State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[Maja]

I see where the diamond is. The link to the video and some photos I pulled from it. What do you think?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9515458/

 

[CyberPro]

I don't think Cisco. The cookie associated with the search had a watermark(?)on it. Kurtz indicated that a cookie can be traceable through the search engine companies so I wonder if it will come out. He specifically talked about the cookie being traceable TO the computer it originated FROM. And the witness confirmed it. There is something very strange about the files associated with the google map search.

Why are you thinking Cisco? I find it unlikely they would mess with (what was then) police evidence.

I don't know everything there is to know about computers, and I have not listened to the testimony, but I am a bit confused on the bolded stuff there.

1. If he was really talking about cookies in the normal sense of the word, they are usually placed by a website or third party website to keep track of visits and so forth. They are kind of temporary files, since the user can decide to refuse them or delete them. Some websites won't work correctly without cookies enabled.

2. Opening a cookie file with a text or hex editor will not reveal much about it. The file name will usually tell you where it came from.

3. Cookies can ostensibly only be read by the site that put it on the computer, but with some cookies, like tracking cookies, this might not be true.

4. I don't understand the "watermark" term as related to cookies, but it could be a specific byte signature in the file.

5. Remote access to a computer from another computer might leave log files and other traces, but as far as I know would not acutally leave a cookie file. If it did, I would not expect it to be stored in the same location as the usual internet cookies.

 

[ncsu95]

[/COLOR]

I understand that something strange went on with the computer. I just don't think LE was interested in doing much of anything which was my original point I guess. With all the screw ups they have had I just find it hard to believe they are computer savvy enough to plant a file.

She was talking abou the "FBI" prosecution witness. He said he didn't know why those files had invalid timestamps but didn't think the computer had been tampered with.

 

[NCEast]

I see where the diamond is. The link to the video and some photos I pulled from it. What do you think?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9515458/

I can easily see something shiny in the last picture, the largest one, that could be the diamond pendant.

 

[ncsu95]

I see where the diamond is. The link to the video and some photos I pulled from it. What do you think?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9515458/

No, I still don't see it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I see where the diamond is. The link to the video and some photos I pulled from it. What do you think?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9515458/

That actually looks like a paler spot on her skin from where the pendant would naturally hang, sort of like a pale band around a finger where a ring is usually worn. If it were the actual pendant the location of the lighter spot would actually be in different places in the different photos based on how her body is positioned.

 

[sunshine05]

[/COLOR]

I understand that something strange went on with the computer. I just don't think LE was interested in doing much of anything which was my original point I guess. With all the screw ups they have had I just find it hard to believe they are computer savvy enough to plant a file.

Yeah, a lot of things about this case have surprised me. I believe the truth will come out about this, if not during the trial, hopefully some day.

 

[ncsu95]

While the prosecution is provided the pieces of evidence the defense is expected to present at trial, the defense is NOT required to tell the prosecution their theory of the crime. They are required to give the prosecution the tape from Harris Teeter, among the thousands of other pieces of evidence. They aren't required to say 'we are going to use these few seconds here to dispute the existence of a necklace.'

That's fair. But what other reason (except for the black dress) could they have had for using that? Anyways, I guess we will see if the prosecution has a rebuttal witness for this.

 

[laces]

For a $2500 necklace, I would want to really see it. I see nothing in these photos....

 

[Danielle59]

I'm not saying that's the necklace, but if you notice, NC was leaning forward slightly in the HT photo so the necklace would have hung lower than the other picture showed.

I just watched it again, she doesn't appear to be leaning forward, she just seems closer to the camera which is at an angle.

 

[laces]

I just don't see what purpose can be served in antagonizing witnesses such as Mrs. Cooper and Mr. Hiller. They are doing the best they can....What is the purpose? Is there something about interrogation of witnesses that I don't understand?

 

[NCEast]

I just watched it again, she doesn't appear to be leaning forward, she just seems closer to the camera which is at an angle.

I went back and rewatched her entry into the store several times in an effort to see if anything caught my eye. Nothing did.

 

[johnfear]

I don't think Cisco. The cookie associated with the search had a watermark(?)on it. Kurtz indicated that a cookie can be traceable through the search engine companies so I wonder if it will come out. He specifically talked about the cookie being traceable TO the computer it originated FROM. And the witness confirmed it. There is something very strange about the files associated with the google map search.

Why are you thinking Cisco? I find it unlikely they would mess with (what was then) police evidence.

BBM, I think Cisco because they have an odd combination of a really talented investigative security staff who all happen to have a strong computer background and I have watched their nosiness before. I don't think they would tamper, but I think they would spoil, not realizing where LE meets Geek Squad. (No insults meant Cisco Folkage)

 

[NCEast]

BBM, I think Cisco because they have an odd combination of a really talented investigative security staff who all happen to have a strong computer background and I have watched their nosiness before. I don't think they would tamper, but I think they would spoil, not realizing where LE meets Geek Squad. (No insults meant Cisco Folkage)

That blasted blinking eye is creeping me out. Get your square running man back!!

 

[ncsu95]

That blasted blinking eye is creeping me out. Get your square running man back!!

When you are reading his posts, just hit the escape key and it will stop blinking.

 

[johnfear]

That blasted blinking eye is creeping me out. Get your square running man back!!

I will find something else. Someone stole the running man and they seemed to fit it more. Was trying to be fair but unique and prove that innocuous things can seem creepy!!!!!

 

[CyberPro]

I see where the diamond is. The link to the video and some photos I pulled from it. What do you think?

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9515458/

I did not find the video helpful to seeing the level of detail, although it is possible that I did see a glint from metal a bit below the left collarbone at one point. I watched the video at full screen, and did not see it.

In the stills, even without zooming, I can detect it in your images 2,3 & 4, but not in 1.

The file I posted, I would agree, is not high quality. Some have posited that it is a compression artifact. I hope so, they are less expensive than diamonds, and I can afford to get a compression artifact for my wife! :great:

I played with the image a good deal with the tools I have available. I do clearly see something there, and I don't think it is only a JPG artifact. The color is a bluish hue as opposed to the rest of the area, and I can see a chain line going from it. If you change the image to grayscale or turn it into a negative image, it is a bit easier to see.

All that being said, to me the case does not hinge on stories from friends, ducks, necklaces or any of my gut feelings.

I think the computer evidence is the lynchpin. I know it has been called into question, but I am still of the opinion that it is valid.

There is other stuff too, like the harried cleaning spree and so forth. I am leaning BDI, but still open to hear valid evidence.

 

[sunshine05]

BBM, I think Cisco because they have an odd combination of a really talented investigative security staff who all happen to have a strong computer background and I have watched their nosiness before. I don't think they would tamper, but I think they would spoil, not realizing where LE meets Geek Squad. (No insults meant Cisco Folkage)

I don't think so, based on the way the files appeared. Files were created and then deleted, which is different than just taking a look. I suppose it's possible it was them though, but not likely imo.

 

[johnfear]

That blasted blinking eye is creeping me out. Get your square running man back!!

Better?

 

[NCEast]

When you are reading his posts, just hit the escape key and it will stop blinking.

Thank you!!