State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[Hartzy34]

I kick my feet out at night and pull the sheets out on my side, my husband doesn't, his side stays tucked in, comparing their beds is not relevant.

Ha, it's the opposite in our household. :laugh:

 

[ohiogirl]

LE followed him from day one, no?

 

[fran]

Kurtz already asked him the questions about the routers being checked in and out. DD told him he'd need to see the log.

Yay! Morning recess. Def done!

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

LE followed him from day one, no?

They weren't following him as a suspect, IMHO. They were following him to 'be of service.'

They did the same for NC's family as well. Her dad talked about how they switched hotels to make it easier for LE for safety purposes. (for the family)

JMHO
fran

 

[Palomine]

I wouldn't think that the state would be allowed to just publish everything that they had. If he is convicted I am sure there will be appeals.

If there is a conviction I hope we hear all the evidence that is soooooo prejudicial to Brad

 

[gritguy]

If there is a conviction I hope we hear all the evidence that is soooooo prejudicial to Brad

We won't ever, as Kurtz will never share it (if he has any).

The prosecution has a duty to share exculpatory evidence with defense; the defense (obviously) has no duty to share incriminating evidence with the state.

The jury is there to find the truth.
The judge is there to oversee the process of finding the truth.
The state must share evidence that contradicts its case, as part of the truth process.

The defense has no obligation to seek the truth, only to avoid bald-faced completely obvious false evidence.

That and the high burden of proof are part of the balance, but keep it in mind when the defense throws out some interesting theories unburdened by facts.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I had a phone call. What is next? TIA!

 

[ncsu95]

Kurtz already asked him the questions about the routers being checked in and out. DD told him he'd need to see the log.

Yay! Morning recess. Def done!

JMHO
fran

He's not done yet. I'm sure there will be re-cross then re-redirect.


ETA: I got the order backwards (obviously)

 

[LyndyLoo]

Good Morning folks..Sure glad everyone is safe and sound after really horrendous weekend down there!!

Caught the last 20minutes of so of DD cross by Kurtz...Boy even tho I have followed most of this trial, even I was having trouble following the line of questionings....zig zag is the only way I can describe it...

Whats this I hear about Dismukes coming back to the stand?....Another Blackout?? Say it aint so :maddening:

:seeya: Again..Great to see everyone here!!

 

[Palomine]

We won't ever, as Kurtz will never share it (if he has any).

The prosecution has a duty to share exculpatory evidence with defense; the defense (obviously) has no duty to share incriminating evidence with the state.

The jury is there to find the truth.
The judge is there to oversee the process of finding the truth.
The state must share evidence that contradicts its case, as part of the truth process.

The defense has no obligation to seek the truth, only to avoid bald-faced completely obvious false evidence.

That and the high burden of proof are part of the balance, but keep it in mind when the defense throws out some interesting theories unburdened by facts.

but it is evidence the Judge won't let in, so it had to be argued in court before the trial. So there has to be a record of it. I am going to keep my fingers crossed that we find out, or the defense opens the door

 

[kljohnson0458]

During this break, I just wanted to say I love reading and posting at Websleuths. Such a great group of people, no bashing of posters. Ya'll rock. :seeya:

 

[gritguy]

but it is evidence the Judge won't let in, so it had to be argued in court before the trial. So there has to be a record of it. I am going to keep my fingers crossed that we find out, or the defense opens the door

Agree. What we will never know is what Kurtz knows or avoided "knowing" if BC is guilty.

 

[ohiogirl]

They weren't following him as a suspect, IMHO. They were following him to 'be of service.'

They did the same for NC's family as well. Her dad talked about how they switched hotels to make it easier for LE for safety purposes. (for the family)

JMHO
fran

What kind of service? In case he ran across the real murderer? They should just admit that they were looking at him. There is no reason to deny it. imo

 

[ohiogirl]

but it is evidence the Judge won't let in, so it had to be argued in court before the trial. So there has to be a record of it. I am going to keep my fingers crossed that we find out, or the defense opens the door

If we didn't hear it when the jury was out of the courtroom, it will not be in the transcripts, iirc.
Sorry, my bad, I read your post wrong.

 

[Towhee]

What kind of service? In case he ran across the real murderer? They should just admit that they were looking at him. There is no reason to deny it. imo

...making sure he didn't ditch any more evidence.

 

[Palomine]

During this break, I just wanted to say I love reading and posting at Websleuths. Such a great group of people, no bashing of posters. Ya'll rock. :seeya:

it does happen at times mostly at night and on weekends, but it is quite a nice board

 

[Amster]

Sounds like someone slammed out of the courtroom.....

 

[Palomine]

Does anyone know if Brad is looking for the real Killer??

 

[snowshuze]

Witness is excused.

 

[Maja]

Good Morning folks..Sure glad everyone is safe and sound after really horrendous weekend down there!!

Caught the last 20minutes of so of DD cross by Kurtz...Boy even tho I have followed most of this trial, even I was having trouble following the line of questionings....zig zag is the only way I can describe it...

Whats this I hear about Dismukes coming back to the stand?....Another Blackout?? Say it aint so :maddening:

:seeya: Again..Great to see everyone here!!

Here is a sample Kurtz question:

"You're aware that NC bought a pair of Saucony running shoes in September of 2006, are you not."

Rediculous to me.