State vs Bradley Cooper 4-21-11

[cityslick]

i have wondered why the prosecution didn't call the google witness.....

I don't think this is going to happen, but let me throw a hypothetical out there.

If the Google witness can somehow provide conclusive testimony that search didn't happen when the prosecution says it did, can you convict him? Even if you still think he did it (because it that point you would know that someone set that part of it up)

Again, I don't think it's going to happen, but it's an interesting dilemma.

 

[CrimeAddict]

I am so far behind today. Who do you guys suggest I listen to tonight for testimony if I only have a couple hours?

 

[gracielee]

Just to clarify--you know Kurtz wasn't the custody attorney right? And you know Kurtz wasn't the one that met with her and showed her the pictures of the joggers, from which she picked out Nancy's picture, right?

I don't know which lawyer met with her at the custody hearing. But I do know Kurtz & partner were at the custody hearing. They can be heard on certain of the tapes. The custody lawyer was there along with the criminal defense team when Brad did the depostion videos.

 

[cityslick]

I am so far behind today. Who do you guys suggest I listen to tonight for testimony if I only have a couple hours?

RZ, CDittner, then FL guy. IMO

 

[dramamama]

Some phones do have the ability to remote wipe, but the ones I've seen I usually done through the carrier.

I think that has been in the last year or so that it is a standard feature for the carrier. There has been software that you can install on phones...I posted a link recently on this board. Will try to find it,,,,

 

[sunshine05]

I don't think this is going to happen, but let me throw a hypothetical out there.

If the Google witness can somehow provide conclusive testimony that search didn't happen when the prosecution says it did, can you convict him? Even if you still think he did it (because it that point you would know that someone set that part of it up)

Again, I don't think it's going to happen, but it's an interesting dilemma.

Cityslick, it already has happened. Google will just verify what JW pointed out yesterday in testimony. It is crystal clear to me. One thing I didn't mention here yet was how JW was asked about how long Google keeps the records. It's 9 months and to protect their users, after that 9 months the IP address is erased and anything that would identify the user BUT the file should still be there. I suspect it won't be found.

And read my other posts related to this over the past day and you will see why I believe Google will confirm everything that JW explained in court.

I've wondered about this too though. Does tampering proof = not guilty? To me it does without a doubt because that was the one piece that was the smoking gun. I suspect most of the posters here would say "guilty" even with proof of tampering.

 

[ncsu95]

6:40AM phone call from NC to BC (allegedly), BC returns, pours milk, get's more laundry started, is upstairs on laptop with little lady and hears NC leave to run @ 7? Then NC is 2 miles away within 10 mins looking like she just started her run? Amazing.

The RZ one is more believable. She would have been pretty much exactly where RZ said she saw her if she left her house at 7.

 

[unc70]

RZ, CDittner, then FL guy. IMO

I would include the ex-friend (Wells??) talking about NC affair in 2001.

 

[gracielee]

I agree, she did seem a bit "off" and her recollection of time bothered me too. But I think the main thing defense was trying to point out was that she was one of several people who believed they saw the missing woman and police didn't contact them for details until much later when their memories were faded. Plus they also had the "psychic wild goose chase on a golf course" to show that CPD was more concerned about this than speaking to real people. I think it probably was somewhat effective.

To me, she seemed almost a double for the elderly woman who kept insisting she saw Laci Peterson walking her dog the day she disappeared. She was interviewed by the cops and quite quickly found to be not credible also. but kept insisting they didn't listen to her. I'm guessing CPD quite quickly also picked up on the references to 'seeing her this morning', and the time and distance involved, along with the very *brief* glimpse. IIRC, didn't someone make reference to her having had a 'conversation with nancy?' Because I recall questioning as to whether Nancy Cooper had a distinct Canadian accent. Come to discover it was simply a 'Hi'. I'd hardly call that having a conversation with nancy.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The RZ one is more believable. She would have been pretty much exactly where RZ said she saw her if she left her house at 7.

It would have been if she hadn't said TWICE that after she saw the flyer she stated, "I just saw her this morning!".

 

[jrb0124]

If the Google witness can somehow provide conclusive testimony that search didn't happen when the prosecution says it did, can you convict him?

and/or, if the phone expert can demonstrate that there is no way any of them (jurors), much less a police detective, could erase the data on NC phone without knowing full well what you were doing - can you convict him?

 

[CrimeAddict]

It would have been if she hadn't said TWICE that after she saw the flyer she stated, "I just saw her this morning!".

I am listening now and I don't believe she has it together and can get it straight.. not reliable.

 

[Danielle59]

I think 2.5 years later RZ sound pretty credible.

 

[sunshine05]

The affair news was not new. In fact, KL testified to it weeks ago.

No, but the part about her using her friend as an alibi was new!

 

[dramamama]

I don't think this is going to happen, but let me throw a hypothetical out there.

If the Google witness can somehow provide conclusive testimony that search didn't happen when the prosecution says it did, can you convict him? Even if you still think he did it (because it that point you would know that someone set that part of it up)

Again, I don't think it's going to happen, but it's an interesting dilemma.

The subpoena to google is one of the biggies in following this case. It was when it was revealed that her mail was being forwarded to BC. After JW yesterday, I kept thinking, it doesn't make sense. Why didn't they call google? Don't you need a google account for Google Earth? Certainly they would have records, and at that point, I think they wouldn't have scrubbed anything regarding i.p. addresses. I am very interested to see what will come of that....The pros had to know whatever the info is, it would come to light, and it isn't wise to let the defense do that...this whole case is so strange. i am hoping when all is said and done, that a tell-all will be written and the FULL story will come out, to fill in the missing pieces/

 

[less0305]

It would have been if she hadn't said TWICE that after she saw the flyer she stated, "I just saw her this morning!".

And that "Oh, no. No jewelry." HC: "No jewelry, no earrings or anything?" RZ: "No, no earrings. Nothing."

 

[CrimeAddict]

I think 2.5 years later RZ sound pretty credible.

I think she thinks she saw her and that's all. She didn't know her, there are other women that jog around there it could have been. I still have to listen to cross on her I am not buying it.

 

[gracielee]

Following crime is not my thing. This is the first trial I have watched in entirety. I avidly read the paper and news reports daily.
An abusive relationship that ended in ultimate betrayal by ending life itself, depriving children of their Mom is what motivates my presence here. And, I'll admit, I may get snarky every now and then, but if I can stay within TOS, and still express my opinions, all's well in my world.....and I am meeting my own personal goals of supporting Nancy. I will not leave until this is done. It is my honor to be fully present for her.

I will admit, the trial I am far more interested in is the Michelle Young murder. I followed this one, the Cooper one, but it's the Jason Young trial I want to see. The murder of Nancy Cooper was bad, but the murder of Michelle Young was completely horrific. She was brutally beaten to death, pregnant, and left alone in the house with her 2 yr. old child. I would like to hook up the needle to Jason's arm myself. :maddening:

 

[jrb0124]

I think 2.5 years later RZ sound pretty credible.

Yes, she screwed up the days a few times in her testimony, probably because she was getting to far ahead of herself (I know a few people like that) - but anyone listening got what she was saying and understood her actual timeline. Its neither a long nor complicated.

 

[dramamama]

It would have been if she hadn't said TWICE that after she saw the flyer she stated, "I just saw her this morning!".

I think she said it more than twice. :waitasec: