State v Bradley Cooper 04-15-2011

[ohiogirl]

Thank goodness. Lunch.

 

[ohiogirl]

Smoke em if you got em.

 

[Tipstaff]

Detective Daniels - did you take note that BC went to the bathroom? Did you note how long he spent in the bathroom? If not why not? Did you wait outside the bathroom door or did another detective? Did you read that detectives narrative and later write that BC was in the bathroom 90 seconds or did Detective Young? Did you hear him flush? DD no I didn't him him flush. According to this line of quesitoning by Kurtz he now wants to know WHY DD didn't put that in the notes. CRAZY way of crossing and even the judge stops him.

Example was mine - this did not happen.

 

[Coolmomof4]

Love it... And I'm paraphrasing here...

Kurtz: You said Cooper washed the dress and that you smelled downy on the dress.

Daniels: Yes.

Kurtz: But that is not in your written notes.

Daniels: Okay.

Judge breaks for lunch.

 

[Lori59]

Kurtz is trying to say to the jurors.....If you see a tree laying on the ground with it roots sticking out......if you didn't see it, or put it in your handwritten notes, then it didn't fall over!!!

 

[luckyme]

6 months prior to her going missing it sounds like.

I wonder if she made a report?

 

[NCEast]

I missed some stuff, has Kurtz gone into questions about the 'eyewitnesses' yet?

No. Nothing even critical to the trial. He's asking about the dates on the notes done by Det. Daniels trying to point out little, minor, teeny-weeny mistakes Det. Daniels did in his notes--nothing relevant to anything. So stupid.

 

[Amster]

Love it... And I'm paraphrasing here...

Kurtz: You said Cooper washed the dress and that you smelled downy on the dress.

Daniels: Yes.

Kurtz: But that is not in your written notes.

Daniels: Okay.

Judge breaks for lunch.

I'm still :floorlaugh:

:laugh:

 

[less0305]

No wonder it takes so long to solve crimes ...too much freaking paper work

And not enough officers on the streets or in investigations.

 

[cody100]

Yea, no choice because he is desperate.
He has made zero points to me, and i'm sure the jury will agree

All Kurtz is trying to do, IMO, is to throw some doubt on accountability of the notes, therefore on investigation. Better if he had more substantial stuff to question but desperate times call for desperate measures. It is probably more a technicality. Daniels does seem irritated. I have seen this hurt Defense attorneys and sometimes it helps some. It doesn't change my opinion but I know what he is doing.

 

[SleuthinNC]

The fact that the Det. are passing the buck as to who it was and when it was determined the dress was washed is suspicious.

The fact that some things in his narrative are claimed to be from his notes and some from Det. Young's notes with no details around that is suspicious.

The fact that he took notes, then got more information from questions at a later date but added them to previous notes again with no documentation of when or why is just bad practice.

Sorry if details pertaining to things that were brought up in the prosecution case that are looking to be either very poorly processed, or enhanced, or changed, with no documentation trail is somehow boring but it is very relevant.

 

[less0305]

I missed some stuff, has Kurtz gone into questions about the 'eyewitnesses' yet?

No, that will be days away if this continues as it is going now.

 

[NCEast]

The defense strategy is that CPD manipulated evidence and also had a rush to judgement. Of course he is going to push Daniels on this.

But the issues he's pushing Det. Daniels on are don't matter in the big picture. He has not addressed anything that is crucial to the case.
I hope and pray we don't have to endure heading into next week with Kurtz on cross and then Cummings on redirect. And the Kurtz on recross, etc.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Hi Folks..I have been glued to this testimony and My impression of Kurtz, He has done a fine job showing the jury just how investigations were done on this case, how detailed they were and how they document each and every itty bitty piece of information gleened get added to the original interview of spouse of missing jogging mother of 2 girls that assisted them in concluding Brad was responsible for Nancy's murder. Good Job Kurtz :great:

From July 12th onward, added information and observations by all parties were put together in an constant updated narrative...I wonder IF Kurtz realized all these detectives have pow wows constantly and review together what they have and try to move foreward as to just where they need to go next??..It appears he is getting a lesson from DDaniels and also instructing the jury on how things are done!! JMOO

 

[Maja]

My boss is a lawyer and I was telling him about the jurors asking the judge how much longer do we have to be punished with this trial (lol that was just how I put it to him) and he said that sounded to him like, just lock the guy up, guilty as charged and let us out. We;ll see if he's right.

Is it possible the question was asked due to the fact spring break is coming up (Apr 22-29) and some may have kids who will be off for a week?

 

[fran]

Following Kurtz's statement about what is 'not written' anything that was said at any time , 24/7 every second, every minute of the time LE was with BC should have been documented. Makes no sense.

They tried to do this during the Peterson trial. One det was on the stand, and they showed his 'written notes,' and then the typed or final version. There was one thing in particular, that was on the final version, but not on the det's notes.

The def attorney, Geragos :run:, tried to find fault with the det's note taking and TRIED, I think, to imply he was making it up and he wasn't keeping proper records. When in fact, it wasn't that particular det's duty to have everything in his notebook, because there were OTHER OFFICERS also present who put it in there's.

This is a RED HERRING, a WRENCH TO THROW IN THE WORKS.

I hope the pros counters so the jury understands, this is NOTHING, means NADA! on whether Brad Cooper killed his wife or NOT.

JMHO
fran

PS>...fwiw, IF THIS is the type of def this attorney is going to put up, he's going to look as incompetent, IMHO, as Scott Peterson's attorney did! :banghead:..............seriously, fran

 

[NCEast]

All Kurtz is trying to do, IMO, is to throw some doubt on accountability of the notes, therefore on investigation. Better if he had more substantial stuff to question but desperate times call for desperate measures. It is probably more a technicality. Daniels does seem irritated. I have seen this hurt Defense attorneys and sometimes it helps some. It doesn't change my opinion but I know what he is doing.

I understand why he's doing it but I'm afraid it's going to backfire on him with respect to the jurors. If they have half a brain, they can see through this silly cross as being just what it is--a waste of time. Nothing critical has come forth from Kurtz's questioning the dates, the smell of Downy, etc.

 

[Just the Fax]

I missed some stuff, has Kurtz gone into questions about the 'eyewitnesses' yet?

No. Should be interesting if/when he does.
He may save for direct witness testimony in his case, as i'm sure Daniels is prepared and will have a good answer.

 

[less0305]

And again... Judge has to cut in and get clarification for himself, too. Even HE is confused with what Kurtz is trying to say.

I love it when the detective says "I don't understand what you're alleging," rather than "I don't understand what you're asking." Makes me snort.

 

[fran]

Hi folks, newbie here. I found the site after hearing of a murder trial of a techie geek guy from a fellow co-worker. I've been absolutely glued since I found this site. I appreciate all the banter, looks like BC is going down. I've seen many complain about the live feed at wral. I found another feed at this website...http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/livenow?id=8020507

Looking forward to following this trial through and catching up with the rest of the site when I can pull away from this one. Excellent site!!

:welcome:

Glad you could join us!

fran