State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

[johnfear]

Came across to me as courtroom drama. I'll print this important photo but never go get it...just remember that it was important and I printed it.

That sounds about right to me. I think BZ is Dec 07 from UNCL, so I am guessing he spent most of 2008 and 2009 (spare time) mastering the art of being pleasantly deceitful with judges so he could do the chihualhua/pitbull cross breed thing on cross.

Methinks he's a dieharder that has a shot. I just wish he would stick to playing a little straighter. He'd go way farther.

 

[NCEast]

Yeah, I always wonder about that jury *thing* in this day and age.

Do the 12 people SERIOUSLY go home and actively block out ANY snippet of information about the case!?

From the most brutal honesty in my heart--I do not know if I could block it all out or not. Especially if I were a juror in a high profile case. And most especially a case like this where there has been no evidence to amount to anything and more confusion than anything else. I am afraid I would break the rules--as a means of helping myself get a better understanding.

 

[Tink56]

Actually, the defense attorneys in the Duke LAX case did exactly the same thing... asking to be present when CGM's (the false accuser) phone was analyzed because if it was done incorrectly, without care, all data could be lost.

Too bad BC didn't have an iphone with GPS tracking. Heck, we might be able to figure where he was the day Nancy disappeared. I'm sure it would know when he went to Fielding Drive...And, I understand these phones keep tracking even when tracking is off...

 

[johnfear]

BC's ad for a 2800 router with FXO port on Craigslist

I kept thinking that maybe there was seriously some harmless text that was in a phone bill (though I don't think they kept the texts printed out in 2008 at AT and T or Cingular) that said something like:

You're gonna kill me, but ***** needs some green juice. Thanks.

And they just couldn't figure out who it helped.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am a card-carrying cynic, but I think that it is possible to find 12 people who would have the discipline to adhere to the rules for 2 months. However, I don't think that there is much chance you are going to get so lucky as to find those 12 people in a random sampling of NC Driver's License owners in Wake County.

I told my husband that I would have to be dismissed from any jury. I would honestly tell the court that I would not be able to adhere to the order for even 24 hours, much less two months! :noooo:

 

[MoonFlwr]

I am a card-carrying cynic, but I think that it is possible to find 12 people who would have the discipline to adhere to the rules for 2 months. However, I don't think that there is much chance you are going to get so lucky as to find those 12 people in a random sampling of NC Driver's License owners in Wake County.

Yeah. You eloquently said what I was thinking!

 

[bloghooligan]

I guess what I'm trying to say is, in light of the phone being wiped, why aren't the provider records hauled out as a backup? The defense must know there's nothing there, yes? So the course they're choosing is to let CPD look like doofuses. Because if there WAS something there - like multiple calls to a boyfriend - they'd have them up on a billboard downtown somewhere.

They have the provider's billing records but that is not the same as having the phone or the call detail records -- both of which provide much more information than the billing records. For example the phone/sim has a contact list and the last 5 cell towers that the phone was in the range of and the call detail records provide information about which tower(s) (or which side of the tower were used during a wireless transaction - none of this is available in the billing records.

And... the CPD waited so long to analyze the phone and/or let anyone know it had been wiped that the IP had long since deleted the call detail records.

 

[MoonFlwr]

From the most brutal honesty in my heart--I do not know if I could block it all out or not. Especially if I were a juror in a high profile case. And most especially a case like this where there has been no evidence to amount to anything and more confusion than anything else. I am afraid I would break the rules--as a means of helping myself get a better understanding.

Thanks for the response, NCEast.

I always have that question in my head when I watch a trial and it is good to hear some feedback!

 

[RaleighNative]

Is anyone else on this forum losing sleep over or dreaming about this case? Please tell me it's not just me!

 

[NCEast]

Thanks for the response, NCEast.

I always have that question in my head when I watch a trial and it is good to hear some feedback!

I'm happy to know I'm in good company. I think about it all the time and know myself well enough to know that I probably would not be able to.

 

[bloghooligan]

It leaves a lot of wiggle room.

I disagree at least on one point -- the Rules of Professional Conduct -- Special Rules for Prosecutors is pretty clear on the point that a prosecutor is not "just" representing one side (e.g. a victim) in a case. They represent the public and should seek justice... whatever that might be.

 

[johnfear]

Is anyone else on this forum losing sleep over or dreaming about this case? Please tell me it's not just me!

Man, it has all kinds of crazy things going on with me. I can't seem to pull away from it. (I am also the guy that has to stop at EVERY car accident and help, fyi. If there is someone doing something they shouldn't and it's either obviously sketchy or pretty questionable, I stick my nose in it)

I seriously would be losing sleep if I had been pulled for a jury on a case like this.

 

[ncsu95]

So that's what the print out was??????

I actually think he was printing a picture to show the cell phone being tested had a cell signal. This was during the time that the witness was confused about using a test phone or NCs phone to re-enact the wiping of it. BZ asked him right before about the cell having a signal.

 

[otto]

The defense also did this numerous times with witnesses without any foundation to back up their assertions.

I kind of expect dirty tricks from defense lawyers as they're usually fighting an uphill battle. I expect better from the prosecution simply because they represent the people, and they are supposed to have all their ducks arranged neatly in a row from the outset. When the prosecution resorts to dirty tricks, it suggests the ducks are running wild in every direction - not a good sign.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm pretty sure by the time CPD notified HK that the phone was wiped, the provider had purged its data for that account.

They might purge it from their web system but they keep data archived for some period of time, over several years.

 

[NCEast]

You guys have been terrific tonight. So much fun.
I'll see you in the morning!

 

[MoonFlwr]

Is anyone else on this forum losing sleep over or dreaming about this case? Please tell me it's not just me!

lol! I have to LITERALLY lose sleep because trial happens from 11 pm to 6 am for me...so I am usually watching at 4 am!

 

[FullDisclosure]

Do we know for sure that one side or the other doesn't have the phone records?
I tell you, I'm old and tonight I'm tired. And so much of this information seems to be running together right now.

In the 141 page pdf document (motion to stay) that I can't figure out how to attach (help me out here someone, please!) if you look at p. 38-39 it talks about Nancy's cell phone records that they got and how they are missing info that BC's records contain. Not sure how helpful it is, but I found it interesting.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I disagree at least on one point -- the Rules of Professional Conduct -- Special Rules for Prosecutors is pretty clear on the point that a prosecutor is not "just" representing one side (e.g. a victim) in a case. They represent the public and should seek justice... whatever that might be.

Whereas the defense is not about justice but only about getting their client acquitted. MOO

 

[gracielee]

A very young daughter, thanks. And no. It's not all about the money (even in my eyes with that post) but it's also apparently not about the truth of what really happened for anyone in that court room other than maybe the jury.

If I (or my ex) were to be yanked from my daughter's life, I would want that person to pay. I would want justice. And sometimes, taking away what they find to be precious (i.e. MONEY) is justice.

I'm thinking Cheyenne was more referring to 'if some jerk killed your daughter.' Like Nancy Cooper. After all, Nancy cooper could be anyone's daughter. We have three adult daughters, and these cases really raise my husband's blood pressure. Every time there is another wife killer, my husband rants about DIVORCE. why do they have to kill them, why can't they simply get a divorce. I know he thinks of *his* girls, takes these cases very personally. I would think most father's of daughters would. Boyfriends/companions/husbands/exhusbands are the most likely to kill *our* daughters. :maddening: