Found Deceased State v Bradley Cooper - 3/23/11

[lib's mom]

OT: Some loon just got kicked out of Casey Anthony's Frey hearing for yelling something about Jesus showing his power in Japan with destruction!

Then Judge Perry showed his power in Orlando with expulsion from the courtroom.

 

[sunshine05]

Maybe the prosecution doesn't have anything because the SBI can no longer get away with manipulating evidence to make it appear in favor of the prosecution's cases. I can't help wonder if all of this presentation of non-data is related to the SBI scandal.

Thursday, August 19, 2010
Misoncduct at the North Carolina SBI Forensic Lab

"Review finds flawed NC cases, including executions," is the AP report written by Martha Waggoner. It's via Google News. Here's an extended excerpt:

Analysts at North Carolina's crime lab omitted, overstated or falsely reported blood evidence in dozens of cases, including three that ended in executions and another where two men were imprisoned for murdering Michael Jordan's father, according to a scathing review released Wednesday.

The government-ordered inquest by two former FBI officials found that agents of the State Bureau of Investigation repeatedly aided prosecutors in obtaining convictions over a 16-year period, mostly by misrepresenting blood evidence and keeping critical notes from defense attorneys.

The review of blood evidence in cases from 1987 to 2003 by two former assistant directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation calls for a thorough examination of 190 criminal cases, stating information that could have helped defendants was sometimes misrepresented or withheld.

"It impacted the decisions that were made — it could have," report author Chris Swecker said Wednesday. "Let me step back and make sure you understand: It could have resulted in situations where information that was material and favorable to the defendant was not disclosed."

 

[SleuthinNC]

Watching this play out I think the defense strategy was brilliant so far. Defense says "They didn't even bother to test this, that and the other" prosecution lays their case out showing that yes they did test this, that and the other, and look there wasn't even anything that points to BC at all. Defense cross "this test showed nothing relevant correct?" "Oops guess we were wrong you did test it, no further questions" Now prosecution case looks like a trail of nothing.

 

[gracielee]

I absolutely agree with your last statement. Sometimes I find that I have not fully thought through something--whether it be this crime/trial or something in my 'real' life. I welcome others' differing opinions as they sometimes open my mind to aspects I have not considered or thought through.

I think everybody on this forum has been nice. Sometimes what shows in print doesn't come through the same as if we had said it out loud--with inflections and tones, or the lack of. That's one of the gray areas in communicating via the net that will never be resolved. I have truly enjoyed getting to know each of you on here and will follow you guys to whatever trial you land at next!

I've said that so often myself. The tone of voice, rolling of ones eyes, snickering laugh, etc., don't translate through typed words alone. Sometimes someone will interpret something I've said online to *anger*. I seldom express anything angrily. What someone else is viewing as 'anger' on my part is 99 times more likely to have been *typed* as either dry humor, like telling someone to bite me, with a sly smile/wink on my face, or sheer, unbelievable laughter while I'm typing. Life is too short for lots of anger. Frustration, yes, anger, not so much. :great:

 

[ohiogirl]

I will respond angrily, mostly because that is what prods me to make a comment. Sucks to be me. That is why I keep quiet most of the time.

 

[ncsu95]

I agree with this statement. Unless the state can somehow tie something together, I probably wouldn't be able to find guilty. Can't say I wouldn't *hang* the jury, though. I don't know that I could find 'not guilty', and the jury would most likely have to *hang*. So far, I continue to believe the state has to have something. Otherwise, why the heck didn't they arrest Jason Young for years? And Ann Miller? It's not like this DA's office 'rushes to judgement' normally. :maddening:

You seriously would hang a jury where the prosecution didn't meet their burden based on your feelings? I certainly hope you don't ever end up on a jury.

 

[gracielee]

You seriously would hang a jury where the prosecution didn't meet their burden based on your feelings? I certainly hope you don't ever end up on a jury.

No, not based on my 'feelings'. I've lived long enough to remember a time *before* DNA, CSI, L&O, etc. If I think a stong *circumstantial* case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt IMO, I would not be bullied into a verdict I didn't believe in.

 

[ncsu95]

No, not based on my 'feelings'. I've lived long enough to remember a time *before* DNA, CSI, L&O, etc. If I think a stong *circumstantial* case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt IMO, I would not be bullied into a verdict I didn't believe in.

Based on what? Forget all the affidavits and custody case, etc. You honestly believe that the burden of the prosecution from what has already been presented in this trial meets the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) already?

 

[gracielee]

Based on what? Forget all the affidavits and custody case, etc. You honestly believe that the burden of the prosecution from what has already been presented in this trial meets the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) already?

The complete case has NOT been presented yet. Once the presentation is complete, I will then make my decision. As the judge states, 'wait until all the evidence has been presented *before* coming to any conclusions.' :fence:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Based on what? Forget all the affidavits and custody case, etc. You honestly believe that the burden of the prosecution from what has already been presented in this trial meets the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) already?

They are on day #10 out of a possible 40 day trial.

Are you pulling a barely baked cake out of the oven and declaring it inedible? Yes, yes you are. No one should be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt AT THIS POINT about legal guilt or not. Note I said "legal guilt." A vote could not be taken today because the case has not been fully presented.

 

[ncsu95]

The complete case has NOT been presented yet. Once the presentation is complete, I will then make my decision. As the judge states, 'wait until all the evidence has been presented *before* coming to any conclusions.' :fence:

Okay, I'm completely confused. You've already said you would hang this jury right now.

 

[ncsu95]

They are on day #10 out of a possible 40 day trial.

Are you pulling a barely baked cake out of the oven and declaring it inedible? Yes, yes you are. No one should be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt AT THIS POINT about legal guilt or not. Note I said "legal guilt." A vote could not be taken today because the case has not been fully presented.

This is from her post:

Unless the state can somehow tie something together, I probably wouldn't be able to find guilty. Can't say I wouldn't *hang* the jury, though. I don't know that I could find 'not guilty', and the jury would most likely have to *hang*.

 

[SleuthyGal]

NCSU, I was responding specifically to this in your posting

You honestly believe that the burden of the prosecution from what has already been presented in this trial meets the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) already?

 

[carolinalady]

I agree with this statement. Unless the state can somehow tie something together, I probably wouldn't be able to find guilty. Can't say I wouldn't *hang* the jury, though. I don't know that I could find 'not guilty', and the jury would most likely have to *hang*. So far, I continue to believe the state has to have something. Otherwise, why the heck didn't they arrest Jason Young for years? And Ann Miller? It's not like this DA's office 'rushes to judgement' normally. :maddening:

Based on what? Forget all the affidavits and custody case, etc. You honestly believe that the burden of the prosecution from what has already been presented in this trial meets the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) already?

They are on day #10 out of a possible 40 day trial.

Are you pulling a barely baked cake out of the oven and declaring it inedible? Yes, yes you are. No one should be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt AT THIS POINT about legal guilt or not. Note I said "legal guilt." A vote could not be taken today because the case has not been fully presented.

BBM, I read it the same way, that as of this point in the trial, GL couldn't find him "not guilty". (As if the prosecution rested their case, at this moment).

 

[gracielee]

This is from her post:

Unless the state can somehow tie something together, I probably wouldn't be able to find guilty. Can't say I wouldn't *hang* the jury, though. I don't know that I could find 'not guilty', and the jury would most likely have to *hang*.

You left out an important part of my statement. I'm hoping that was NOT intentional on your part?

The complete statement should have included:

" So far, I continue to believe the state has to have something. Otherwise, why the heck didn't they arrest Jason Young for years? And Ann Miller? It's not like this DA's office 'rushes to judgement' normally. "


m'kay?

 

[carolinalady]

So, cell phone carrier was AT&T, and home phone was TWC.

To the phone and VOIP pros out there, does that mean he could have just plugged in the CISCO stuff?

 

[ncsu95]

NCSU, I was responding specifically to this in your posting

Maybe I'm having reading comprehension issues. This is what she wrote:

Unless the state can somehow tie something together, I probably wouldn't be able to find guilty. Can't say I wouldn't *hang* the jury, though. I don't know that I could find 'not guilty', and the jury would most likely have to *hang*.

Her first sentence says she couldn't find guilty unless the state somehow ties something together. Her second sentence says "can't say I wouldn't *hand* the jury, though. To me, the second sentence is saying that if the the state doesn't tie this together, I would probably hang the jury (meaning the other jurors vote for not guilty). So that is either juror nullification meaning you ignore your civic responsibility to base your verdict on the evidence....or it means you believe the burden has already been met with what has been presented that you already know you'll vote guilty.

I think we've spent enough time on this though. Back to the non-evidence. At least its not Cummings.

 

[NCB]

ncsu--move on counselor...

 

[gracielee]

BBM, I read it the same way, that as of this point in the trial, GL couldn't find him "not guilty".

What does 'this point in the trial' have to do with anything? The trial isn't over. All the evidence hasn't been entered yet. NOBODY would be expected to FIND anything at this point in time. That's why I don't understand the constant 'well I couldn't find him guilty on this or that's' both here and on local boards. Nobody makes findings on partial trials. This isn't a sporting event, it's a trial and it needs to be complete before anyone can conclude anything IMO. So why the continual 'well I couldn't find him guilty so far..........' many people respond with? That's exactly why the judge keeps saying to the jury 'don't talk about this until the trial is completed'.

 

[gracielee]

So is this testimony leading up to the speculation that Brad originated a computer prompted phone call from his home to his cell?