State v. Bradley Cooper 3-29-11

[borndem]

I find it absolutely dumbfounding that anyone could not see that Brad was a controlling person. That he made disparaging remarks about his murdered wife. That he lied about things. That some things can't be explained away. Absolutely dumbfounding that anyone would see JA as meddling because she had the intuition to report Nancy missing. That people think CPD had no right to suspect Brad before it was proven he was guilty in a court of law. That they would care less about apprehending a real murderer than they did about their own reputation. Absolutely dumbfounding that people think that CPD has nothing and that we have more lack of evidence than they have evidence. Someone murdered that young woman and just about everything points to Brad, but people think we're dealing with Keystone cops here who would have not thought of every theory people could come up with. We're the amateurs here, folks. I guess I'm just all - around dumbfounded that anyone would not see ANYthing to incriminate Brad.

Or maybe, I'm just dumb!!!

Bravo, here's lookin' at you and ME, my WS pal!

 

[Cheyenne130]

Temporary work where? As a maid in a local low rent hotel? She'd still incur daycare costs. Why would she want to do that? She was already doing painting for friends where she could take along the children. Until the separation/divorce was final, he's still giving her that three hundred dollars a week.

Is the $300 a week fact? I don't know that anyone can prove that because there would be no record of how much cash he actually gave her even if he withdrew $300 every week.

 

[cityslick]

Judge giving Kurtz lesson on how to ask questions in a trial.

Edit: Here comes Trenkle for backup lol.

 

[NCEast]

The prosecution certainly wouldn't put forth evidence that someone else did this. It is still the prosecutions case.

Absolutely. I hope they have some meat to offer before the jury just loses interest altogether.
I think ADA Zellinger is doing a terrific job and just keeping this part of this testimony in line is almost like a second line of responsibility. He's got to be sharp to keep up with the awkward cross by Kurtz.
Now Judge Gessner is getting on Kurtz for making broad statements and not questions. Good.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The prosecution certainly wouldn't put forth evidence that someone else did this. It is still the prosecutions case.

That's an excellent point but we do know details from the autopsy report. Based on the autopsy report alone, there is no evidence that points to an unknown. MOO

 

[Maja]

The point of cross is to ask leading questions.

He's not asking questions. He's saying statements. He need's to ASK a question in the form of a question. It's like he's Alex Trebec and expects the witness to answer in the form of a question! It's really poor form IMO.

 

[fran]

I haven't been watching this all day, but just now came in. It seems to me the way they're asking the questions, they are getting Brad's statements in without him testifying.

At least, that's the way I take it.

JMHO
fran

 

[hotpinkstef]

is the list of who is testifying in this case available ?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Does anyone else think it looks like Kurtz didn't shave today? (Sorry, I know that has nothing to do with the case. It's just an observation.)

 

[ncsu95]

That's an excellent point but we do know details from the autopsy report. Based on the autopsy report alone, there is no evidence that points to an unknown. MOO

She was strangled. That doesn't point to anyone in particular.

 

[gracielee]

Originally Posted by Wyn
Nancy probably could have gotten a job illegally, but would it be a job that paid enough to cover the daycare costs that they would incur if she did? She probably wanted to work at a job that challenged her, that she was educated for, and that paid enough to make it worth while.

I think she was supposed to get alimony and child support, right?

-------

But don't you guys think Brad would bring that up to his divorce attorney's? I would think he'd be yellin', 'Nancy is an illegal, working, she doesn't pay income taxes, she doesn't have a work permit, she isn't a good influence on my children, therefore I want custody of them.' MOO, again.

 

[ohiogirl]

I haven't been watching this all day, but just now came in. It seems to me the way they're asking the questions, they are getting Brad's statements in without him testifying.

At least, that's the way I take it.

JMHO
fran

That's exactly what I think they were trying to do. jmo

 

[SleuthinNC]

From what I understand, Nancy had been asking him to help her get work papers for years, since shortly after they moved here. Not knowing anything about international matters, but I do think companies such as Cisco Systems, have ways of moving processes along. I know if there was something of an important nature, the company my husband worked for had 'connections' they could use to assist.

I don't think we have any real information on the status of the green card application. Unless and until somebody representing Cisco or the INS testifies that yes or no a Green Card has or has not been applied for on her behalf and possibly what the status of that application was, all we can really do is speculate.

 

[cityslick]

Well that was interesting.

Is it sad that the most interesting parts of this trial so far is when the judge has went off on the defense?

 

[carolinalady]

This is twice or three times today Trenkle has had to argue to the judge on Kurtz's behalf.

I've seen this lots of times over the years for both prosecution and defense.

 

[Tipstaff]

Can the judge in any stop Kurtz or would he have to do tihs one objection at a time by the prosecution?

 

[Cheyenne130]

She was strangled. That doesn't point to anyone in particular.

That part is true but she also was found with no shoes, socks, shirt, shorts but was left with her sports bra on. There is no evidence of a sexual assault. Her diamond earrings were still in her ears so she wasn't robbed. Her hair was not pulled back which isn't necessarily proof of anything but I don't know of many runners who run with their hair flying in the breeze. It's the little things that you expect to find and don't that make me say it doesn't point to a stranger. Sometimes lack of evidence IS evidence.

 

[SleuthinNC]

This is twice or three times today Trenkle has had to argue to the judge on Kurtz's behalf.

I think Trenkle is very well versed on process and precedent so when issues related to that come up he is going to step in and represent for the defense.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Holeeee Mak..Someone call a Medic for that Def. Attny..He gets himself so riled up it looks like he could have a stroke!!

The discussion between the judge and him is rather heated to say the least..and I have to say...the Judge is correct...No Lawyer should be asking questions regarding statement or affidavits or depos by someone without directing the witness to that particular item.....Good on ya Judge!!:woohoo:

Next, and think it is directed more on the defense right now..most of their questions have been testifying on information that is not been evidencial nor testified to..then asks a leading question??..

I dont know these Def. Attny's nor their history..but they have taken the usual "Defense Tactics" to an extreme..JMOO

 

[TigerBalm]

I think it is relevant if we are talking about her feeling trapped over inability to work. Plus she was already working on child support and alimony but she could have found temporary work until the official separation occurred.

The fact is Nancy did not have a work visa and I do not believe she would have risked being deported (and losing her children at the same time) to find a temporary job. Yes, that is something Brad's divorce attorney could (and would) have used against her.

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with you.