State v. Bradley Cooper 4-29-2011

[NCEast]

I'm still baffled by Coomings cross of Mrs. C. The prosecution knew about these ducks since April 6th, so that couldn't have been a surprise. I think what threw him was having Mrs. C be the one to introduce the ducks. Brilliant move by the defense (in my opinion) having her do it because of who she is (much like the defense choosing not to cross Mrs. R). I think it caught him completely off guard and he handled it poorly.

I know most of you on here can't stand to listen to Kurtz. But I think the defense has done an amazing job in this trial. They quickly refuted much of the State's witnesses, especially the technical one. For example, getting the ME to say he had no confidence in the TOD he presented during direct. Getting the soil expert to admit the chemical makeup of the dirt on the shoe was different from Fielding Dr. Even getting Det. Daniels to admit they have no evidence proving the phone call was faked. Then they quickly, and systematically introduced tons of reasonable doubt during their own case. They brought the ducks in. They showed a video from the 11th of NC not wearing a necklace (that's the evidence at this point despite the opinions in this forum). They showed that the CPD actions with the cell phone are worse than simply wiping the phone (since the sim card wasn't wiped until later). Just as important, they got a lot of the JW testimony in through round about ways after getting Chappelle to admit there are issues with the files and admitting he doesn't know why. Also, they've gotten the prosecution team to make themselves look almost desperate at times (the Boz cows over the expert testimony, the facebook cross examination, gangsta Howard on the tennis grip, the debacle with the cross of Mrs. C). And as much as people don't like his voice, Kurtz has respectfully examined each witness. He even talked to JP with respect while throwing knives at him with his questions. That's a stark contrast to the condescending tone that Zellinger has taken with a couple of witnesses....the same witnesses that he never challenged the testimony on (JW and cell phone guy). For a guy who has never done a murder trial, I think he has done an amazing job.

Kurtz has driven me crazy at times with the way he hasn't been able to formulate questions but I have a feeling a ton of his previous work has been plea deals that never made it to trial, especially since his background is drug related. I have found him to be gracious, very well mannered, and he has pretty much kept his cool--even when Judge Gessner blasted on him a few times. I've been impressed with his demeanor throughout this trial.
I still don't know how Trenkle got pulled into this case, but his experience is easily seen each time he talks with the judge or examines a witness. They make a pretty good duo.

 

[ncsu95]

Here's a better analogy:

defense expert had access to only part of the tree, saw it was diseased; therefore reported that the tree is diseased.

pros expert had access to the whole tree and could not arrive at the same conclusion.

More like it's a huge oak tree, and this acorn on this branch shows the guy is guilty. Now there is some poison throughout the tree (although not much), but the branch with that acorn is full of poison. But I don't think the tree has been poisoned.

 

[Bottle Cap]

His email archives were accessed, among other things. It was part of yesterday's Proof testimony.

And you think it impossible that he accessed his own email archives?

 

[ncsu95]

They're only going through the table evidence one at a time. Sixteen jurors. Plus the hand passing of evidence through the jury box. Per Judge Gessner before blackout.

What I don't get is why Gessner didn't have person one look at all of the evidence except the PC, then look at the PC while person 2 starts looking at the rest. That way someone is always looking at something. Instead, he said if someone wasn't there, leave it in their seat and wait. :banghead:

 

[borndem]

:hen:



And that's all I have to say about THAT.

Bwahhk, bwahhk, bwahhk!

 

[ncsu95]

You're saying BC's email was accessed by someone besides him. Nobody else has said this. Where did you get this from?

It was in the offer of proof. The pst file had been modified.

 

[ncsu95]

I think it's worth mentioning that this "pros Expert" is actually the FBI. If the FBI had gone and found no trace of anything improper he would be a defence expert. The FBI IMO has no vested interest in seeing BC found guilty.

I get the argument that the defence could not see how he derived this evidence, it's agood point but it seems like the documentation for the defence was lacking and incoherent as well, there was no pictures taken of how JW came to any conclusions was there?

Actually, he is a Durham Police Department detective that is part of a government task force. But he is DPD. And we know about the goings on in Durham and some of their recent history.

 

[macd]

It was more than that. BC's email was accessed, files were oddly created and simultaneously deleted. Red flags. They did acknowledge the normal updates but there were various other things that were not right. Do you really think everyone should just simply dismiss everything this forensic witness testified about because someone posted on websleuths that he was wrong about everything? Even the state couldn't refute his evidence of tampering.

Files accessed. Maybe automatic backup program?
Files created/deleted. Maybe automatic disk defragmentation program?

Just because the experts can't say for sure of how every single file ended up in the state it was left, doesn't equal planting of evidence.

Defense can put up smoke and try to confuse, but that doesn't equal planting of evidence.

 

[Bottle Cap]

More like it's a huge oak tree, and this acorn on this branch shows the guy is guilty. Now there is some poison throughout the tree (although not much), but the branch with that acorn is full of poison. But I don't think the tree has been poisoned.

You guys are way better at tech stuff than metaphor. Just sayin'!

 

[borndem]

How does jury deliberation go in a non-sequestered trial? Do they discuss and then leave at 5 each day and return every morning to discuss (assuming it takes more than a day).

Yep, you got it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

And you think it impossible that he accessed his own email archives?

Whether or not he did I think the main point is that nobody should have been able to access his email once the computer was in the custody of the the CPD. The computer was not secured so the data on the machine cannot be trusted.

 

[macd]

It was in the offer of proof. The pst file had been modified.

If computer was on, VPN connected, and email program running then the .pst file would be updated every time an email was received.

 

[ncsu95]

Kurtz has driven me crazy at times with the way he hasn't been able to formulate questions but I have a feeling a ton of his previous work has been plea deals that never made it to trial, especially since his background is drug related. I have found him to be gracious, very well mannered, and he has pretty much kept his cool--even when Judge Gessner blasted on him a few times. I've been impressed with his demeanor throughout this trial.
I still don't know how Trenkle got pulled into this case, but his experience is easily seen each time he talks with the judge or examines a witness. They make a pretty good duo.

That dynamic is interesting. It's like the discussion between Gessner and Kurtz the other day that went on for what seemed like forever. Finally, Trenkle had enough, stood up, said 1 sentence and cleared the whole thing up. The look on Kurtz face was absolutely priceless, along with his "Oh". Trenkle doesn't take any crap in that courtroom from anyone from what I've seen.

 

[cityslick]

I'm still baffled by Coomings cross of Mrs. C. The prosecution knew about these ducks since April 6th, so that couldn't have been a surprise. I think what threw him was having Mrs. C be the one to introduce the ducks. Brilliant move by the defense (in my opinion) having her do it because of who she is (much like the defense choosing not to cross Mrs. R). I think it caught him completely off guard and he handled it poorly.

I know most of you on here can't stand to listen to Kurtz. But I think the defense has done an amazing job in this trial. They quickly refuted much of the State's witnesses, especially the technical one. For example, getting the ME to say he had no confidence in the TOD he presented during direct. Getting the soil expert to admit the chemical makeup of the dirt on the shoe was different from Fielding Dr. Even getting Det. Daniels to admit they have no evidence proving the phone call was faked. Then they quickly, and systematically introduced tons of reasonable doubt during their own case. They brought the ducks in. They showed a video from the 11th of NC not wearing a necklace (that's the evidence at this point despite the opinions in this forum). They showed that the CPD actions with the cell phone are worse than simply wiping the phone (since the sim card wasn't wiped until later). Just as important, they got a lot of the JW testimony in through round about ways after getting Chappelle to admit there are issues with the files and admitting he doesn't know why. Also, they've gotten the prosecution team to make themselves look almost desperate at times (the Boz cows over the expert testimony, the facebook cross examination, gangsta Howard on the tennis grip, the debacle with the cross of Mrs. C). And as much as people don't like his voice, Kurtz has respectfully examined each witness. He even talked to JP with respect while throwing knives at him with his questions. That's a stark contrast to the condescending tone that Zellinger has taken with a couple of witnesses....the same witnesses that he never challenged the testimony on (JW and cell phone guy). For a guy who has never done a murder trial, I think he has done an amazing job.

Great post. I agree with everything you said. Regardless of guilt or innocence (and I still slightly lean guilty as far as rendering a verdict), if you are in the position BC is in, you want Howard Kurtz defending you.

 

[Bottle Cap]

If computer was on, VPN connected, and email program running then the .pst file would be updated every time an email was received.

So: nothing so sinister as people like to believe.

 

[ncsu95]

And you think it impossible that he accessed his own email archives?

I don't think it matters. What matters is that he, nor anyone else, should have been able to access the email archives. You can't simply assume it was BC. It might have been. But he shouldn't have had the opportunity to since it was in police custody.

 

[sunshine05]

And you think it impossible that he accessed his own email archives?

Did I say that? I have no idea. I'm just reporting what the witness said occurred on his computer in that 27 hour time frame when it should have been off if proper handling had taken place.

 

[ncsu95]

You guys are way better at tech stuff than metaphor. Just sayin'!

:slapfight:

 

[Bottle Cap]

I don't think it matters. What matters is that he, nor anyone else, should have been able to access the email archives. You can't simply assume it was BC. It might have been. But he shouldn't have had the opportunity to since it was in police custody.

If it updates every time an email is received, then nobody accessed it.

 

[ncsu95]

If computer was on, VPN connected, and email program running then the .pst file would be updated every time an email was received.

I'd have to re-listen to the witness, but it was something else with the pst file.