State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[Danielle59]

There are hundreds of thousands of files on the hard drive.
People were focused on the Internet search history.
Not hard to believe. I'll be there is other evidence on the hard drive too, that will never be found.

They have been alleging that since he is a VOIP engineer and had all the Cisco gear, and ordered a router in Feb that uses an FXO card, and that he must of spoofed the call that they only looked at internet stuff in 2.5 years? Not being snarky, but I don't buy it.

 

[unc70]

To not allow Mr M. to testify because he wasn't "on the list" and then let Mr. F testify with new evidence is ridiculous. The judge has made more random bad rulings regarding technology through the entire case and this is just another example.

This better be good information or I think it will be the absolute nail in the prosecution coffin in the eyes of the jury.

Like I said before. Prove he made the calls. It shouldn't be hard in fact the way to prove it should be plain as day to the Cisco people. It is to me. But as of yet it has not been proven.

Why would BC have used such a complicated setup to fake a call when he could do it with fax or PC with a modem and not leave any trail anywhere for anyone?

 

[unc70]

I asked that, too...I'm really confused by this "new" but "not new so it's rebuttal" evidence.

"No, you are both right. It's a desert topping and a floor wax."

"Tastes good ..., and look at that shine."

 

[sunshine05]

Why would BC have used such a complicated setup to fake a call when he could do it with fax or PC with a modem and not leave any trail anywhere for anyone?

Would it still appear on the phone records as a normal call if he did that though?

 

[Amster]

News & Observer article:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/29/1164010/coopers-defense-rests-but-more.html




Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/04/29/1164010/coopers-defense-rests-but-more.html#ixzz1KwUyJ5MH

Very good decision by the judge!! Where is that router, Bradley??

:giggle:

 

[fran]

I would imagine BC is pretty upset that one of his own fellow Cisco employees is going to show how he had a router that he used the night of 7/11 and now it can't be found.

I mean, seriously,..... IF there is NOTHING to this missing router, why is the def team so bent on not allowing the testimony? Everyone already thinks the pros hasn't proven their case. What's one more piece of useless info, except to make the jury angrier at the pros for wasting their time? Right?

Seems someone is protesting too much.

This is an interesting development. Should make for a week of fireworks between this pros/def. Heck, we might even get a verdict within this next week as well.

JMHO
fran

 

[unc70]

gritguy, would you say this is a pretty rare occurrence for a judge to allow new evidence after both sides have rested? I have never heard of it happening before.

Maybe defense has time to get some Google witnesses together then and we can just keep going on and on with this trial.

OR is it only the state that can bring in new evidence?

I had thought the rest of us here were no longer at risk of having to read our postings under oath.

 

[fran]

They have been alleging that since he is a VOIP engineer and had all the Cisco gear, and ordered a router in Feb that uses an FXO card, and that he must of spoofed the call that they only looked at internet stuff in 2.5 years? Not being snarky, but I don't buy it.

I think the jury would be very interested to know IF there is a missing router that Bradley had at his home, as stated in the emails to his friend/coworker. Especially if the records show it was BC's computer that last accessed that said router, the very night before NC disappeared and was later found murdered.

I'd buy it.

JMHO
fran

 

[Danielle59]

I would imagine BC is pretty upset that one of his own fellow Cisco employees is going to show how he had a router that he used the night of 7/11 and now it can't be found.

I mean, seriously,..... IF there is NOTHING to this missing router, why is the def team so bent on not allowing the testimony? Everyone already thinks the pros hasn't proven their case. What's one more piece of useless info, except to make the jury angrier at the pros for wasting their time? Right?

Seems someone is protesting too much.

This is an interesting development. Should make for a week of fireworks between this pros/def. Heck, we might even get a verdict within this next week as well.

JMHO
fran

I think people are more upset because the Defense was not allowed to call their expert and the fact that BZ was confusing the Judge once again.

 

[otto]

I wonder if the jury will view this as a last desperate attempt by the prosecution to try to convict Brad. They had their chance, they made their case, the defense has put holes in the case, and now the prosecution wants another stab at it. Will they shake their heads and wonder why, or will they have an aha moment where suddenly all the discussion about electronics will click with this new testimony?

 

[Danielle59]

I think the jury would be very interested to know IF there is a missing router that Bradley had at his home, as stated in the emails to his friend/coworker. Especially if the records show it was BC's computer that last accessed that said router.

I'd buy it.

JMHO
fran

But the ping in question was from January, and we already knew he had a router shortly after that, he admitted it in the depo tape. We don't even know if he accessed this newly found router while it was at his home or if it was it in the office?

 

[gracielee]

Because there are trial rules that have to be followed. And there isn't a level playing field in this trial. The judge has consistently made rulings favoring the prosecution that don't seem right. And no matter how you spin it, this is brand new evidence. While it is great for seeking justice for Nancy Cooper (potentially...we'll have to see what the actual evidence is), it's not great for our judicial system.

Not being snarky in the least, I'm simply curious as to how many trials you have watched or listened to from opening statements to closing arguments? I can't recall when Court TV first came on the air, IIRC it was late '80's/early '90s?? Someone help me? One of the earliest cases I recall is the Michigan anchorwoman, I think her name was Diane something? Shot to death by her husband, in the driveway of their rural home, while her two children were in their carseats in the backseat of her car. And I recall the Native American guy who was drunk, Christmas Eve, driving the wrong way in the interstate, smashed into a car going in the right direction, killing a mother and her three young daughters, critically injuring the husband. That one was either in Arizona or N.M. I've been doing this for over 20 years, and I truly didn't see anything different going on in this trial than others I've watched. The Michael Peterson trial was kind of a wacky one, the Rae Carruth one was very defense biased IMO. Rae got off easy, he so hired those guys to kill Shrarika Adams was it, and his unborn child. MOO MOO MOO

 

[Amster]

I wonder who the experts were that the defense decided not to call? They were mentioned in court, today, and the defense got snippy about it being brought up. Whined about it, in fact. This was during the conversation about Fry being allowed to testify. Just wondering...

 

[Palomine]

The state has had it longer than defense and they are jsut bringing it up. The harddrive alone should not be able to be used as existing evidence, the material on it should have already been examined, this is new evidence. No two ways around that.

they are just going against what Jay Ward testified to, they represent the people and would be slackers if they didn't bring in witness that says different

 

[Palomine]

I wonder who the experts were that the defense decided not to call? They were mentioned in court, today, and the defense got snippy about it being brought up. Whined about it, in fact. This was during the conversation about Fry being allowed to testify. Just wondering...

not to quote the pros but they said the defense had forensic experts but did not call them because they wouldn't say what the defense wanted them to say

 

[WolfpackWoman]

not to quote the pros but they said the defense had forensic experts but did not call them because they wouldn't say what the defense wanted them to say

And I believe that won them an accusation of "unethical" from the defense, and agreement from the Judge that it crossed the line. Because Boz is an unethical liar, he has no knowledge of why witnesses were or were not called.

 

[FullDisclosure]

In last weekend's thread, I posted then that in another week the prosecution's case would be shredded. I think I deserve another glass of wine. FD what do you think of the Veronese?

I never met an Italian red that I didn't like.

 

[Danielle59]

they are just going against what Jay Ward testified to, they represent the people and would be slackers if they didn't bring in witness that says different

No, they are not, this is new evidence.

 

[Danielle59]

And I believe that won them an accusation of "unethical" from the defense, and agreement from the Judge that it crossed the line. Because Boz is an unethical liar, he has no knowledge of why witnesses were or were not called.

The Defense said it was funding, then the Judge said this was not the place to discuss it. It was extremely inappropriate for Boz to say. And, MAN does he have a scary profile.

 

[Amster]

Not being snarky in the least, I'm simply curious as to how many trials you have watched or listened to from opening statements to closing arguments? I can't recall when Court TV first came on the air, IIRC it was late '80's/early '90s?? Someone help me? One of the earliest cases I recall is the Michigan anchorwoman, I think her name was Diane something? Shot to death by her husband, in the driveway of their rural home, while her two children were in their carseats in the backseat of her car. And I recall the Native American guy who was drunk, Christmas Eve, driving the wrong way in the interstate, smashed into a car going in the right direction, killing a mother and her three young daughters, critically injuring the husband. That one was either in Arizona or N.M. I've been doing this for over 20 years, and I truly didn't see anything different going on in this trial than others I've watched. The Michael Peterson trial was kind of a wacky one, the Rae Carruth one was very defense biased IMO. Rae got off easy, he so hired those guys to kill Shrarika Adams was it, and his unborn child. MOO MOO MOO

Oh my! Soul sister! I think the 1st old CTV trial for me was Betty Broderick. Or, those 2 brothers in Ca. who killed their parents?? Soooo great how CTV did it back then. No commercials!! No talking heads except during breaks and lunch....and the cherry on top....replayed at night!! :woohoo:

I've seen the ones you mentioned and OJ and Robert Blake and Scott and Michael Peterson.....etc.,etc. And Westerfield...

This trial is NOT extraordinary. Defense ALWAYS claims rush to judgement and corrupt or sloppy police work..and SODDI or gal or an owl! :floorlaugh:

Way O/T...sorry :angel: