State v Bradley Cooper 04/11/11

[cityslick]

AS for your second one.. you have to know Def. would NOT want that off the table for Jurors to hear..Tho it could appear to be a Drew P. ideation..They (def.) would still want and demand that be heard by the jurors..I tend to think it is a cursing out, and could even be some sort of goodbye type thing..and this would have been sent prior to her being found?? SO Def. wouldnt want that heard by the jury..Just a thought there..I am really really trying to be careful..do not want to be TO'd :rocker:

You're only speculating. You don't even know if it's the defense that caused it to be supressed.

 

[Just the Fax]

Gotta think the FBI will finish tomorrow and then Det Daniels for the rest of the week, then the state rests.

 

[Just the Fax]

Outside of keeping up with the OJ trial from a very high level this case is the first one that has obtained my attention. Is this Motion for Stay a common practice by any defense team?

According to Colin Willoughby and the media, it was highly unusual at the 11th hour before trial.

 

[Albert]

According to Colin Willoughby and the media, it was highly unusual at the 11th hour before trial.

Who rules on the motion submitted by the defense, the judge or the DA? Is the ruling public knowledge?

 

[borndem]

Defense team will be up all night thinking about how to destroy FBI credibility same as they are wanting to do with CPD.

Meow, meow. Anyone hear kittens?

 

[Just the Fax]

Who rules on the motion submitted by the defense, the judge or the DA? Is the ruling public knowledge?

NC Court of Appeals

Yes, it was publicly denied

 

[LyndyLoo]

You're only speculating. You don't even know if it's the defense that caused it to be supressed.

Absolutely, as NO one knows at that is point what was in that email..:seeya:
I did not even suggest it as fact..I was responding to the posters querry only.. No Fact nor knowledge just what was there..:seeya:

 

[SleuthinNC]

Outside of keeping up with the OJ trial from a very high level this case is the first one that has obtained my attention. Is this Motion for Stay a common practice by any defense team?

I haven't followed tons of these cases either but I don't think it is that common of a practice for the defense to file with the appellate court to force the prosecution to turn over evidence, especially not that late in the game. The fact that they had originally turned over 1000 pages of what we have come to learn is about 18000 pages of discovery evidence didn't sit well with me.

 

[DogWood]

Did they mention in court why wouldn't disclose the content of the email that Brad sent to Nancy on July 14th; the day her body was found?

Bump for Just the Fax...

 

[diphi]

Gotta think the FBI will finish tomorrow and then Det Daniels for the rest of the week, then the state rests.

If so, that's disheartening to me. I think BC did it but I don't think the state has proved it. Very few of the major questions have been answered. Apparently, there is no "smoking gun".

IMO only

 

[BrownRice]

The prosection has deliberately kept information from the defense.

brady v. maryland states full disclosure of ALL files should be available.

There was an interview with Brad's daughter, B, that the defense has yet to see any records of along with numerous other things.

they are in direct violation.

fyi - you need to remove the child's name from your post asap. Mods are specific about it.

 

[Just the Fax]

Bump for Just the Fax...

I do recall it was uneventful.
The 14th e-mails were something about a flyer for an iron-man race (don't think he opened) and DD had sent an e-mail to Brad that day about organizing the search efforts, ect.

 

[Just the Fax]

If so, that's disheartening to me. I think BC did it but I don't think the state has proved it. Very few of the major questions have been answered. Apparently, there is no "smoking gun".

IMO only

Not so fast diphi.....lets see what they actually find on his computer

 

[Maja]

If so, that's disheartening to me. I think BC did it but I don't think the state has proved it. Very few of the major questions have been answered. Apparently, there is no "smoking gun".

IMO only

Haven't heard "the fat lady sing" yet. And it ain't over until then.

 

[BrownRice]

anything that showed he had no idea...maybe he thought she had taken off for Canada as she threatened or that he thought she may check her email at a friends and had ANYTHING in there that showed he cared or was trying to do something to find his missing wife.

it just seems odd that the pros left that out, if it made him look bad say it...otherwise the defense will destroy that with the left out evidence

I don't think NC ever threatened to go anywhere without the kids.

 

[Albert]

I haven't followed tons of these cases either but I don't think it is that common of a practice for the defense to file with the appellate court to force the prosecution to turn over evidence, especially not that late in the game. The fact that they had originally turned over 1000 pages of what we have come to learn is about 18000 pages of discovery evidence didn't sit well with me.

Is it a fact that only 1000 pages were turned over to the defense or is this just a statement by the defense? Is the defense at risk of perjury or some other offense due to statements made in this motion?

We hear so much about corruption in police departments, DA offices and within the judicial branch. Yes, these issues do occur. But in this case is this being presented as a defensive tactic?

Does Kurtz have any experience with 1st degree murder cases? Is he in over his head and possibly looking to paint the whole investigation and prosecution as a railroad job? Is there any precedence for a 4 year old testifying in court? Are the comments of a 4 year old admissible in court?

 

[BrownRice]

not really...

especially when the information that is included is as relevant as in this case.

this judge is a terrible terrible one, i foresee a mistrial or dismissal honestly.

Please list the reasons you think the judge is terrible.

 

[FullDisclosure]

So, no smoking gun today. The State used the computer expert to document, once again, what a lousy husband Brad Cooper was. Here are a few highlights:

1. We saw a photo from his computer files of a woman in a bikini (gasp!) from 2002. (Kurtz had objected vehemently beforehand, because of the prejudicial nature, so I was expecting something much more juicy.)
2. We saw from old resumes that Brad is really good with computers and telephony.
3. We saw emails between BC and HM from 2004. Most of the flirty stuff was from her end at that point.
4. We saw emails between Brad and CB that indicated fondness for one another. We saw the same photos of CB and some video from the France trip.
5. We saw emails between BC and NC surrounding everything from the state of the house, to the real estate stuff, to plans for the daughter's BDay party, etc. Some were repeats of what we'd seen before.
6. Appears that Brad began intercepting (by auto-forwarding them to his account) NC's incoming (not outgoing) emails April 7 of 2008. Twitter covers the high points there.
7. Email activity around date NC went missing as follows--7/09 DD invite to cookout, 7/11 BC sent email at 3:35 pm, BC received email at 5:00 pm, BC reads his email at 9:32 pm (didn't note to/from so not significant?)
7/14 BC emailed NC. Did not read email FROM United emiles, Did read Email FROM DD. My notes say DID read email about Triathalon event.

Detective <modsnip> seems like a nice young man and he smells nice.

That's all I got. I think I may have to go back tomorrow!!

 

[LyndyLoo]

If so, that's disheartening to me. I think BC did it but I don't think the state has proved it. Very few of the major questions have been answered. Apparently, there is no "smoking gun".

IMO only

I really hate to burst your bubble diphi, In circumstantial cases there is NO "Smoking Gun" IF there was then I have assume it would be direct evidence and likely would have been a plea deal...These intimate murder cases rarely have direct evidence that Go to trial..DNA and prints dont mean much when both parties live together..So it comes down to an accumilations of evidence pointing to only one person..So we shall have to see..
This is not meant to be sarcstic at all..only pointing out how it is in cases such as this...

In the end it will be first the defense who trys to poke holes in pros. witnesses, then in closing arguments Pros has to put all the facts testified to together to create the picture..and of course the defense does the same to remove pieces of that picture..

It all comes down to the jurors in the end and how they feel about the credibility of the witnesses :seeya:

 

[jt3]

The fact that the 4 year old MADE comments is admissable.

They(the pros) wont even acknowledge that an interview occured...and if it didnt occur, WHY didnt CPD interview her after their neighbor told them the daugther commented on seeing her mother that morning she disappeared.

Either they have the interview and are holding out...violation of due process...or the interview never happened which is also a violation which stems from United States vs. Bagley.

and the judge is terrible because he is clearly allowing here-say in this case as facts and testimony.

thats the #1 reason.