State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[fran]

Yay! Daniels finally spelled it out like Kurtz was a five year old!

:innocent:

It was the cleaning on the 12TH! That was cover-up.

JMHO
fran

 

[Towhee]

How many more times is Kurtz going to let DD restate all the details for how BC covered up the murder scene?

 

[NCEast]

Kurtz asked about the guest bathroom and now he's changing it to the entire house again. He's confusing himself.
Cummings *finally* objected--sustained.

 

[fran]

DD told him he'd have to show him a picture of what he wants an answer to before he could say. There's VOLUMES of evidence and notes and such the def has been given.

Kurtz may eat and breathe this case, but DD has moved on. This is over for him. He's got new cases now.

JMHO
fran

 

[LaLaw2000]

Well, how many more times is Kurtz going to make a statement rather than ask a question???? Then he wants DD to agree with him.

DD is holding his own despite this bizarre form of cross!

 

[fran]

How many more times is Kurtz going to let DD restate all the details for how BC covered up the murder scene?

LOL, sometimes these def attorneys are their clients worst enemy!

Let det D go over and over and over why he BELIEVES the initial cleaning was a 'cover-up.' That way, it will be ingrained into the jury's mind.

Just sayin'
fran

 

[SleuthinNC]

It is simply amazing the way the memory fades and sharpens depending on whose case is being helped by the answers.

 

[snowshuze]

Heh. Judge telling Kurtz it's the jurys job to determine witness credibility.

 

[fran]

Kurtz is a def attorney. He knows it's the jury's job to figure out the credibility of the past witnesses, NOT the lead det.

JMHO
fran

 

[Amster]

I suppose I would also whine if I had to defend Brad.....

Love how DD said the witnesses came to the station to be interviewed.....(unlike the defendant).....lol

 

[Madeleine74]

K is obnoxious. The jury will take that away with them.

 

[Palomine]

the defense is just delaying the trial as they have been doing for the last 3 years

 

[sunshine05]

Kurtz is a def attorney. He knows it's the jury's job to figure out the credibility of the past witnesses, NOT the lead det.

JMHO
fran

I think DD should have to answer why/why not he never questioned the credibility of inconsistent witness testimonies, as the lead detective. He had no problem stating that BC's inconsistencies made him suspect. Why are the witnesses given a free pass? Early in the investigation *everyone* close to the victim should have been scrutinized.

 

[Palomine]

K is obnoxious. The jury will take that away with them.

it may even cause them nightmares!

 

[cody100]

It is simply amazing the way the memory fades and sharpens depending on whose case is being helped by the answers.

No kidding. DD's memory surely does fade quickly once the defense asked him questions. Again, DD doesn't like to be questioned about his work.

 

[snowshuze]

Ya know....I'm beginning to think since Kurtz is putting so much vocabulary into his cross exams....he's going to put his computer expert on, then rest.

 

[NCEast]

Now Kurtz is asking how long a pillow maintains a shape. Lord have mercy.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think DD should have to answer why/why not he never questioned the credibility of inconsistent witness testimonies, as the lead detective. He had no problem stating that BC's inconsistencies made him suspect. Why are the witnesses given a free pass? Early in the investigation *everyone* close to the victim should have been scrutinized.

Not only were they not scrutinized but statements taken from the same witnesses that provided inconsistent statements were used to guide his investigation.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Now Kurtz is asking how long a pillow maintains a shape. Lord have mercy.

He is desperate, IMO!

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Now Kurtz is asking how long a pillow maintains a shape. Lord have mercy.

So the detective should be allowed to make statements like "her bed did not appear to have been slept in," but can't be crossed on his reasons for coming to that conclusion? I think this is a valid line of questioning. Just shows how ridiculous the statement was to begin with.