State v Bradley Cooper 04-15-2011

[fran]

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.

Hmmmm....................encouraging!

:great:
fran

 

[less0305]

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.

Until the judge puts a stop to it, I'm sure it's going to go on and on and on.

 

[cityslick]

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

At this point it's pretty much the only thing that I'd want to know from cross. How did they know when to follow up on certain witnesses, what was the criteria used, etc.

 

[Madeleine74]

Who was searching at 1:15pm on July 11, 2008 on Google Maps at Cisco on a secure password protected laptop, and focused in on the area off of Fielding Dr. where Nancy was dumped the next morning?

that <modsnip> guy NC saw at HT 6 months before?

Why no, no it wasn't him.

It was the guy she was married to who did that.

Who examined that computer? Some van driving construction workers?

Why no. It was the FBI.

Nothing further.

 

[snowshuze]

I have a feeling it's going to be next week before we get to see what kind of case the defense is going to present.

 

[Hartzy34]

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.

This one bugs me a little bit. Did he get some information from the depo and then go back in and change his previous notes because of that? Not that I think it's going to change anything, just seems sloppy and I believe the defense is going to ride the sloppiness and try to mix in some OJisms to get BC off...

 

[Just the Fax]

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.

At this point in the trial, i'm quite sure the majority of the jury will not agree with your assessment.

 

[RaleighNC]

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.

Not being dense here - and I am all for good process - but at this point - how would anything pertaining to the dress help Brad? She wore it the night prior to her missing. It's not been a key piece of the state's case. She wasn't wearing it when she was found. There's just nothing to be gained (or lost) here.

If notes are taken electronically - it would be good practice to save as a version. If they are handwritten, perhaps different color / style pens and a legend on the notes would be good practice.

Gleaning more date, getting clarification, etc in subsequent interviews is standard and to not have to drag the witness through hte same EXACT thing (didn't Kurtz complain about this) is not needed - so amending notes is reasonable.

 

[johnfear]

Yep, it does appear you have completely different perspective.
To each his own.....

Oh yeah, I wasn't arguing...he just got he detective frustrated (and jumping to conclusions) on several answers.

IMO, Kurtz is pandering to the jury at this point. This should have a kitten-curious affect. (not effect)

I wonder who wanted to go home. Got one person here saying it means he's guilty, one person saying it means they think they ain't got nada.

Nice.

 

[ohiogirl]

Going to watch the other hearing. Later all.

 

[fran]

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.

Seriously, Mr. Kurtz should take HEED that the jurors are getting impatient and they're running BEHIND in what they PROMISED the jurors on how much time they needed for this trial.:waitasec:

IMHO, these jurors are NOT going to look kindly on the def for this waste of time. These people are NOT stooooopid! :fence:

geeesssshhhhhhhhhhhh,
fran

 

[AnotherSleuth]

So is this the last witness from the Pros?

Which witnesses should we expect from the Defense next week?

TIA

 

[Shadow722]

I think were Kurtz is going with this line of questions is highlighting things only Daniels (and the Cary PD) knew, that later showed up as specific questions asked BC in the custody case.

I think he's trying to show collusion between Stubbs, and the Cary PD. If he can show the jury that the custody case was "the BC murder trial" part 1, and that the state actively participated and supplied information.......

Whether that is enough to overcome the Prosecution serious circumstantial evidence pointing to BC guilt or not remains to be seen.

But it appears that is the foundation the defense is leading up to, IMHO.....

 

[fran]

This one bugs me a little bit. Did he get some information from the depo and then go back in and change his previous notes because of that? Not that I think it's going to change anything, just seems sloppy and I believe the defense is going to ride the sloppiness and try to mix in some OJisms to get BC off...

Nope! SOP...............this det was asking questions and OTHER det's were keeping notes as well. It wasn't up to this det to write down every little thing. The other det's were doing it.

Det D recalled smelling the downey himself and it was in other officer's notes. NOTHING unusual or nefarious about it. Just in a def attorney's mind.

JMHO
fran

 

[cityslick]

At this point in the trial, i'm quite sure the majority of the jury will not agree with your assessment.

So in other words do you concede that it would be more relevant if the state didn't have the smoking gun?

 

[Madeleine74]

The defense has caused hours and hours more delay than the prosecution. They've spent many court hours arguing with the jury stuck in the jury room, things which could have been handled well before the start of the trial. They dragged their feet at every opportunity. It's been the only defense they have, this delaying and whining.

Little K is giving it his all, but he comes across as petty, whiny, and confusing. Those aren't qualities that will endear him to this jury. In fact, I suspect that the jury will despise him by the end of this trial. He's coming across as that unlikable IMHO.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Has anyone here ever watched "The First 48 Hours"?..The reason I ask is because it is clear how investigations are done. And that Investigations are NOT micro managed, but are a team effort, putting their collective heads together to decide who should followup whom, and what lead etc...The Lead Detective is the one who coordinates them. He is NOT the sole provider of information.

I think some who believe DDaniels errored in his hand written notes because it differed from the typed update is really reaching to assume Malfeasance or corruption of some sort. IF anyone sat down with the handwritten notes from each and everyone present in an interview, they would be different indeed. What one thinks is important at that time may very well be different from another's impressions of same interview...Hence> Collaberations of all the minds together gives the "Totality" of what information is/was gleened etc..

Just my thoughts on that point... :twocents:

 

[Just the Fax]

So in other words do you concede that it would be more relevant if the state didn't have the smoking gun?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are alleging?

 

[Just the Fax]

So is this the last witness from the Pros?

Which witnesses should we expect from the Defense next week?

TIA

Yes

Kurtz will parade out his hired computer and telecom experts.
I guess he has his "eyewitnesses" that think they saw Nancy jogging.
These next 2 weeks will be painful for this jury.

 

[gritguy]

If Stubbs talked to LEO or a DA before the depo and therefore had an indication of certain facts or circumstances surrounding the murder, and asks BC about them, and with lawyers present he chooses to forge ahead with statements that prove to be lies, he is excused exactly how?

The best way to avoid being convicted of murder between A and B?

A. Testify in deposition voluntarily but falsely and hope people sympathize that your lies were only transparent due to the preparation of the questioning attorney, or

B. Don't murder your wife.

I'll go with B, and perhaps at this point BC wishes he had too.