they would present that though. That throws the 'he killed her to run away with another girl theory' out.

Maybe not but was more thinking along the lines if BC ever expressed any parenting thoughts with or without NC in the picture. Was he expressing thoughts about having to travel to Canada to see his kids, had he ever given up on being a parent if they were all in Canada?

Did he ever express anything about life after NC be it a divorce, if she left, if he left....what HM knew if anything, what Miss France knew if anything.

 

[Palomine]

after watching what happened in McGuire trial..we all know what is off limits...mentioning Jurors...mentioning court reporters any who is not directly tied to trial would be defiantly off limits

 

[snowshuze]

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense: Were there wildly erratic time stamps? FBI agent: Not that I noticed. Defense: From year 2300? FBI: Not that I recall.


Well, there ya have it. Time traveling computer hacking killers in a van. Case closed.

 

[cityslick]

Thanks. All the witnesses are innocent though, right? If we say something like Diana D. testified to such and such,' is that banned? I'm just trying to understand, because I admit, my mind gets very confused at all the initials, especially in this trial. There are so many initials, and I'm not good with names to begin with. I still can't think of the name of the person, the sight witness, being discussed right now, but I have caught on to what the discussion is about anyway. As we age, it gets harder and harder to remember stuff. :banghead:

I think it's just safer to use initials. As for the lady you are referring to, I don't know her name either so I just refer to her as 'the eyewitness'.

 

[BrownRice]

Thanks. All the witnesses are innocent though, right? If we say something like Diana D. testified to such and such,' is that banned? I'm just trying to understand, because I admit, my mind gets very confused at all the initials, especially in this trial. There are so many initials, and I'm not good with names to begin with. I still can't think of the name of the person, the sight witness, being discussed right now, but I have caught on to what the discussion is about anyway. As we age, it gets harder and harder to remember stuff. :banghead:

The way I understand it, from the MANY posts from the moderators slapping our hands in this forum, is you are not allowed to address anybody other than the defendant in terms of sleuthing (i.e. can't give personal info about them - like the address someone posted recently with the house number and name of HM and someone posted something about the bug guy too but it was removed by the time I saw the post). You can't allude to any guilt by another person either (which is why other posters are so evasive about who they think did it - if not BC).

 

[CyberPro]

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
Defense: Were there wildly erratic time stamps? FBI agent: Not that I noticed. Defense: From year 2300? FBI: Not that I recall.

So, the defense takes the stance that someone is smart enough to either hack into the network and take over the computer, and/or the LE technical folks have tampered with the computer(s), but are NOT smart enough not to notice that they have set the dates to 289 YEARS in the future.... Humph, OK.

Or could it be that someone on the defense was looking at a 24 hour time stamp and did not understand it?

Not sure.... Maybe this is one of those time quandries, like going back in time and killing your grandfather. Maybe the computer is FROM the FUTURE!

Or not....

 

[cityslick]

Maybe not but was more thinking along the lines if BC ever expressed any parenting thoughts with or without NC in the picture. Was he expressing thoughts about having to travel to Canada to see his kids, had he ever given up on being a parent if they were all in Canada?

Did he ever express anything about life after NC be it a divorce, if she left, if he left....what HM knew if anything, what Miss France knew if anything.

Well they already disclosed an email where he said he was considering moving to France back in early 2007 and I'm pretty sure he didn't consult with NC for her thoughts on that subject.

I thought I did hear testimony that he actually was fine with traveling to Canada to see the kids until he found out everything else he'd be on the hook for.

 

[snowshuze]

Pssssssssst. I think the tweeter had a lil typo.


ETA: Or was it the hacker with a typo? lol

 

[BrownRice]

Well they already disclosed an email where he said he was considering moving to France back in early 2007 and I'm pretty sure he didn't consult with NC for her thoughts on that subject.

I thought I did hear testimony that he actually was fine with traveling to Canada to see the kids until he found out everything else he'd be on the hook for.

I interpreted the France relocation subject as just sweet talkin' to his mistress. I can't imagine he really was putting a lot of thought into it? He was a player.

 

[CyberPro]

He did say there were some erratic time stamps from July 9th on. Doesn't mean much though.

I don't think it means much either... but that is the best stance for the defense to take, because if it DOES mean something, it might be an indicator that "someone" tried to use a file wiping program and it did not work correctly....

Just sayin'

 

[Tipstaff]

Well they already disclosed an email where he said he was considering moving to France back in early 2007 and I'm pretty sure he didn't consult with NC for her thoughts on that subject.

I thought I did hear testimony that he actually was fine with traveling to Canada to see the kids until he found out everything else he'd be on the hook for.

Agree but was looking for an actual prosecution witness who could put these words in front of the jury (if they were actually said). Think this would be powerful testimony - if it did happen. If not an interesting avenue for the defense.

 

[BrownRice]

Or could it be that someone on the defense was looking at a 24 hour time stamp and did not understand it?

Good point. That has to be it.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I'm reminded of scott petersons parents, in court. IIRC, didn't they get pretty nasty to sharon rocha and ron (what was his name, step-father of Laci)?

Great recollection, gracie!

OH YES! A member or two of "Scott's clan" even came equipped with oxygen tanks;metal/rotating wheels on chairs into court (very dramatic) and, despite contrived (IMO) weaknesses - they lambasted anyone in their path!

LOL. Roll-on the good times! Geragos opted for a Mole's license shortly thereafter. Last seen going underground, I believe.

The Aging King, a.k.a. Larry tried to revive Verygross. That failed. The "legal voice of doubt". Not seen or heard of in years.....

Just goes to show!


On that note: where's "wudge" when you need him most, here? Working for Kurtz? LOL!

:floorlaugh:

 

[TigerBalm]

I can't go there right now to check it, or I'll lose my place here again. But I thought I read that we couldn't use the names of minors or use the names of others in a negative way?? But can we not even just use the names of witnesses, adult witnesses, to keep them straight in discussions? I get so confused as to what is and is not permissible when simply discussing. Not name calling or deroggatory remarks, just discussing. :banghead:

Sorry gracie, for some reason 'the rules' link doesn't send you to a new tab.

Just right click on the link and then left click "open link in a new tab" or "open link in a new window" if you prefer more then one window instead of having tabs.

HTH

 

[Wyn]

I think it's just safer to use initials. As for the lady you are referring to, I don't know her name either so I just refer to her as 'the eyewitness'.

Funny, in my mind I think of her as the "wannabe witness".

Yesterday around 4:45 I was driving through Lochmere and lo and behold, Nancy's twin was jogging on the sidewalk. Tall, thin, ball cap, brown pony tail. Face very similar shape. (red shorts/red print top)

I've always wondered if the wannabe witness has something in her background that makes them sure she's not reliable?