State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[sunshine05]

Or it was suppressed this morning when the camera went off.

So 2 things....no additional smoking gun. And I think it is safe to say that NC was not wearing a necklace in that HT video. So absolutely nothing new brought out in rebuttal. We already knew that BC had a router in his house earlier that year.

I'm stunned that this is all they had in rebuttal.

Something must have been suppressed because Boz wanted to have several witnesses on about this router. They didn't even show the Windows event log showing the use of the router on the 11th.

 

[ncsu95]

Possible, but Kurtz started asking MAC address questions to GM.
Seems like he was expecting to have to deal with that info.

That's true. Then I'm completely stunned.

 

[kantoo]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/...55/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Missing router focus in Cooper rebuttal testimony

 

[jrb0124]

Wasn't there yet another jury note this morning?

maybe that one said, "no more witnesses, we want to start deliberations now".

 

[gracielee]

I didn't mean to suggest everyone does it. I've outright accused 1 witness of lying and that was RL (mainly because I believe he was).

ETA: And I believe JA lied about some things on the stand as well.

You believe Mr. Lopez lied??? The most sincere witness to take the stand IMO?

 

[Palomine]

wow case is done... goes to the jury now I guess

no they have to charged and closing arguments

 

[Cheyenne130]

It's because they have better video footage than the video of a video shot at an angle and broadcast over the internet. She wasn't wearing a necklace in that video. I think this finally puts that argument to rest.

She was wearing the necklace. I can see it in the picture provided by otto. My eyes are not lying to me.

 

[ncsu95]

You believe Mr. Lopez lied??? The most sincere witness to take the stand IMO?

Yes. I fully believe he lied. As I argued back then, he had way too much detail in his first interview to have made it up.

 

[cityslick]

She was wearing the necklace. I can see it in the picture provided by otto. My eyes are not lying to me.

As far as the jury is concerned she is not and that's the only thing that matters.

 

[jrb0124]

You believe Mr. Lopez lied??? The most sincere witness to take the stand IMO?

I think he lied as well when he changed his account to the CPD after telling them she was planning to run the following morning.

I'm not saying the guy is a liar in general (like JP), but I do think he was pressured to change his story and did - tears, etc.. nonwithstanding.

 

[Madeleine74]

Obviously a strategic decision. If the state brought Chris Frye to the stand, then the defense could bring Mr. Matucci to the stand. The state must have debated the merit of doing so and decided not to.

I wanted to hear that info. :-(

Oh and count me in on those who believe Nancy was wearing her necklace that Fri 7/11/08. TWO witnesses testified to seeing it on her that afternoon, right before she went grocery shopping. Further, at least 2 if not more, witnesses saw her wearing the necklace that night at the party. I have no doubt she was wearing it, grainy/bad video notwithstanding.

 

[Shadow722]

I am shocked. I expected more in rebuttal.

I don't think the judge sustained a motion to suppress J Fry testimony/rebuttal.

What I believe happened, is that the prosecution realized that putting J Fry back on the stand to talk about the router MAC address, opens the door for the defense to put Mr. M their Computer Forensics guy on the stand in front of the jury, thus getting a whole bunch of stuff in the Pros would rather left unsaid.

My IMHO only....

 

[Palomine]

Will charge conference be streamed?

hope so, and I hope there is a time limit on closing

 

[RaleighNC]

That's true. Then I'm completely stunned.

Wow - they're going to let him walk.

Regardless of my opinion (he did it), I don't see a jury convicting on this.

It simply hasn't painted the picture.......

 

[ncsu95]

She was wearing the necklace. I can see it in the picture provided by otto. My eyes are not lying to me.

The evidence, which was not refuted at all by the prosecution, despite being important to their case, is that she was not wearing a necklace. I fully believe you believe you see it. But she's simply not wearing one. And the jury will go into deliberations with the understanding that she was not wearing one on July 11th while at HT. And they will go in understanding that it directly contradicts the testimony of several of NCs friends and her sister that she never took it off. And that will not change no matter how many times you say you see it.

 

[jrb0124]

hope so, and I hope there is a time limit on closing

So does the jury...I think they've already decided to acquit.

 

[gracielee]

Ooops. I don't think judge wanted that info steamed.

What info? Darn, every time I think I have a moment to pop out and get something done, something big happens. I slip to my bedroom to get dressed and comb my hair, and everybody 'Rests'. Sheesh!

 

[Palomine]

I don't think the judge sustained a motion to suppress J Fry testimony/rebuttal.

What I believe happened, is that the prosecution realized that putting J Fry back on the stand to talk about the router MAC address, opens the door for the defense to put Mr. M their Computer Forensics guy on the stand in front of the jury, thus getting a whole bunch of stuff in the Pros would rather left unsaid.

My IMHO only....

I think the pros made a great move...the defense team could have dragged this trial on for another week...virtually proving nothing..just laying doubt...nice blindside...loved the look on the whole defense team

 

[cityslick]

Wow - they're going to let him walk.

Regardless of my opinion (he did it), I don't see a jury convicting on this.

It simply hasn't painted the picture.......

The router testimony would of convinced me that there would be a guilty verdict. Missing that, I have no idea what it may be.

I'm still leaning hung at this point in time, but slightly.

 

[sunshine05]

hope so, and I hope there is a time limit on closing

Why should there be a time limit?

If you were on trial, would you want the judge to impose a time limit on those who are defending you?