LOL

4/7/2011 12:17:52 PM

Quote :

"at least the prosecution is following a semi-coherent train of logic/timeline with the father..."

because they got a competent DA on the case today


they had to have realized after bombing yesterday and having the fucking judge save their ass that if they wanted to save any face and potentially win the case, they had to get a more experienced DA running the show

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 12:20 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 12:18:45 PM

so what is the logic?

4/7/2011 12:19:09 PM

this trial is slow and stupid

NOTHING LIKE TV DRAMAS WHAT THE HELL

4/7/2011 12:19:10 PM

^ too much artificial light, not enough big tall windows

4/7/2011 12:22:38 PM

Quote :

"$10,000 CANADIAN ART"

4/7/2011 12:23:27 PM

^^also substantially less dramatic music.

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 12:23:27 PM

They commissioned a painting for his graduation. I guess I'll never relate to high society.

4/7/2011 12:24:35 PM

Did Brad kill her with this painting?

4/7/2011 12:25:16 PM

no, the painting contains several secret, subtle clues to the identity of the true killer

4/7/2011 12:25:58 PM

Quote :

"They commissioned a painting for his graduation. I guess I'll never relate to high society."

I hope you dont think the Cooper's lifestyle is anything more than middle class society.

4/7/2011 12:27:37 PM

So I'm battling the Buffer Monster, what am I missing?

4/7/2011 12:28:13 PM

^^I don't know too many middle class families that commission a $10K painting. They may have been middle class but they wanted the high life.



[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 12:29 PM. Reason : -]

4/7/2011 12:28:57 PM

The dads voice sounds like the voice of the cartoon meme thing going around.

4/7/2011 12:29:06 PM

Are all Canadians well educated and wealthy?

4/7/2011 12:29:22 PM

Quote :

"They may have been middle class but they wanted the high life."

more accurate.

4/7/2011 12:29:24 PM

"Mr. Rentz, would it be safe to say that Nancy wanted..........OOT of her marriage??????"

4/7/2011 12:30:27 PM

i think Nancy wanted the high life and Brad was trying to be more realistic but Nancy took that as being crazy. what a bitch!

4/7/2011 12:30:44 PM

High life income, champaign lifestyle. Nancy was trying to keep up with her rich lochmere housewife friends.

4/7/2011 12:31:09 PM

Also I forgot to pay the water bill gets translated into he had the water cut off on me in that e-mail to her dad.

4/7/2011 12:32:39 PM

Quote :

"High life income, champaign lifestyle. Nancy was trying to keep up with her rich lochmere housewife friends."

exactly.

my mom did the same crap that Nancy did - how she portrayed her "life" to her friends and family was much different than what was really going on. but you know none of it was ever her fault.

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 12:42 PM. Reason : sociopath]

4/7/2011 12:40:08 PM

Quote :

" they had to have realized after bombing yesterday and having the fucking judge save their ass that if they wanted to save any face and potentially win the case, they had to get a more experienced DA running the show"

Still think you have that backwards. During recess i guess we can go back to the last ten mins of yesterday and re watch it.

4/7/2011 12:41:21 PM

gross

4/7/2011 12:46:25 PM

My impression was that the judges questioning of the cisco guy helped the defense.

4/7/2011 12:50:42 PM

^

4/7/2011 12:51:58 PM

Yup


Though, to be fair, that doesn't mean the Ada wasnt comically horrible all day long

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 12:56 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 12:53:25 PM

^5 I used to work as an au pair for a woman like that. With her friends she was "super rich" but with the household help she was suddenly lower middle class

4/7/2011 12:54:22 PM

Quote :

"Still think you have that backwards. During recess i guess we can go back to the last ten mins of yesterday and re watch it."

Nah, i think we both understand it, we just have two different viewpoints on it



I'm contending that the judge allowed a bias for the prosecution to show through - the other functionalities of the router are immaterial if it couldn't be used to spoof phone calls, imo.


The prosecution's argument had gone down in massive flames, and I think that at that point the line of questioning should have stopped. Instead, the judge - in my opinion - threw the prosecution a lifeline by saying "so that thing is useless?" knowing that it wasn't useless in other regards.


The prosecution's whole case seems predicated on the idea of confusing the jury into believing theories that Brad could have possibly done this, regardless of facts that point in direct opposite of their arguments and theories. So in my mind, the judge even implying that the equipment could do something else blurs the very clear line already drawn.

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 12:58 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 12:56:31 PM

I think when the discussion ended, it seemed like all of the equipment was useless unless it had a router with an FXO port, and the judge cleared up that it was not useless.

4/7/2011 12:58:46 PM

with the implication that it could be used in another manner to spoof calls.


at least, that was my impression.


everyone with half a brain knows that it's not useless at all.

4/7/2011 1:00:40 PM

^^^idunno, I mean i think the judge has shown bias before, but in this case I do not see it as being for the prosecution.

^right, with half a brain. But nobody really understood that testimony, and the last thing the guy said would lead the websloth types (gotta be one on the jury) to believe that without an fxo it was indeed useless. Which the judge clarified it wasnt

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 1:01:56 PM

I mean, maybe I'm taking it that way because we've already seen people perjure themselves on the stand and the judge just let it fly




My impression of him is dramatically low at this point since I've yet to see him do the right thing




I guess I wouldnt have such an issue with letting people think it's worthless without an FXO port as long as they clarified how an FXO port is installed in a router to begin with and if they had outlined that the router in question would never, under any circumstances, even have the capability to support said FXO port.


But since i missed a good portion of the testimony yesterday I can pretty much assume that that was never outlined.



One of the problems with overly technical testimony is that a lot of times the guys giving it fail to break it down into the simplest terms. Not that that is always easy to do - but you can always say things like:


He had model X.

Model X cannot support function Y.



[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 1:04:29 PM

fair enough.

His job isn't to prosecute perjury though. If they perjure themselves, its up the the da to prosecute them in a seperate trial. Or the defense can use provable perjury to get a new trial granted on appeal...

4/7/2011 1:08:13 PM

To me it cleared up he didn't have the fxo module which meant he couldn't fake the call like the prosecution stated. But that the equipment still functioned in other ways. It was confusing. And who knows how the jury took it. I hope the defense brings that point up in the closing arguments and makes it a lot clearer.

4/7/2011 1:11:17 PM

I think they'll have their own forensic expert rehash the testimony in a more concise manner

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:13 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 1:13:20 PM

and it also didnt help that the prosecution basically circled around the issue for 2 hours before finally getting to the point


asking all of those technical questions about the equipment required to spoof telephone calls, the means and methodologies used to spoof, and then at final summation asking if the equipment that Brad had could spoof calls is all extremely duplicitous.


Build a giant web of information about a subject.... try to knock it a few inches wide to catch a different kind of animal.


^ I think he already has ITT

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:17 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:19 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2011 1:16:58 PM

What exactly does an FXO port have to do with spoofing a call? I'm confused

4/7/2011 1:23:41 PM

For those trying to keep up about yesterday:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9395618/

Quote :

" Raleigh, N.C. — An expert in Internet telephone technology, Brad Cooper, had access to equipment to make a call from his home phone from a remote location, but there was no evidence found in his home to suggest he did, a voice technology expert and former coworker said Wednesday. Brad Cooper, 37, is on trial for first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Nancy Cooper, who prosecutors have said was strangled sometime before sunrise on July 12, 2008, and dumped in a drainage ditch in an undeveloped subdivision 3 miles from their Cary home. Defense attorneys have said Nancy Cooper went jogging around 7 a.m. that day and never returned home. Much of Wednesday's testimony from Paul Giralt, an engineer at Cisco Systems Inc. where Brad Cooper had worked as an engineer, focused on a 32-second call from the Cooper home to Brad Cooper's cellphone at 6:40 a.m. that day. Defense attorneys have said it proves Nancy Cooper was alive because Brad Cooper was on his way to a nearby grocery store for laundry detergent when she called to ask him to also pick up some juice. The state has suggested that Brad Cooper either made the call remotely or scheduled it using Voice over Internet Protocol technology to make it appear as if his wife were alive. VoIP allows users to use a computer network to make phone calls rather than a traditional, or analog, phone line. Giralt said Brad Cooper had made an internal purchase at Cisco for a device called an FXO port card that would have allowed him to use his home phone system over the Internet and that there were 10 ways to automate a phone call from the Cooper home. Investigators, however, never seized an FXO port from the Cooper home, defense attorneys said, and Giralt said that the equipment they did seize would not have been able to accommodate the device. Brad Cooper did have access to a variety of equipment, Giralt said upon questioning from prosecutors, and Cisco does not track items that employees take home.Well that's just really dumb Also on Wednesday, Joseph D'Antoni, a former MBA classmate of Brad Cooper, testified that he, Brad Cooper and about a dozen other MBA graduates from North Carolina State University, went on a weeklong trip to France in February 2007. During the trip, D’Antoni said, Brad Cooper and a woman named Celine Busson were "acting amorous" – holding hands, sitting close and leaning on each other at a dinner and that the two spent time alone together. Busson was a student in France and part of a team of students participating in the program, D’Antoni said. "I believe it was Thursday. I noticed that he wasn't wearing his wedding ring," D'Antoni said. When D'Antoni found out that Nancy Cooper was missing, he recalled, he sent an email to another woman who had been involved in the program. "Remember the guy who got with the French girl in your class," he read from the email. "His wife went missing. Scary stuff." During cross-examination, D'Antoni admitted he had speculated about the nature of the relationshp. He wasn't aware if Busson and Brad Cooper ever spent the night together, he said, and he never saw them kiss, although he wasn't paying close attention to them. Witnesses have testified that the Coopers had been going through a separation after Brad Cooper admitted to an affair with his wife's friend several years earlier. The two initially agreed that Nancy Cooper, a Canadian citizen, would return to Canada with their two children. But Alice Stubbs, a family law attorney whom Nancy Cooper hired in March 2008, testified that the plans changed when Brad Cooper found out about the financial terms of an April 18 draft of a separation agreement. "It was related to the money," Stubbs testified Wednesday. "I assumed it was the child support for $2,100 and a cash distributive award, which is normal, but apparently it was not agreed upon by the defendant." In addition to child support and a $50,000 distributive award, the initial terms had Brad Cooper paying an undetermined amount of alimony for eight years and all costs associated with the children's travel to visit him, extracurricular activities, private-school tuition and health and dental expenses. He was also to pay all debts incurred during the marriage and having Nancy Cooper listed as the sole beneficiary on his life insurance policy as long as she was living. Stubbs called the terms aggressive but said they were subject to compromise. But Brad Cooper, she said, never hired an attorney to represent him on the matter. "I wanted it to be resolved amicably. I wished it could have," she said. "I know Nancy wanted it to.""

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

4/7/2011 1:26:40 PM

from websleuths, on yesterday's phone spoofing testimony:

Quote :

"ncsu95 So all they are doing is showing multiple ways of doing this? We already knew there were multiple ways of doing this. My guess is they don't have proof that he did any of these, or they wouldn't be showing all the different ways. And all of these require the fxo, which wasn't found in the house. This is disappointing. fran Moderator They don't necessarily need {proof} BC did this. It's a preponderence of the incriminating evidence that's going to MOST LIKELY convict the defendent."

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 1:36 PM. Reason : prosecution, don't bother trying to prove he did it! just make it seem like he could have!]

4/7/2011 1:34:31 PM

wow

that's a moderator

wow

4/7/2011 1:39:27 PM

wow, I'd join just to call fran a dumb cunt but I'd get banned in 2 seconds.



Can't tell a self-assured housewife nothing.

4/7/2011 1:40:35 PM

about to head up there to the trial myself.

will be tweeting about it more than likely.

if you have twitter the #coopertrial gets some pretty funny comments as well.

4/7/2011 1:42:55 PM

OPENING TWEETDECK NAOW

4/7/2011 1:44:56 PM

lol at everyone asking if Cisco requires employees to check out equipment...obviously never worked for a tech company.

4/7/2011 1:48:10 PM

make a funny face at the camera!!!!!!!!111

or bring tww sign

4/7/2011 1:48:15 PM

Quote :

"lol at everyone asking if Cisco requires employees to check out equipment...obviously never worked for a tech company."

i cant imagine having to fill out paperwork everytime i need to bring home a piece of equipment

4/7/2011 1:52:44 PM

^,^^^ that's the truth.

4/7/2011 1:59:36 PM

what if he just had some one at the house use her phone and call him, wouldn't that be easier? I'm not saying he did that because I think he is innocent. however, if i were the prosecution, I would take that one angle rather that 500 others.

4/7/2011 2:01:44 PM

Also didn't one of the cisco guys say those calls were made by pushed buttons and not software?

4/7/2011 2:14:42 PM

Quote :

""It was related to the money," Stubbs testified Wednesday. "I assumed it was the child support for $2,100 and a cash distributive award, which is normal, but apparently it was not agreed upon by the defendant." In addition to child support and a $50,000 distributive award, the initial terms had Brad Cooper paying an undetermined amount of alimony for eight years and all costs associated with the children's travel to visit him, extracurricular activities, private-school tuition and health and dental expenses. He was also to pay all debts incurred during the marriage and having Nancy Cooper listed as the sole beneficiary on his life insurance policy as long as she was living."

I'd be seriously pissed if I went through this and my wife wanted tons of cash up front, the debt she created wiped clean, alimony, child support, and for me to pay for all the kids expenses on top of the child support I'm paying. To top it all off she's going to take my kids to another country? Sounds like she basically wanted him to be a slave to her needs, but she didn't want anything else to do with him.

[Edited on April 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM. Reason : s]

4/7/2011 2:15:44 PM