State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[Shadow722]

I'm curious now if the lawyer (female) who was in the room with AS and BC for the child custody depo. knew where they were the whole time?

As I understand the testimony, the ducks resided in a box in the Coopers home. The CPD exercised a search warrant, and did not look inside all the boxs that were strewn about the Cooper household.

After the custody hearing, and after BC was arrested, the contents of the home, and BC car were offered to BC's attorneys as partial payment of his legal bill for the custody case representation.

One the those attorneys took the box that had the duckies inside.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

I'm checking out for dinner now....I don't really need to hammer on those ducks anymore.
I believe I have made my point.....and whether it is of significance or not, we will see.
I am content with my theory and welcome any other ideas.....Ciao!

 

[Maja]

She is so 'goin' down'. :waitasec:

The foyer could be seen from the outside, I think a lot of messy people keep what can be seen by the public, for example if the door was opened, cleaned up.

Believe sticks are still unaccounted for.

 

[cityslick]

Let me say I still lean guilty but...

It pretty amazing to see everyone backpedal on the ducks when for days and weeks all I keep reading was how the ducks and sticks were a key piece of CE and that he must of dumped them when he went to HT or went searching. Some would make laundry lists of CE and in the middle of all that was the missing ducks and sticks that no one accounted for, so there must of been a struggle that broke the ducks/sticks, etc.

Look, I think he's guilty, but when the state makes a point to bring up the missing ducks through JA's testimony and then it gets blown out of the water, you got to call that.

 

[Star12]

Originally Posted by gracielee
She is so 'goin' down'.

refers to casey anthony, regarding judge's ruling on admissability of chloroform

 

[LAWsy_ME]

TY for your response...however I do recll she had neck signs of stangulations..was I mistaken??

Next one could conceivably give a karate chop to fracture a hyoid bone if done in correct site..however, her neck from my recollection was evidence of manual stangulations with some sort of markings..which could have been from her necklace or ligature?? Who knows, since I havent seen those pictures and dont think they have even been published to the public...

Im not arguing, just pointing out that manual strangulations is more than likely here..why would a wooden ducky be used when he had two strong hands or arms to fullfill the same end??..The markings on the neck could very well have been from her necklace that was later removed..who knows..as I am sure Bradley will never tell??...

I more question why Brad felt the need to wash wood floors in that foyer July 12th..where specultive struggle took place??..I just doubt Brad ever had washed those floors ever before??..That is what troubles me about the front foyer??

I appreciate your insight as well. from my recollection, there was discoloration of the strap muscles, decomposition of the face and neck,
straight thin line bruising ( which very well could have been her necklace as well) on the neck .....only a little over 1 inch. why not longer? if the necklace.

 

[calgary123]

I'm not sure which attorney had the duck in their office, but they should commence a new ad campaign: "__________, Attorney - at - Large. Will work for bucks, or ducks!". I can hear the quacking in the background now.

On a more serious note, now that the defense has shown they will bring forth positive evidence to explain away certain missing items, they may now have the jury expecting them to also explain away the other "missing" items (ie. Brad's shoes).

And what's this about the router? Do we know for a matter of fact it has been found?

 

[Madeleine74]

The ducks don't make or break the case. They were unaccounted for and thus became part of a list of missing/unknown items. They were in the house, and put away in a box at some point (by who and exactly when we don't know). They ended up the property of Sandlin. The fact that the ducks were displayed today in court is just a theatrical moment. The state never suggested that these decorative ducks were used as a weapon.

Does that mean Nancy wasn't murdered? Does that now exclude the foyer as a place where Nancy might have been attacked? Nope and nope. She still could have been overtaken right as she walked in the door. Or it could have happened elsewhere, like upstairs. That was always a possibility.

 

[Madeleine74]

they should commence a new ad campaign: "__________, Attorney - at - Large. Will work for bucks, or ducks!".

You quack me up! ;~P

And what's this about the router? Do we know for a matter of fact it has been found?

I don't know if the router has been found...sounds like proof of a specific router model being used on Fri 7/11/08 at 10pm was discovered within a Cisco call log. This type of evidence would show the defendant on his computer when he said he was asleep, as well as show a model of router that was one in which a call could be spoofed.

 

[gracielee]

Could someone who knows much more about the legal system than me please explain this?

It's my understanding that the state wants to introduce the new Cisco router/call log information. But the state has already rested. And is this new evidence? Doesn't it need to be turned over to the defense?

Not taking sides here, I just don't know enough about all the rules. Personally, I am very interested to hear exactly what this evidence is.

I heard it was to be in rebuttal.

 

[Shadow722]

I more question why Brad felt the need to wash wood floors in that foyer July 12th..where specultive struggle took place??..I just doubt Brad ever had washed those floors ever before??..That is what troubles me about the front foyer??

LyndyLoo,

For what's it's worth I choose to believe that BC washed the foyer because it was not the murder scene. It was done for the benefit of the CPD as a red herring X marks the spot thingee.

Clean the foyer, put the ducks away in a box, and the LEO's will move heaven and earth investigating that spot, to the exclusion of other locations.

I also believe his clean trunk was also another Red herring. NC was not transported in BC's car. But the CPD tried to find that he did, to the exclusion of NC's vehicle. After all finding NC's hair in her BMW, would not be unusual. Finding her hair in his trunk would be....

Just IMHO

 

[Danielle59]

That's what I was thinking too. Cleaning the duck/s, checking them out closely for damage. I'm wondering where they were when the SW's were served.

They were in the house, nothing was taken until LE released the house.

 

[calgary123]

I heard it was to be in rebuttal.

I would be surprised if that were allowed. It would be sandbagging the defense, albeit unintentional.

 

[NCEast]

I'm going to give a pass to the CPD with respect to searching for the ducks. At the time the search warrants for the house were issued, I doubt they knew the significance the ducks would play out in the trial. They may not have even been mentioned in the search warrants.
I'm going back to the info that shows what was included in the warrants to see what I can find out.

 

[LyndyLoo]

The ducks don't make or break the case. They were unaccounted for and thus became part of a list of missing/unknown items. They were in the house, and put away in a box at some point (by who and exactly when we don't know). They ended up the property of Sandlin. The fact that the ducks were displayed today in court is just a theatrical moment. The state never suggested that these decorative ducks were used as a weapon.

Does that mean Nancy wasn't murdered? Does that now exclude the foyer as a place where Nancy might have been attacked? Nope and nope. She still could have been overtaken right as she walked in the door. Or it could have happened elsewhere, like upstairs. That was always a possibility.

Like for example..Why is two left jogging shoes missing from Nancy's jogging gear?? where are they?? why would she jog in 2 left shoes??..these ducky's and sticks are just what question as to why they went poof after July 11th,2008..They are not the core of the case..but only pointing to need to figure out what happened..I dont think any theory of circumstances gets proven 100%..at least not that I recall..but since LE and Investigators get tips, gossip and innuendo's from people..THEY have to try and figure out what happened and why?? and more importantly WHO??..

Manual stangulations is known to be an intimate crime...so whom could have had motive,means and opportunity?? I tend to think that most investigations have to look at intimate relationships first and foremost..given the circumstances..irregardless of gossip..

 

[LAWsy_ME]

The ducks don't make or break the case. They were unaccounted for and thus became part of a list of missing/unknown items. They were in the house, and put away in a box at some point (by who and exactly when we don't know). They ended up the property of Sandlin. The fact that the ducks were displayed today in court is just a theatrical moment. The state never suggested that these decorative ducks were used as a weapon.

Does that mean Nancy wasn't murdered? Does that now exclude the foyer as a place where Nancy might have been attacked? Nope and nope. She still could have been overtaken right as she walked in the door. Or it could have happened elsewhere, like upstairs. That was always a possibility.

Thank you....and I am officially done quacking about ducks in the foyer!:rubberducky::rubberducky::rubberducky:

 

[gritguy]

Since criminal discovery procedures are different than civil ones, I took a look at them. There are categories of discoverable things and whether and when they have to be disclosed is governed by NC Gen Stat 15A-905. I don't know the scope of the discovery exchanges in this case, so I've no way to have an opinion on where and when the ducks would have fit into that. However, it does only cover things "intended" to be used as evidence. Since intent could change, evidence possibly could be disclosed late even if it existed before.

The judge is allowed to police all this basically by doing whatever he wants: excluding the evidence, mistrial, sanctions, etc.

Under NC Gen Stat 15A-907 any evidence subject to discovery is subject to a continuing duty to disclose promptly once it appears the evidence exists and will be used.

Since I didn't see the state make much of a deal over the production against the defense attorneys, and since the judge didn't exclude it, it must not have been a material violation of any discovery obligations.

Perhaps not a good day anyway to challenge that on legal grounds too hard since the state seems to be preparing to seek introduction of brand new fresh evidence that will be material.

IMO, the duck thing is of no importance, except as to impeach the state's theory of their being missing. Perhaps the jury will think why did the defense waste our time disproving this insignificant fact, or why didn't the defense tell the prosecution a long time ago that the ducks were around, or perhaps the jury will think that is now another hole in the state's case.

Me? I'm hoping this router, CISCO log on thing has legs since I'm still in the BDI camp, though not perhaps a welcome guest any longer by some!

 

[gracielee]

what does this mean?

Someone had posted an update in the Casey Anthony hearings, chloroform is in, apparently. Evidence hearings are ongoing. With all the evidence I've seen that is allowed in, IMO Casey Anthony is going down big time for murder. MOO :seeya:

 

[BrownRice]

Someone had posted an update in the Casey Anthony hearings, chloroform is in, apparently. Evidence hearings are ongoing. With all the evidence I've seen that is allowed in, IMO Casey Anthony is going down big time for murder. MOO :seeya:

I'm not following this case, but she certainly seems guilty from what I saw on Nancy Grace during the years. It's so sad because I have a child that age, and to know that my child continues to age and provide so much love to our family, and to know that her child's life was so unvalued - it's too sad to even think about.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Yes, in fact NC's child was with BC's gf, HM. Nancy of course didn't know her child was with BC's gf, she thought she'd left her child with her bff. Me? I don't give a flying flip who's with who. But I do like to keep the record straight as to what's what. BC & HM were having sex in the bedroom closet while there were three unattended toddlers in the house. Two of the HM's and one of the BC's.

Does it really have a strong bearin on this case where anyone had sex with anyone else? Both NC and BC were completely wrong. Noone was worse or better than the other. They both were wrong in their extramarital affairs. Just because one did it on the couch and the other in the closet (with our without kids present) really makes no difference in cheating on your spouse.

This was a a major downfall in their marriage. Lack of trust and respect. They should have gotten divorced a long time before all of this happened. We probably would have a much different outcome today.