State vs Bradley Cooper 4-21-11

[jmflu]

Did we determine that Cisco wiped Brad's phone? Because I can't believe he had no contacts and such little usage.

 

[ncsu95]

I am curious to know why you have continued to focus on this earring thing you call a lie. You haven't said anything about all the lies BC has told, you just continue to back him all the way, 100%, to the point of putting down a ton of other people's credibility and suspecting them of framing... or worse. I just want to know why you have this unfailing belief in this person very few like, many suspect, and who has lied about much more than a screw-back earring??

I don't think it has anything to do with HP personally...I think she is trying to show how all of Nancy's friends made a concerted effort to paint BC in the worst possible light and to make sure their stories were consistent. As irrelevant as it is in the grand scheme of this trial, it is odd that she went back and changed her affidavit specifically to mention the earrings. I see no purpose in this other than the mis-information that one of the earrings were missing.....which suggests that HP changed the affidavit to provide an explanation of why one would be missing. If it has been part of the original affidavit, it would seem less suspicious than going back and specifically adding that information.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Could Cary or other LE involved have had one of the cell phone data extractors. You just plug those into the phone connector and they suck all the data off without unlocking the phone or anything. These are currently hot items in the LE and forensics worlds.

They did. They attempted to use it after Det. Young had already wiped the phone.

 

[ncsu95]

I can always count on you to clear things up.

Just keeping it real. :crazy:

 

[ncsu95]

I'm not understanding why the prosecution would show something of no evidentiary value. I would expect if there was anything of evidentiary value that the defense would present that. They could connect to the contact info through the phone number associated with text or voice. Brad had the emails so they didn't need the phone for that. MOO

The prosecution should have shown her cell phone records (all calls and texts from the previous month or so) to be able to say that the Detective wiped the phone, which is regrettable, but here is what they would have found on the phone....nothing. And then could have driven home the point that if there were other contacts on the phone, she had absolutely no contact with them whatsoever in the previous x number of days. Does that make sense?

 

[unc70]

The phone records would still tell the story. Those were not wiped.

Did the Defense ever receive the complete AT&T records for NC's phone. In the Feb 16, 2011 doc, defense claims that many of the details on her phone records were blank (towers, etc) while they were provided for BC's phone.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The prosecution should have shown her cell phone records (all calls and texts from the previous month or so) to be able to say that the Detective wiped the phone, which is regrettable, but here is what they would have found on the phone....nothing. And then could have driven home the point that if there were other contacts on the phone, she had absolutely no contact with them whatsoever in the previous x number of days. Does that make sense?

That would seem to make sense but what if every call and text other than from known girlfriends was between her and Brad? What would that prove or disprove? The defense has the same records. Perhaps we will see them yet.

 

[unc70]

Did we determine that Cisco wiped Brad's phone? Because I can't believe he had no contacts and such little usage.

Yes. In testimony. Cisco decommissioned his phone and that deleted all the data being protected by their security software.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Did the Defense ever receive the complete AT&T records for NC's phone. In the Feb 16, 2011 doc, defense claims that many of the details on her phone records were blank (tours, etc) while they were provided for BC's phone.

That would be laughable if this case were not so sad. As the account owner, he had complete access online.

 

[unc70]

They did. They attempted to use it after Det. Young had already wiped the phone.

And they expect us to believe that C&B story!? No way they would not have plugged their stealth toy into it and sucked everything. Give me a break.

Can't believe I missed that little piece.

 

[unc70]

That would be laughable if this case were not so sad. As the account owner, he had complete access online.

He would not have access to things like which cell tower was being used. Remember them mapping his movements. They did not have that info on Feb 16, 2011.

 

[jmflu]

I don't think it has anything to do with HP personally...I think she is trying to show how all of Nancy's friends made a concerted effort to paint BC in the worst possible light and to make sure their stories were consistent. As irrelevant as it is in the grand scheme of this trial, it is odd that she went back and changed her affidavit specifically to mention the earrings. I see no purpose in this other than the mis-information that one of the earrings were missing.....which suggests that HP changed the affidavit to provide an explanation of why one would be missing. If it has been part of the original affidavit, it would seem less suspicious than going back and specifically adding that information.

Ok, can you tell me why BC's lies get a pass?

 

[Cheyenne130]

He would not have access to things like which cell tower was being used. Remember them mapping his movements. They did not have that info on Feb 16, 2011.

I need you to point me to the relevance here. You seem to have jumped to a whole different planet. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

Ok, can you tell me why BC's lies get a pass?

None. But lying does not equal murder. And again, I'm barely on the guilty side at the moment.

 

[jmflu]

None. But lying does not equal murder. And again, I'm barely on the guilty side at the moment.

And lying does not equal conspiracy. But we draw our own conclusions.

 

[Maja]

She talked about that today during her testimony.

Thought I heard the pros ask if there were any hispanic females in the lineup pics. RZ responded with "no" . Her non-verbs suggested she thpught the ? was rediculous.

 

[Cheyenne130]

None. But lying does not equal murder. And again, I'm barely on the guilty side at the moment.

Lying does not equal innocence either. Lying does not look good for a man who is in a divorce situation and his wife disappears while he has no alibi and she ends up dead during a time that fits with him killing her. Truth would have been much more helpful to his defense. MOO

 

[jmflu]

Lying does not equal innocence either. Lying does not look good for a man who is in a divorce situation and his wife disappears while he has no alibi and she ends up dead during a time that fits with him killing her. Truth would have been much more helpful to his defense. MOO

And the reason for lying? To cover up the truth.

 

[gracielee]

I am curious to know why you have continued to focus on this earring thing you call a lie. You haven't said anything about all the lies BC has told, you just continue to back him all the way, 100%, to the point of putting down a ton of other people's credibility and suspecting them of framing... or worse. I just want to know why you have this unfailing belief in this person very few like, many suspect, and who has lied about much more than a screw-back earring??

I don't get it either. First it was McDreamy and the phone. Yes, he fricked up. We all agree on that. Over & over & over. It was a major screw up, one I would guess he will NEVER make again. so when all is said and done, what do you want, we take him out back and shoot him? And now it's the screw back earring. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if it's a screw back or not? I mean, does it mean the van driving crew threw nancy back because her earring didn't have a screw back on it? Is that why they left the earrings behind, because they only had push backs on 'em? I saw we line HP up right beside McDreamy to face the firing squad. Brad Cooper invaded the privacy of nancy in every way possible. Lied to her for four years about not screwing HM, telling her *she* was crazy and mean for not believing him, yadda yadda yadda, but when all is said and done HP lied about the screw back. go figure And I won't even mention the reading of each and every private email of Nancy's. I still find that to be totally and completely repugnant. That's like reading your daughters diary IMO. Can we all say 'respect'?

 

[gracielee]

None. But lying does not equal murder. And again, I'm barely on the guilty side at the moment.

We have more than simply lying here. We have cheating, major MAJOR control issues, anger, resentment, hatred. We have two people who absolutely hated each other by july 2008. We have a woman who called her realtor and said 'I need to find someplace to live NOW.' And two days later she was dead. We have family, friends, neighbors, new acquaintances, all worried about her safety and welfare. think about it this way, if I disappeared tomorrow morning, or if your wife disappeared tomorrow morning, would everyone around her think of you immediately? No one would ever think my husband did anything to me. No one, not our family, not my friends, not our neighbors. Like I said, it reminds me of Nicole Brown Simpson's sister Denise hearing of her murder and saying the SOB finally did it.