The "spoofed phone call" theory is now officially dead in the water.

ahahah DESTROYED.

...and now the ADA is asking about what kind of routers Brad had at 2AM. Ridiculous.

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 4:34 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2011 4:33:11 PM

Wow... Talk about reaching here. "Is that 3 button operable?"

4/6/2011 4:36:13 PM

Jesusfuckingchrist. Really. Checking your voice mail 4 times in 16 minutes is suspicious???

4/6/2011 4:39:59 PM

How is that any different from hitting refresh on your e-mail?

And chances are, the ATT calls dropped.

4/6/2011 4:40:44 PM

The fucking judge is biased as fucking shit




jesus goddamned christ

4/6/2011 4:42:26 PM

Is he really QUESTIONING this witness himself??

4/6/2011 4:42:40 PM

damnit i'm afraid that the jury is going to be confused about this. the prosecution is trying to say that he could have faked the call form his house to his cell phone and the defense is trying to say that he could not. they just need to ask this guy on the stand point blank, with the equipment foound at the coops house, could he have fabricated the phone call.

4/6/2011 4:45:59 PM

"Judge, your questioning of the witness was completely inappropriate."

"....I'll allow it."

4/6/2011 4:46:00 PM

ohh so they are insinuating with what the divorce atty was talking about brad listening in on phone calls... they are reaching

4/6/2011 4:46:25 PM

Quote :

"they just need to ask this guy on the stand point blank, with the equipment foound at the coops house, could he have fabricated the phone call."

They did. He said no.

ADA then followed up with "You don't know if he stole equipment and threw it away do you?"

"Uh--no, I have no idea about that."

4/6/2011 4:47:01 PM

Quote :

"IN MY DISCRETION"

Quote :

"I'LL ALLOW IT"

4/6/2011 4:47:06 PM

Another day... another pwnage of the ADA.

4/6/2011 4:47:40 PM

This ADA will be lucky to try people for speeding tickets after this, i think



"could you define '4 over' for us please?"

[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 4:48 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2011 4:48:18 PM

I actually know the judge.

4/6/2011 4:48:52 PM

If the prosecution is inept. You must acquit.

4/6/2011 4:48:55 PM

ahahahaha. the ADA is Boz Zellinger. I went to high school with him.

4/6/2011 4:50:33 PM

Let's see what sort of spin WRAL puts on the testimony today



"Could he have spoofed these phonecalls without this equipment?"

"No"


+>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRAL Translator:

"Cooper stole Cisco equipment, spoofed phone calls, disposed of equipment"

4/6/2011 4:51:29 PM

I'll allow it.

4/6/2011 4:52:01 PM

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/profile.php?id=2714070

ADA Boz Zellinger is kinda cute






[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 4:52 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2011 4:52:17 PM

The judges last question was quite succinct and clear in favor of the defense. The prosecution basically asked if the shit did anything w/o an fxo. Expert implied it couldn't do anything. Judge asked to clarify if it was like a car without a steeringwheel? "well, no, you can still do stuff"

He saved the defenses ass. Because if I didn't understand the functionality, the last question on redirect would have left me thinking the fxo was needed to use it....

4/6/2011 4:52:43 PM

His mom was the ballet teacher.

4/6/2011 4:52:52 PM

He's dismissed a few of my traffic tickets before. He can fly with those ears.

4/6/2011 4:54:12 PM

yep. I saw the name and thought "The kid with the big ears? No way!"

4/6/2011 4:55:13 PM

^^omg that's why he looks familiar, I think he helped me once with my ticket!!





[Edited on April 6, 2011 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2011 4:55:39 PM

Quote :

"They did. He said no. ADA then followed up with "You don't know if he stole equipment and threw it away do you?" "Uh--no, I have no idea about that.""

awesome!

4/6/2011 4:57:07 PM

Quote :

"The judges last question was quite succinct and clear in favor of the defense. The prosecution basically asked if the shit did anything w/o an fxo. Expert implied it couldn't do anything. Judge asked to clarify if it was like a car without a steeringwheel? "well, no, you can still do stuff" He saved the defenses ass. Because if I didn't understand the functionality, the last question on redirect would have left me thinking the fxo was needed to use it...."

exactly


the judge came back in and threw shade on the real issue - the items in Cooper's possession could not have been used in that manner at all - no quibbling, no possibility of misinterpretation.


Him asking if it was "completely useless" and being answered "no" distracts and is irrelevant.




IE:


"Can I use this spoon to carve this turkey?"

No.

"So the spoon is completely useless?"

Well, not exactly. You can use the spoon for other things.

4/6/2011 4:59:26 PM

I took it differently....

The prosecution implied that without an fxo, there was no point to having that stuff... which leads to "he must have had an fxo to use it, he must have tossed it!"

The judge clarified it, pointing out that he could still do stuff with it, without an fxo, and that it didn't imply that he had one at me at some point...

4/6/2011 5:06:14 PM

ahhhh



perhaps that was the case, I did not catch the last part of the prosecution's bumbling

4/6/2011 5:07:38 PM

I think it was improper for the judge to question like that, but ultimately i think he caught that the prosecutions witness didn't challenge what the prosecution implied via omission. I dont think the defense caught it either.

Its possible that I misheard, but it was a neccesary summation, imo.

4/6/2011 5:15:31 PM

definitely understood it as puck_it did.

4/6/2011 5:42:20 PM

Ready for action today.

4/7/2011 8:39:02 AM

whoot whooot

4/7/2011 8:44:54 AM

Quote :

"The proposal, described by Stubbs as "aggressive" and a first draft that she expected to change, would have required Brad Cooper, the sole wage-earner in the family, to pay $2,100 a month for child support. He also would be responsible for paying all costs for the Cooper girls to get a private education from kindergarten through high school, and to include Nancy Cooper as the beneficiary of his life insurance as long as she was alive. "

seems a little one sided, if she was moving back to canada she could get a job

4/7/2011 9:09:03 AM

His kids should have been the beneficiary, not her.

4/7/2011 9:11:56 AM

All divorces are one sided

4/7/2011 9:12:09 AM

Not true but I'm sure the majority are.

4/7/2011 9:17:34 AM

o we back (late)

4/7/2011 9:42:03 AM

What's going down? The judge looks none too pleased.

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 9:43:57 AM

Judge is about to do a lot of work Of course he doesn't look happy

4/7/2011 9:46:20 AM

I guess there a motion from the defense to remove some hearsay and irrelevant stuff from a 300 page deposition and the judge needs to know if he has to read through it or not.

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 9:47 AM. Reason : -]

4/7/2011 9:47:34 AM

what are they talking about...using all of what?

4/7/2011 9:48:39 AM

transcript of the deposition

4/7/2011 9:49:32 AM

Defense: Entire deposition would be a waste of the jury's time.
Judge: We do not even need to begin discussing that.

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 9:49 AM. Reason : lol]

4/7/2011 9:49:35 AM

300 page transcript of a video taped deposition.

4/7/2011 9:49:53 AM

I have been a real estate agent for for 9 years and I deal with people in the middle of divorces all the time. Sometimes the divorcing couples act even more logically and harmoniously than married ones.

It boils down to if their goal is

a) to separate and move on with life

or

b) to ruin the other person financially and emotionally

Based on what has been displayed here Nancy Cooper was a "b" she not only wanted out of the marriage but wanted to make the divorce as venomous as possible. That tells me that her husband might have been justified to be a dick, that does not mean he is a murderer. It just means he was in a nasty divorce and acting the way people do in nasty divorces.

Brad Cooper has motive to kill her but that is all they have proven, just because there was a motive to do something does not mean you did it.

4/7/2011 9:55:37 AM

I thought you needed the loot, the warrant, and the crook?

4/7/2011 9:58:03 AM

boring

4/7/2011 10:00:11 AM

I'm surprised he didn't ask him what they had for dinner

53

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 10:03 AM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 10:03:00 AM

"can you tell me what you mean by contractor?"

4/7/2011 10:03:45 AM

"He took a call at lunch. Murderer!"

4/7/2011 10:06:00 AM