State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[otto]

ncsu95, I'm curious. What side of the fense are you leaning towards at this point?

 

[Maja]

According to the article, there is a juror who goes to work after the trial everyday. I would be spent. Wow. I'm humbled.

I've thought for some time, it might not be a bad idea to pull jury members from those collecting unemployment and the unemployed without benefits.

http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/9510346/

 

[Maja]

Sorry but you have me confused here? Brad said she drank wine. The female friend she drank red wine. Brad said she spilled wine on her dress. Noone was able to prove one way or another whether it was wine. So - why are people so adamant that it was not red wine. Am I missing something here

I'm pretty sure you meant NC.

Yes, it is what I meant. Thank you.

 

[bloghooligan]

I doubt the judge would have allowed her testimony during the trial phase. Obviously she had no connection with BC for more than 8 years. I believe that would be ruled more prejudicial than probative. However, it might be used in the sentencing phase, if such a thing exists in NC...

I agree that the defense would have tried to keep that testimony out of the trial and a judge may have ruled as you say. However, would the pros just assume that a judge wouldn't rule in their favor or would there have been a hearing/argument?

 

[unc70]

Her sister said due to crohns BC could only drink red wine.

It affects people differently, but those in my family with Crohns have no problem with red or white wine. Too much roughage, salad, or raw onions -- that gets them.

 

[bloghooligan]

I listen to both of the Lopez's testimony. It was heartbreaking and they genuinely seem to be caring people. So - please do not read this the wrong way.
But - if someone I had never met before came up to me at a party and started telling me how much she hated her husband and how bad her marriage was, etc, I would feel very uncomfortable and walk away. I would not want to get involved or hear this. It is one thing if NC wanted to vent with her friends, but to air your laundry on a complete stranger seems a bit odd and for that stranger to listen to the entire saga seems even odder.

I agree, if DL's testimony is 100% true, Nancy sure told a stranger an awful lot that night and DL sure remembered a lot. Not saying it didn't happen (I get very loose lips when I drink) but it does seem odd.

 

[Tink56]

I agree that the defense would have tried to keep that testimony out of the trial and a judge may have ruled as you say. However, would the pros just assume that a judge wouldn't rule in their favor or would there have been a hearing/argument?

LOL...if an amateur such as myself can see the futility of pursuing testimony based on information that is 8-10 years old; has no connection to the murdered woman; and may make a negative inference about BC has been prejudicial, I hope that the DA and his staff could see that it wasn't worth the time....AND, how do we know that this was not discussed in a pre-trial meeting??

 

[ncsu95]

ncsu95, I'm curious. What side of the fense are you leaning towards at this point?

Wow, that's a hard question to answer. :rollercoaster:


I honestly don't know. I have felt all along that he was probably guilty except for about a weeks worth of time before the google map search hit where I was completely off the fense on the innocent side. Since that time, I went from barely hanging onto the fence on the guilty side, slowly climbing back up the wall. I wish more than anything that the google search wasn't in question. But it is. I'm probably slightly on the innocent side of the fence at this point in time. The prosecution reaction to the file tampering stuff is just odd. It's worse than the "Kurtz Kittens" we've seen throughout the trial. But of course, this new Cisco information could potentially change everything again. If I had to vote right now, with the understanding that I didn't see the "FBI" stuff and am only going on reports on here, I would reluctantly vote not guilty. But my opinion is not set and will probably continue to change throughout the trial.

Is that enough of a wishy-washy answer?

 

[otto]

Wow, that's a hard question to answer. :rollercoaster:


I honestly don't know. I have felt all along that he was probably guilty except for about a weeks worth of time before the google map search hit where I was completely off the fense on the innocent side. Since that time, I went from barely hanging onto the fence on the guilty side, slowly climbing back up the wall. I wish more than anything that the google search wasn't in question. But it is. I'm probably slightly on the innocent side of the fence at this point in time. The prosecution reaction to the file tampering stuff is just odd. It's worse than the "Kurtz Kittens" we've seen throughout the trial. But of course, this new Cisco information could potentially change everything again. If I had to vote right now, with the understanding that I didn't see the "FBI" stuff and am only going on reports on here, I would reluctantly vote not guilty. But my opinion is not set and will probably continue to change throughout the trial.

Is that enough of a wishy-washy answer?

Yes, thanks. I've been back and forth as well. I think the jury has a huge job sorting through all of the information. One thing that is in the back of my mind about all of it is that police have made mistakes, giving the impression that they targetted Brad as a suspect and then wrapped the evidence around him. The prosecutor has presented a case that first jerked the emotions, then manipulated information and finally he stated in court that duck info paints all their witnesses as liars. I'm leaning towards not guilty verdict at this point, but we'll see what happens with new information, and whether it is relevant and admissible.

 

[johnfear]

Wow, that's a hard question to answer. :rollercoaster:


I honestly don't know. I have felt all along that he was probably guilty except for about a weeks worth of time before the google map search hit where I was completely off the fense on the innocent side. Since that time, I went from barely hanging onto the fence on the guilty side, slowly climbing back up the wall. I wish more than anything that the google search wasn't in question. But it is. I'm probably slightly on the innocent side of the fence at this point in time. The prosecution reaction to the file tampering stuff is just odd. It's worse than the "Kurtz Kittens" we've seen throughout the trial. But of course, this new Cisco information could potentially change everything again. If I had to vote right now, with the understanding that I didn't see the "FBI" stuff and am only going on reports on here, I would reluctantly vote not guilty. But my opinion is not set and will probably continue to change throughout the trial.

Is that enough of a wishy-washy answer?

Is it your sworn testimony that you posted a tiny photo of yourself dressed as Pacman on a roller coaster on a website requiring opinions and speculations and said you could no longer opine or speculate because you made a wish upon a star and did some washing?

Truthfully, you've paid no attention to Sysco since the Thong Song, isn't that right, Mr. 95?

Do you have ducks in your little roller coaster? Did you keep the ducks in your roller coaster?

Why do you think Kurtz has kittens? Are you allergic? Why does your facebook not say you are allergic to kittens under information, if you are indeed allergic to kittens? Does holding the bar on that roller coaster give you a strong GRIP?

I'm going to step next door and find some tiny paper to make a tiny printout of a very important tiny image.

 

[unc70]

What can they possibly do for an encore after Wednesday?

Even if I had the witness list for tomorrow, I don't think it would help. Wed's list seemed fairly straight-forward, but the results were far from that.

Two short days. Wait and see.

 

[otto]

What can they possibly do for an encore after Wednesday?

Even if I had the witness list for tomorrow, I don't think it would help. Wed's list seemed fairly straight-forward, but the results were far from that.

Two short days. Wait and see.

If the prosecution wasn't emotional and desperate in their case, they wouldn't have made the mistakes they made today. They've lost their objectivity and their better judgement.

 

[LaLaw2000]

The longer this case goes on, the more I lurk. I find it so amazing that when the DA was bringing in how Brad had cheated....people chimed in that it had nothing to do with the murder. Now, that it is out there that Nancy cheated... the fact that she cheated, has everything to do with who MURDERED her. People can keep saying that it is not attacking the victim, but I just disagree. It just leaves me with a icky feeling...the going on and on about how she spent, how she cheated, how she could have left but stayed for the lifestyle. She is gone...period. Brad can get up there and defend himself all day long....she never can. He lied about everything! I believe he murdered her and I hope that the jury will see through all this bs about her one night stands and all this computer jumble, which I believe the defense is using to confuse the jury, and see the real evidence. She was a liability to him, anyone should be able to see that, and he is an awful human. My thoughts go to the family having to listen to all this and hope her children never hear half of what is posted on this site. JMO.

Thank you for this post, Lori59! I totally agree with you. I have had to put myself on repeated timeouts because I was getting angry with the passive agressive bashing of Nancy. I am having to do it again right after this post.

I am looking forward to this case just being over. I know I will never forget that a mother was taken from her two children and a family who loved her very much. Krista must feel that a full half of herself is missing. I watch Nancy's parents and Krista sitting there day after day in that courtroom and admire their strength and character.

One day these two small children will grow into young women who will want to know everything about their mother they can possibly find. I so hope that they never stumble across all the negativity.

MOO

 

[BrownRice]

Ok, still listening to yesterday's testimony. On Mrs. Cooper's now. Just got tears in my eyes when she described hearing on TV her son was going to be arrested and she went downstairs and told him. When asked what she did, she gave BC a hug. What else was there to do. This is great witness testimony - shows how human everyone is here. A mom hugs her son at this point. Sometimes that's all a mom can do.

 

[BrownRice]

Oh dear. Listening to the duck conspiracy. Cummings is out of his mind. I want to slap him. He is being obnoxious. Mrs. C wasn't responsible for these stupid ducks.

Love it though: Trenkle: "It's not her job to take care of the State's case." Amen to that!

 

[cassius]

I doubt the judge would have allowed her testimony during the trial phase. Obviously she had no connection with BC for more than 8 years. I believe that would be ruled more prejudicial than probative. However, it might be used in the sentencing phase, if such a thing exists in NC...

The affidavit would certainly be hearsay and violate BC's right to confront his accuser. Also, unless the lady agreed to voluntarily come and testify, there is no way a United States court can compel a foreign citizen testify in a matter here, since she would owe no allegiance to our country or laws.

 

[MrsWendy]

Oh dear. Listening to the duck conspiracy. Cummings is out of his mind. I want to slap him. He is being obnoxious. Mrs. C wasn't responsible for these stupid ducks.

Love it though: Trenkle: "It's not her job to take care of the State's case." Amen to that!

I can't believe he actually said openly that the sudden appearance of the ducks makes some of his witnesses look like liars. That was unbelievably stupid.

 

[gorealtors]

Too tired to post last night. I attended the afternoon session of the trial yesterday. Stood outside the courtroom close to Brad's parents before the trial. Weird feeling. Sad too! As you know blackout was due to juror's employer who had asked the juror to resign. Gessner sent a deputy over to the place of employment with a copy of a statute that outlines an employer's responsibility if employee serves on a jury.

Sat on the same row as the Hiller's. As he waited for the trial to resume, he looked antsy and nervous. Krista came over and spoke to them and he told her he just wanted "this to be over". Both the Hillers left after his testimony.

Mrs. Cooper seemed to become very unnerved and agitated during the cross about the ducks, to the point of tears in my estimation. I fully expected her to break down after she left the stand. She didn't.

That's about all I observed or can think of to tell you.

 

[BrownRice]

Too tired to post last night. I attended the afternoon session of the trial yesterday. Stood outside the courtroom close to Brad's parents before the trial. Weird feeling. Sad too! As you know blackout was due to juror's employer who had asked the juror to resign. Gessner sent a deputy over to the place of employment with a copy of a statute that outlines an employer's responsibility if employee serves on a jury.

Sat on the same row as the Hiller's. As he waited for the trial to resume, he looked antsy and nervous. Krista came over and spoke to them and he told her he just wanted "this to be over". Both the Hillers left after his testimony.

Mrs. Cooper seemed to become very unnerved and agitated during the cross about the ducks, to the point of tears in my estimation. I fully expected her to break down after she left the stand. She didn't.

That's about all I observed or can think of to tell you.

Thanks so much! I thought Mrs. C looked like she was going to cry as well (I probably would have!). Cummings was a bully. Did the court give any indication what type of employer the juror had?

 

[Danielle59]

One day these two small children will grow into young women who will want to know everything about their mother they can possibly find. I so hope that they never stumble across all the negativity.

MOO

I realize many of you are sure BC did this, but at this point we really don't know. The case is not over and there really, despite many of you thinking otherwise, there has not been a lot of circumstantial evidence - just all the theories that have been hashed around about the ducks were totally thrown out of the water yesterday.

I feel horrible for those two little girls too, I can't imagine losing my mother, but at the same time, they have also lost their father. Is it okay that they stumble accross all the negativity about him? Some of the opinions, suppositions, and theories that seem to have no reality to them at all that I have read about him on these boards you would think he was Stalin, Jack the Ripper, and a few other bad people in history all rolled into one.

I absolutely think it is possible he may have done this, just because it is often the husband/wife, but I also think right now that there has been no
evidence of that, and in the past week we have seen where it really could have been someone else.

I don't think justice for NC means throwing the most convenient person in jail for life because people feel he must be it, and someone has to pay for this.