State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[ncsu95]

Defense not following the strategy of CPD didn't investigate thoroughly.

Again, the defense never claimed they didn't thoroughly investigate BC.

 

[RaleighNative]

Guess I'm in the minority, but I think this line of questioning is pretty important. This case is built on circumstantial evidence. I don't think very much of the evidence points to BC's guilt, but the notion that she went running wearing 2 right shoes points to BC's guilt, imo. So any evidence of NC owning a third pair of running shoes, which are missing, is significant in my mind.

Yeah, it's boring. But I think most of this trial has been boring.

 

[LyndyLoo]

:floorlaugh:..My that was a good one JY..throwing that pair of size 12 shows back at Kurtz..as it was one oh HIS statements in regards to that purchase..but but.."You said you couldnt tell"..okay..JY wasnt making assumptions..but your were Mr. Kurtz :floorlaugh:

 

[snowshuze]

Again, the defense never claimed they didn't thoroughly investigate BC.

Nice play on words, but the judge DID admonish the defense in one of his rulings for stating in opening arguments CPD didn't conduct a thorough investigation, PERIOD.

 

[Maja]

Is it possible BCs two right shoes and BC's shoes worn to the dump site were thrown in a dumpster at HT.

 

[MountE]

Back to the HT video -(time 6.22) observed him wearing shoes and those pair of shoes were not found. Asking if he actually searched for those shoes in the storage area of the garage, throughout the house, and asked if he looked at all the shoes. He is asking if he could distinguish from the video those shoes from all the shoes that were in the house.

 

[lunarmodule]

Had anyone looked up how much trial experience Kurtz had before this case?

I've always thought Brad's choice of counsel matched his own arrogance. If you're charged with first degree murder, you get the best you can get. Someone like Joe Cheshire or Wade Smith. Smith was out since Alice Stubbs is in the same practice. Kurtz & Blum categorize themselves as drug defense attorneys first, before traffic violations, DUI, shoplifting, etc. Oh, then they say "serious felonies, including homicide." I would conclude that Brad thinks he is smarter than law enforcement and prosecution, and probably likes the belligerent approach that K&B has taken from the beginning of the case. Different strokes, I guess, but I would prefer a whole bunch of experience on my side if I was facing life in prison.

 

[ncsu95]

Nice play on words, but the judge DID admonish the defense in one of his rulings for stating in opening arguments CPD didn't conduct a thorough investigation, PERIOD.

It wasn't a play on words. The defense basically claimed that BC was the only suspect and all other potential theories were ignored.

 

[SleuthyGal]

If I were married to someone with Kurtz's voice...I would never last one day of that whining. OMG. Can you imagine trying to live with that voice on a day-to-day basis.

Whhhiiinnneee....Whinnnneeeee.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Is it possible BCs two left shoes and BC's shoes worn to the dump site were thrown in a dumpster at HT.

Think you meant NC two left shoes..but yes BC could have dumped those shoes..but would be impossible to prove since they never recovered them..Again only a snipppet of possibilities..in a circumstantial case here which is up to the jury to give it weight or not.:waitasec:

 

[cityslick]

I've always thought Brad's choice of counsel matched his own arrogance. If you're charged with first degree murder, you get the best you can get. Someone like Joe Cheshire or Wade Smith. Smith was out since Alice Stubbs is in the same practice. Kurtz & Blum categorize themselves as drug defense attorneys first, before traffic violations, DUI, shoplifting, etc. Oh, then they say "serious felonies, including homicide." I would conclude that Brad thinks he is smarter than law enforcement and prosecution, and probably likes the belligerent approach that K&B has taken from the beginning of the case. Different strokes, I guess, but I would prefer a whole bunch of experience on my side if I was facing life in prison.

I don't think it was Brad's choice though. Kurtz was assigned through the public defender's office.

 

[MountE]

If I were married to someone with Kurtz's voice...I would never last one day of that whining. OMG. Can you imagine trying to live with that voice on a day-to-day basis.

Whhhiiinnneee....Whinnnneeeee.

I think he sounds like Woody Allen.

 

[lib's mom]

If I were married to someone with Kurtz's voice...I would never last one day of that whining. OMG. Can you imagine trying to live with that voice on a day-to-day basis.

Whhhiiinnneee....Whinnnneeeee.

Yes, I can imagine it. I can also imagine my ownself catching a murder charge because of it.

 

[luckyme]

If I were married to someone with Kurtz's voice...I would never last one day of that whining. OMG. Can you imagine trying to live with that voice on a day-to-day basis.

Whhhiiinnneee....Whinnnneeeee.

I have to agree about voice. It sounds weak. My dads voice is like that but he has parkinsons.

 

[CentralAlberta]

I don't think it was Brad's choice though. Kurtz was assigned through the public defender's office.

IIRC, he originally hired them, then had no money to pay them and since they were already on the case they were allowed to stay on. (Or am I thinking of a different case?)

 

[snowshuze]

It wasn't a play on words. The defense basically claimed that BC was the only suspect and all other potential theories were ignored.

I would expect them to make that claim. IMO, it's all they've GOT to claim. All this tedious testimony is backing up the FACT they pursued ALL theories. Defense is NOT proving their claim.

 

[borndem]

:deadhorse:

 

[gracielee]

I know some defense attorneys tell their clients they HAVE to know the truth in order to present the best defense possible. Others tell their clients they don't care if they murdered somebody (or whatever the supposed crime is), they will represent them to the best of their ability. I
wonder which school of thought Kurtz operates from.
He *is* worried about the shoes--and he's making declarative statements already again this morning.

One time I was asked to be a witness in a custody battle. Yes, a neighbor, but it was the husband, not the wife. I didn't really *want* to get involved, but knew the children were far better off with the father than the mother, so I agreed. I can't recall the name of the attorney right now, I think he's dead now, but at the time he was one of the top in his field in Raleigh. Soloman comes to mind, not sure if that's it or not though. Anyway, he began questioning me to see if *I* had any vulnerablities myself, and I remember his exact words were always "Can anyone testify that you've had an affair with anyone?" "Can anyone testify that you've stolen anything?" etc., looking for ways I could be impeached by the opposing counsel.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Of course Brad would be a subject of interest since he was the last person to see her alive, and the person who couldnt be ruled out as the investigation continued...LE with each turn just couldnt rule him out?

Just as an aside..ALL suspects who give alibi's have to have that alibi clearified..just words by whomever the suspect is is NOT enough to clear them..In domestic murder cases, the significant other is always the first subject to be looked at..As Investigations continued..Motives came up, suspicions by Nancy's friends, and unusual behaviors prior to Nancy going missing..just fueled the fire against Brad.

the old " Walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck" seems to fit..tho it must be the jury who decides..:twocents:

 

[CentralAlberta]

It wasn't a play on words. The defense basically claimed that BC was the only suspect and all other potential theories were ignored.

Could that be because there were no other suspects?