State v Bradley Cooper 04-15-2011

[Lori59]

He said the motive was anger. WRAL has it plastered all over their website. He said there were multiple things that led him to BC as a suspect.

Yes, anger. AND, one of the things was money. Third paragraph in the article on WRAL

 

[fran]

This might disappoint some folks, but unfortuneately BC is entitled to a defense so the trial is only at the midpoint with the pros haven taken their best shot (and its not a very strong one). If the defense is able to raise doubt about the google map, BC walks.

This is the way I look at it. The pros has already shown what a liar BC is. Now you take that into account, and all of the NUMEROUS incriminating items of circumstantial evidence pointing towards his guilt, my bet is the jury isn't going to believe anything he's said. When the def presents their witnesses, because they already know the defendent is a liar, they'll be more apt to believe the 'circumstantial evidence' is more pointing towards guilt.

Once someone is proven to be a liar, the jury can then completely disregard anything he says that is to his best interest.

Sorry, BC should have stuck to the 5th during the custody hearing. He may have lost temp custody, but he wouldn't have left evidence to be used against him in a court of law.:behindbar:

BC is his own worst enemy. His words are coming back to haunt him. There is another infamous husband, now convicted murderer who made the same mistake, speaking when he should have been quiet. But his ego was just too big and he couldn't help himself, just like Brad Cooper.:bang:

JMHO
fran

PS.....the other infamous husband now turned inmate, convicted murderer, Scott Peterson. :loser:

 

[borndem]

So so far the defense will have three prongs on the attack:

1. witnesses saw her running and if that is true or even believable, one cannot be certain BC committed the murder.
2. the phone call from home - state hasn't proven with evidence it was likely BC did it, just that he could have.
3. the LEO's were "dishonest" and the thing is basically a frame up. This may be what has the judge in ire, since it is so far completely baseless.

Now, I see the point that the defense could say the depo was coordinated w LEO or the DA and this furthers the point they just weren't spending any time on looking at the possibility she went running. I don't buy it, but I understand it.

Anyone hoping that that depo was an infringement of rights is going to be disappointed. The guy answered questions with lies and people look past that to say well she shouldn't have been given the info that would have captured him in a lie?? How about he shouldn't have lied as being his primary problem in that depo? Or, of course, killed his wife.

Let's also remember that BC's attorneys were there during the depo as well.

 

[Tipstaff]

She had washed it out at the party according to BC, he saw the wet spot.

Nope not according to other people at the party. Watch Mr. Duncan's testimony in court.

 

[Danielle59]

I have never seen a detective tear into a defense attorney like Daniels has. I would say that Daniels and Kurtz won't be sharing dinner and a beer anytime ever.

I don't think that is right, I missed that part, I will have to listen again, but Kurtz should have had DD stick to the questions.

 

[Tipstaff]

Perhaps it is not to late for Kurtz and Associates to have Inmate Cooper take a Polygraph Test. I am 100% sure if they get great results WRAL and the News and Observer will give them prime time access and front page above the fold!

 

[NCEast]

Hey Star. I think the motive was more than just money. I think it was also pride, anger from NC arguing in front of others and telling everything to her friends (that really provoked him and actually it would have angered me not to point of hurting her), and financial disaster from the divorced. Knowing his personality, he also may have had problems making friends as she did.

Obviously, money was a big factor

I think you are right, and she had been away on vacation the preceding week and he got a taste of what life would be like without her. None of us will probably know *exactly* what set him off the night of the 11th/12th.

 

[Danielle59]

He erased his samsung...that's where the proof was
Faking an alibi is common.
They will see right through it, cause they will use common sense.

Are you saying that because of his contact list?

 

[NCEast]

This is the way I look at it. The pros has already shown what a liar BC is. Now you take that into account, and all of the NUMEROUS incriminating items of circumstantial evidence pointing towards his guilt, my bet is the jury isn't going to believe anything he's said. When the def presents their witnesses, because they already know the defendent is a liar, they'll be more apt to believe the 'circumstantial evidence' is more pointing towards guilt.

Once someone is proven to be a liar, the jury can then completely disregard anything he says that is to his best interest.

Sorry, BC should have stuck to the 5th during the custody hearing. He may have lost temp custody, but he wouldn't have left evidence to be used against him in a court of law.:behindbar:

BC is his own worst enemy. His words are coming back to haunt him. There is another infamous husband, now convicted murderer who made the same mistake, speaking when he should have been quiet. But his ego was just too big and he couldn't help himself, just like Brad Cooper.:bang:

JMHO
fran

PS.....the other infamous husband now turned inmate, convicted murderer, Scott Peterson. :loser:

Good summary Fran. And, the jury has to use their own common sense as was told to them during the opening statements. I think most of the jury--even without knowing much about who they are--are a lot like us. They have heard enough to know that he's a liar and they probably do not like the person Brad Cooper is.

 

[NCEast]

I don't think that is right, I missed that part, I will have to listen again, but Kurtz should have had DD stick to the questions.

In a normal courtroom that's the way it works. Kurtz lost control of the cross several times this afternoon.

 

[NCEast]

Let's also remember that BC's attorneys were there during the depo as well.

Not only there----but the female attorney who was actually doing the talking on Brad's behalf continued to object---and then would say 'but go ahead and answer'. So his own defense team helped bring him down.

 

[Danielle59]

Well, there was sworn testimony the trunk was not only 'clean', but so pristine there was zero trace evidence of any kind.,,,,hair, fiber, fluids.
Why is that so hard to understand :waitasec:

I just think in the short period of time that he had it would be an impossibility to get it that clean.

 

[Danielle59]

Thanks!

You finally admitted he lied and was on the computer when he said he was sleeping :great:

I already said he had inconsistencies in his statements.

 

[Just the Fax]

No way to initiate the remote call without a data trace. REMOTE CALL is the operative word here. All BC calls that morning were accounted for. On cross PG admitted as much. The remaining speculation was that he may have programmed the call at 6:25, but guess what? If he did there would be evidence.

Some of you seem to think that when you delete your phone history, the call/data logs at the carrier magically disappear. Not so.

You may want to do more research before you proclaim you know everything.
The 6:25 'call' was logged with AT&T as data.

 

[Just the Fax]

I already said he had inconsistencies in his statements.

Well, of course you did.

 

[Just the Fax]

I just think in the short period of time that he had it would be an impossibility to get it that clean.

Is 5 hours a short period of time:waitasec:

 

[Danielle59]

its amazing how we all watch the same trial and come up with different evidence, didn't he say he cleaned the car out at the home

I thought he did it at home too, it was someone else that I was replying to that made the suggest that he stopped to do it after I made a comment about how loud shop vacs are that I am surpised no one heard it.

 

[less0305]

I've been thinking, for some reason or another, that his trunk was vacuumed at home too.

Yes, he said he vacuumed at home. I was only speculating based upon Danielle's unbelief that a home shop vac could do the job so well. I speculated that perhaps he used a car wash vac during his road trip on Sat. afternoon. She didn't think that vac was any better than a home shop vac... so it was purely conjecture and what iffing earlier.

 

[Just the Fax]

I thought he did it at home too, it was someone else that I was replying to that made the suggest that he stopped to do it after I made a comment about how loud shop vacs are that I am surpised no one heard it.

Loud in a closed garage at, say 4AM?
:laugh:

 

[less0305]

Oh and in case anybody missed this part of the testimony. Even CPD doesn't believe the motive was money. Can we finally put that argument to rest?

No, I distinctly remember D Daniels saying that along with him getting upset about how NC treated him, there was the money issues also.