State v. Bradley Cooper 4-12-2011

[Tink56]

From the first time I read that statement I thought she was a jilted girlfriend getting back at him. There is no corroborating evidence, that we are aware of that he was going into her apartment after he moved out. He left her for NC. I really felt that this woman's statement didn't make much sense. Why did she stay with him, they weren't married, if he behaved as badly towards her as she now wants us to believe?

BBM--HUH??? According to Brad's former fiancee, she broke the engagement because Brad failed to support at the time of her grandfather's death, plus all the other times he acted without regard for her needs, etc.

It wasn't until later that Brad and Nancy met...

Brad's father mentions a time that Brad "broke up" with a girl and that was the only time his father saw him emotional. IIRC the dates correspond to this former fiancee's timeline. FWIW...

 

[Tink56]

Sometimes I think we go around and around and around the same questions in the same thread so much that it must just be the same poster with a new name...there is so much asking and answering of the same questions... Thank goodness for patient people!!! Because I surely would be in time out!

:banghead: :banghead: Ya' think? (ME TOO) :floorlaugh:

 

[Danielle59]

Are you thinking of "Gone in the Night?" Cindi and David Dowaliby?

Thank you, that's the one I was thinking of.

 

[Tink56]

Don't recall hearing NC screamed obscenities at BC only TWO incidents of BC using obscenities to NC. Both times at the preschool.

IIRC, Krista said that the disagreements were loud and involved profanity. IIRC...???? (I'm not really 100% on this one.)

 

[sunshine05]

And yet it was testified to that at one point before April '08 he even suggested Nancy take the children back to Canada and he never wanted to see either of the three of them again.

Whose testimony are you referring to? Because what I recall is DD stating that NC was to take the girls there (remember, BC bought her the $600 suit for her job interviews in Canada) and she also confirmed that he was looking for jobs in Canada with Cisco. There is no indication that he ever planned to be apart from his kids.

 

[lib's mom]

BBM--HUH??? According to Brad's former fiancee, she broke the engagement because Brad failed to support at the time of her grandfather's death, plus all the other times he acted without regard for her needs, etc.

It wasn't until later that Brad and Nancy met...

Brad's father mentions a time that Brad "broke up" with a girl and that was the only time his father saw him emotional. IIRC the dates correspond to this former fiancee's timeline. FWIW...

This is lady that, when questioned during the deposition, Brad gave the incorrect last name for, correct? And she contacted the DA's office when she heard that he "mis-remembered" her last last name. Come on. He did NOT want her found. No way he accidently got her last name wrong. He lived with her for how many years?

And when Brad's memory starts failing, I get interested.

 

[bloghooligan]

All those officers, investigators, detectives, experts, and grand jury panel weren't wrong.

Remember the Duke lacrosse case? All those you mention (and many more) were wrong in that case. Just sayin'

 

[Danielle59]

BBM--HUH??? According to Brad's former fiancee, she broke the engagement because Brad failed to support at the time of her grandfather's death, plus all the other times he acted without regard for her needs, etc.

It wasn't until later that Brad and Nancy met...

QUOTE]

I am not sure when he met Nancy, but in the 3rd point she says that BC and NC lived in the same apartment building after they broke up. I felt she sounded like a jilted lover.

 

[Danielle59]

Many say his actions on his cell phone that morning, going to the grocery and his other actions were odd. To me they seemed normal, I guess because I do many of the same things. I shop early, I check work email Saturday and Sunday mornings, and again at night. I don't wear shoes in my house, so often depending on which door I go out I also wear different shoes in short periods of time.

Bottom line, to make his activities suspicious that Saturday morning, I would have to know what he had done other Saturday mornings and see if there was a substantial difference.

I also want to make a comment about him not picking up her calls on Friday when she was calling. He was at work that day, he could have been in the lab, not had his phone with him, been in meetings, on confernce calls, etc. When she called at lunch he did take the call. Why do so many consider him not picking up her calls on Friday think it was nefarious? Personally, I don't like a lot of personal calls when I am at work unless it is something extremely important or to solidify plans.

 

[lib's mom]

I also want to make a comment about him not picking up her calls on Friday when she was calling. He was at work that day, he could have been in the lab, not had his phone with him, been in meetings, on confernce calls, etc. When she called at lunch he did take the call. Why do so many consider him not picking up her calls on Friday think it was nefarious? Personally, I don't like a lot of personal calls when I am at work unless it is something extremely important or to solidify plans.

Respectfully snipped by me:

Yes, I see what you're saying. And I tend to be the same way. Except Nancy was blowing up his phone that morning, before he got to work. At least one of the calls he received from Nancy, and ignored, was while he was at Lowe's before he went to work. I think there were at least two more before he went work that he never picked up, IIRC.

 

[Danielle59]

I am not sure why he was searching jobs in Canada, I wonder how often he did this?

The Air Canada item though has me wondering if he was looking at flight times for his mother or parents. Was he on the phone at the same time as he was on the computer, maybe talking to her? Why can't this be a reason for him being at that site?

 

[FullDisclosure]

Cooper's laptop was on and connected to the Cisco network until 5:09pm on July 15. That's when the laptop was seized and turned off. Whatever files were updated occurred before, or right at, that time. Once the power was off, no updates could be done to the laptop. A computer that is turned off completely does not receive and send info.

From Kurtz's cross:

Actually, the CSA log shows that the last login to BC's computer was at 6:00 pm on 7/15, which was AFTER BC left the house.

He also began to ask about the CSA log on 7/16 and then Zellinger objected. Sustained.

Then the questions went something like this:
Kurtz: If the CSA log indicates that a malicious package was detected, originating from the home network, would that indicate tampering?
Agent J: Not that alone. It would make me look deeper...
Kurtz: Would it matter if it happened frequently or ONLY ONCE?
Agent J: I would seek detail on the reason for the detection
Kurtz: (Continues to "ask questions" in effort to give info to the jury that got shot down with Zellinger's objection, IMO.)
Kurtz: When were you made aware that we alleged tampering?
Agent J: ? Months ago.
Kurtz: Did you then discuss w/LE how to evaluate?
Agent J: I'm sure I have discussed that.
Kurtz: Would CSA log have helped?
Agent J: Yes.
Kurtz: At any point were you told not to check?
Agent J: No.
Kurtz--then got Agent J to admit easy programs to get into computers, like "following a recipe on a box of brownies." Also got him to admit that it is simple to change times, "like students do to show they turned homework in on time."
Kurtz: From the files/cookies on the computer, it doesn't appear that BC ws cleaning files. Old files are on the computer. Is that correct?
Agent J: Yes, old files. Doesn't appear to be "cleaned."

 

[Danielle59]

Respectfully snipped by me:

Yes, I see what you're saying. And I tend to be the same way. Except Nancy was blowing up his phone that morning, before he got to work. At least one of the calls he received from Nancy, and ignored, was while he was at Lowe's before he went to work. I think there were at least two more before he went work that he never picked up, IIRC.

But, we only know those two days, maybe she called all the time, I am not bashing her, but we don't know a lot of things to make good decisions if something is odd or not. Maybe that morning he was in a rush to get to work, and if he answered she would want him to stop somewhere else. I just don't see that as odd. I know his work schedule was somewhat flexible, but who knows if he didn't have a meeting he had to go to but knew he had time to make that stop at Lowe's and nothing more. I also know I hate to take calls before I walk into the office after just arguing with someone, if we are to believe that is all they did.

Even my sister, if I call her during the day for something, the first words out of her mouth are, "aren't you working today?" Then we keep it very short. Maybe it is something our parents instilled in us, but when I am at work, I am there to work, not socialize or chat with family numerous times a day.

 

[ncsu95]

I am not sure why he was searching jobs in Canada, I wonder how often he did this?

The Air Canada item though has me wondering if he was looking at flight times for his mother or parents. Was he on the phone at the same time as he was on the computer, maybe talking to her? Why can't this be a reason for him being at that site?

That would make complete sense.

 

[Albert]

Many say his actions on his cell phone that morning, going to the grocery and his other actions were odd. To me they seemed normal, I guess because I do many of the same things. I shop early, I check work email Saturday and Sunday mornings, and again at night. I don't wear shoes in my house, so often depending on which door I go out I also wear different shoes in short periods of time.

Bottom line, to make his activities suspicious that Saturday morning, I would have to know what he had done other Saturday mornings and see if there was a substantial difference.

I also want to make a comment about him not picking up her calls on Friday when she was calling. He was at work that day, he could have been in the lab, not had his phone with him, been in meetings, on confernce calls, etc. When she called at lunch he did take the call. Why do so many consider him not picking up her calls on Friday think it was nefarious? Personally, I don't like a lot of personal calls when I am at work unless it is something extremely important or to solidify plans.

On the other hand...

During the 4am to 6:30am hour when BC and NC were juggling their child it seems that BC would have done these work related calls at that time. I mean, you are already up, you have free time, why not make the work related calls at that time? Instead we have a flurry of call activity between 6-7am and then nothing till later in the afternoon.

If the calls were work related, ie., he was working on a reported problem then I would expect that there would be an email trail. He would at least email the user indicating that he checked the systems and all seems to be working fine. Or, if he found things not working as expected we would have seen more computer activity showing him actually connecting to devices in the newtork, via ssh, telnet, remote desktop or https. But we don't see any of this activity. So this greatly discounts this cell activity as work related in my opinion.

BTW, if you don't like to be bother with personal calls at work unless it is an emergency or to solidify plans I wonder how you know the callers intent unless you answer the call?

 

[ncsu95]

On the other hand...

During the 4am to 6:30am hour when BC and NC were juggling their child it seems that BC would have done these work related calls at that time. I mean, you are already up, you have free time, why not make the work related calls at that time? Instead we have a flurry of call activity between 6-7am and then nothing till later in the afternoon.

If the calls were work related, ie., he was working on a reported problem then I would expect that there would be an email trail. He would at least email the user indicating that he checked the systems and all seems to be working fine. Or, if he found things not working as expected we would have seen more computer activity showing him actually connecting to devices in the newtork, via ssh, telnet, remote desktop or https. But we don't see any of this activity. So this greatly discounts this cell activity as work related in my opinion.

BTW, if you don't like to be bother with personal calls at work unless it is an emergency or to solidify plans I wonder how you know the callers intent unless you answer the call?

If it wasn't work related, then what is your explanation for them?

 

[Albert]

I am not sure why he was searching jobs in Canada, I wonder how often he did this?

The Air Canada item though has me wondering if he was looking at flight times for his mother or parents. Was he on the phone at the same time as he was on the computer, maybe talking to her? Why can't this be a reason for him being at that site?

We know he was not on the phone, at least with his cell phone, as the billing records have been entered into evidence. The TWC bill has well but I don't think we know the details of calls from the land line.

Personally, I would love to see the number of times that NC has called BC from the land line versus calling from her cell phone.

 

[Albert]

If it wasn't work related, then what is your explanation for them?

an illusion of work.

 

[Danielle59]

From Kurtz's cross:

Actually, the CSA log shows that the last login to BC's computer was at 6:00 pm on 7/15, which was AFTER BC left the house.

He also began to ask about the CSA log on 7/16 and then Zellinger objected. Sustained.

Then the questions went something like this:
Kurtz: If the CSA log indicates that a malicious package was detected, originating from the home network, would that indicate tampering?
Agent J: Not that alone. It would make me look deeper...
Kurtz: Would it matter if it happened frequently or ONLY ONCE?
Agent J: I would seek detail on the reason for the detection
Kurtz: (Continues to "ask questions" in effort to give info to the jury that got shot down with Zellinger's objection, IMO.)
Kurtz: When were you made aware that we alleged tampering?
Agent J: ? Months ago.
Kurtz: Did you then discuss w/LE how to evaluate?
Agent J: I'm sure I have discussed that.
Kurtz: Would CSA log have helped?
Agent J: Yes.
Kurtz: At any point were you told not to check?
Agent J: No.
Kurtz--then got Agent J to admit easy programs to get into computers, like "following a recipe on a box of brownies." Also got him to admit that it is simple to change times, "like students do to show they turned homework in on time."
Kurtz: From the files/cookies on the computer, it doesn't appear that BC ws cleaning files. Old files are on the computer. Is that correct?
Agent J: Yes, old files. Doesn't appear to be "cleaned."

That is really interesting, and when was it turned off? Did they mention what of those 600 or so files that had changes, or indications of being opened, what they were? If they were printed, etc?

 

[lib's mom]

Can I just say of all the cases I've followed this is by far the most frustrating. It's maddening. I hate it. And after all is said and done, I never want to hear the name "Cupper" again in my life. Ever. Not even if I marry David Cupperfield.