State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[sunshine05]

So you don't think she was aware of the "missing" ducks, that piece of information was never told to her, but somehow she knew they weren't missing?

JA said that was NOT one of the "missing" ducks, so why would Mrs. Cooper even make the connection?

 

[gritguy]

For anyone thinking the defense or the witness violated a duty to disclose, then why wouldn't the state have objected to prevent having them brought in? Neither side has shied away from objecting to any or everything.

Also, IMO, there was no duty unless the state had requested such items through discovery.

 

[jrb0124]

They were at the civil attorney's office, if I understand this correctly. Mrs. Cooper knew where they were, she was present for JA's testimony, understood those ducks were being discussed, weren't able to locate them, etc. And yet she did NOT make the defense attorney's aware, apparently, of who had them, where they were, and that they were NOT missing. What is that term for *hiding* evidence? Misleading evidence? I can't think of the legal terminology??

There is no term for her actions (or the defense) because there is nothing illegal about it.

Now, as far as your concern for JA - she's got other things to worry about. There is in fact something illegal about attempting to pressure a witness (MH) not to speak with police.

 

[RR0004]

I don't know if you remember, but JA said the pic of the black duck from the fridge was NOT the duck that was in the foyer. (We know now she was mistaken).

Because the mother says so?
Have you been on the CA thread lately?

 

[3doglady]

I don't know if you remember, but JA said the pic of the black duck from the fridge was NOT the duck that was in the foyer. (We know now she was mistaken).

No, she wasn't mistaken. The black duck on the fridge was never in the foyer. The ducks in the foyer were white and red.

 

[gritguy]

Maybe not, but if I were on the jury and had to sit through lengthy testimony about ducks when the defense knew it was a mute point I'd be ticked with the defense.

Granted, how the juror looks at the whole thing would be different than how I would as an attorney. But I was just trying to answer the legal question.

My take watching it was OK they said he got rid of all this stuff due to a fight, but actually it was still in the house.

 

[Madeleine74]

Well THAT was a total clusterduck.

 

[yeknomaras]

why are we discussing ducks when the prosecution was just talking about a missing router that Cisco has logs about???????? ducks are a non-issue now!

 

[sunshine05]

Still no reason why LE didn't find them in the first place.

They never looked for them, just like they never asked BC for the shoes he was wearing at HT. It was easier for them to just assume everything went in a dumpster somewhere.

 

[otto]

Told by whom?? Bradley?? Like vultures picking over roadkill?? That is sick...:sick:

I guess you missed the testimony? Brad, or Bradly, Bradley, Bradely if you prefer, did not offer his possessions to the attorneys to pay the bill, that was his mother who did that. She also gave them Brad's car.

 

[NCEast]

I might be thinking about this wrong but if it were my son and those ducks were brought into question very early in the trial-- related to a struggle in the foyer-- I would have stood up in the courtroom and shouted---'no, no, no--I know exactly where those ducks are'. She let the idea of the ducks having been damaged and thrown away go on for the duration of this trial until today. I would have made it very obvious, probably during JA's testimony, that I knew where the ducks were because that would have been proof that my son didn't damage the ducks during a struggle in the foyer on the night of July 11.

 

[gracielee]

If she had told the defense attorney, and I were the defense attorney, and those ducks were not subject to discovery, then I'd get them, call Mrs. Cooper and proceed to show the state's witness was completely wrong.

There's no obligation to prevent the other side's witness from sawing off the limb they are sitting on.

What was the state's witness *wrong* about? JA testifed the ducks were present on the table in the front hall the day before nancy 'went missing' and the ducks were no longer there on the table after nancy 'went missing'. That was a true statement. The fact that all this time, the ducks were in Brad's civil lawyers office doesn't make JA's testimony 'wrong' IMO. Everyone, including all of us WS'ers, knew they were looking for the ducks. That they were in an attorney's office no less, you don't consider that to be concealing evidence in a murder trial? It would appear they took a lesson from Michael Peterson's blow poke IMO.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

there was no signs of struggle. Someone took Nancy by surprise. I don't care who agrees or not...the broken hyoid bone.....not an easy thing to do because of the size and location, but possible if a sharp edge is delivered to her neck in the strong grip of an ace tennis player, using his well practiced and "winning" swing.

 

[RR0004]

JA said that was NOT one of the "missing" ducks, so why would Mrs. Cooper even make the connection?

oh...maybe because here a duck, there a duck, everywhere a duck duck. FPS...this is nuts. (JMHO)

 

[sunshine05]

No, she wasn't mistaken. The black duck on the fridge was never in the foyer. The ducks in the foyer were white and red.

Are you sure about that? Even so, they clearly all were a set. JA said it did not look the same (color aside).

 

[jrb0124]

Yeah, the ducks are a total red herring, like so much in this case.

You'd never guess that based on Cummings behavior, you'd think the entire State's case rested on those ducks. Boneheaded display there...

 

[cody100]

bbm
Did Mrs. Cooper have a moral oblication to disclose to Nancy's family any and all items given to Brads lawyer as payment :banghead:

I don't think she had any moral or legal obligation to disclose where the ducks were. She said she did not realize that was so important in the case until some time ago and then told his attorneys to do with it as necessary. IMOO

 

[cassius]

For anyone thinking the defense or the witness violated a duty to disclose, then why wouldn't the state have objected to prevent having them brought in? Neither side has shied away from objecting to any or everything.

Also, IMO, there was no duty unless the state had requested such items through discovery.

Agreed.

 

[jrb0124]

What was the state's witness *wrong* about? JA testifed the ducks were present on the table in the front hall the day before nancy 'went missing' and the ducks were no longer there on the table after nancy 'went missing'. That was a true statement. The fact that all this time, the ducks were in Brad's civil lawyers office doesn't make JA's testimony 'wrong' IMO. Everyone, including all of us WS'ers, knew they were looking for the ducks. That they were in an attorney's office no less, you don't consider that to be concealing evidence in a murder trial? It would appear they took a lesson from Michael Peterson's blow poke IMO.

So now the whereabouts and theories about the ducks are insignificant to the case. That's a lot of back pedalling.:floorlaugh:

 

[RR0004]

Certainly each state has its own rules of procedure. But here, at least on the civil side, if you didn't request it in discovery or get it through court order, you didn't get it from the other side. I don't see a criminal defense attorney having a higher duty to disclose anything that might prevent the state from making an error in their theory.

They should have left the ducks alone.

Hopefully the CISCO evidence coming will be material.

First off, I'd love to have seen some of these depositions...because criminally...I don't believe you can just drop stuff like this. I'd like one of the attorneys to chime in 'cause IMO there's definitely something not right about this.