State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[otto]

I believe that Brad Cooper is guilty of the premeditated murder of Nancy Cooper. I do not understand how this murder could have been committed by Brad and not have been premeditated.

It's an interesting case. If the murder was not premeditated, and the phone calls were not spoofed, then Nancy did phone Brad in the morning ... she was alive shortly before 7, and then Brad's alibi of looking after the children is as solid as JP's alibi of looking after the children.

 

[gracielee]

Interesting that the judge isn't convinced that the prosecution successfully argued 1st degree.

That is NOT what the judge said. The judge said 'it is not up to him, the judge, to preclude what one or more jurors MIGHT believe.' <mod snip> He has to abide by the law in general, not simply this case, these attorney's, etc.

 

[gracielee]

It seems that no one is all that convinced that Brad is guilty of 1st degree murder ... no confidence in the strength of the case.

You have seen the poll here, right?

 

[jrb0124]

The ability to spoof calls was testified to by Cisco witness way back..listed 10 ways it can be done...But what they did not hear was that brad used that device 10PM night of July11th,2008...But it has been shown Brad had access to that very equipment and was the last know possesser of that router which used that FXO card...

I think I got that right :waitasec:

So BC possibly had (2) routers that he could have used to spoof the call, but its not been evidenced or testified to that either one was in operation on 7/11 or 7/12 or at any point beyond April 2008. Do 2 unaccounted for routers make it more likely he spoofed the call than just having 1 unaccounted for?

 

[bloghooligan]

:deadhorse:


Although you continue to try to link them together, IMO the two cases have NOTHING in common. MOO

:deadhorse:

I never said they had anything in common.

Just that the Nifong case altered my view of trials/PD/DAs and Judges. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty (period) and (sadly) prosecutors no longer ride the white horses...

 

[gracielee]

Wrong. They did not object. Didn't you hear Cummings right before the end of today's court session?

I stand by my original statement, the state asked for first degree only, the judge over-ruled them on it.

 

[yeknomaras]

personally, I would like to shake each member of the jury complaining about time. whether you think BC is guilty or not, the man deserves a fair trial and is basically fighting for his life right now. excuuuuuuse me if that interferes with your schedule. but being a citizen of a country means you have to serve on a jury every once in a while. don't be so selfish.

 

[macd]

The ability to spoof calls was testified to by Cisco witness way back..listed 10 ways it can be done...But what they did not hear was that brad used that device 10PM night of July11th,2008...But it has been shown Brad had access to that very equipment and was the last know possesser of that router which used that FXO card...

I think I got that right :waitasec:

Yes. My original comment was only directed toward proving pre-meditation.
He was locally connected and almost for sure configuring the router at 10:21pm (he had to change its IP address to fix the conflict). To me this is very strong evidence and it goes strongly to pre-meditation. He's manufacturing a false alibi at 10:21pm! But, the Jury did not hear that.

 

[jrb0124]

As we wonder if justice will or will not be served for NC, I am watching the dozens of vehicles drive behind my house of parents who just picked up their kids from Triangle Academy. NC won't ever do that again.......

If BC is innocent, there is no justice served for NC by convicting him. If BC is innocent, this trial has nothing to do with justice for NC.

 

[gbay]

You are correct. If anything, it shows BC may have taken home a 3825 in January. This means nothing, because '3825 model router' has nothing else in evidence or testimony mentioning it. Its already in evidence that he had an FXO-capable router in his house Jan-Apr. Today's testimony added nothing to the State's case, and maybe detracted from it by once again highlighting the last minute scrambling and lack of inventory security at Cisco.

I am sure they will tie it all together in closing.

 

[less0305]

A couple of posters have insinuated jurors are reading this board. Do you really think they would have complete disregard for the court's orders and disobey this rule? If I was a juror, it would be tempting, but I would be SO paranoid I'd be caught (with IP address or something), that I would never do it.

Read as a guest, I wouldn't doubt that somebody might - certainly not all and more than likely not a majority - but I wouldn't doubt for a minute that one or two have. I also wouldn't doubt that one or two haven't gotten a play by play of the day's testimony from a relative. I think it's human nature and I just wouldn't put it past some no matter how many times they've been admonished not to. I think curiosity gets the best of some people.

 

[bloghooligan]

I'm over it, my friends are over it, my family is 'over it'. It may be prevalent with *some*, but in my crowd, 'it's over'. MOO

I'm over it too but my view of our justice system, PD, prosecutors, etc is forever changed.

 

[jrb0124]

I stand by my original statement, the state asked for first degree only, the judge over-ruled them on it.

Your statement was: "The state did object to the second degree inclusion, the judge over-ruled them."

The truth is that the State did not object to the second degree inclusion, they said nothing at the time. Cummings pointed this out to the judge 10 min later, said "we had no objections".

 

[Palomine]

That is NOT what the judge said. The judge said 'it is not up to him, the judge, to preclude what one or more jurors MIGHT believe.' You must listen more carefully to what the judge is saying. He has to abide by the law in general, not simply this case, these attorney's, etc.

thank you...you are much better with words than I

 

[less0305]

I still believe it's first degree premeditated murder at the hands of Brad Cooper and I believe the first stages of planning started in the winter months of '08 (Jan or Feb).

 

[LaLaw2000]

I still think we will get a guilty verdict! Back to lurking now!

 

[macd]

I think we'll get a verdict tomorrow.

 

[Danielle59]

Usually the state argues first & third. I missed it, but apparently the state chose to argue only one time, after the defense. Had the defense not put on any case, they are allowed to argue last. Because they did put on a case, and the state has the burden of proof, in my experience, the state always has two opportunites to argue, and they always have the last opportunity to close.

The State did argue first and third, today's testimony was third.

 

[cityslick]

The Cisco witness testimony today would of been a whole lot stronger is there was testimony that followed that showed that router actually being used. As it stands right now, it's right up there with the testimony about the FXO card. He ordered it in January, but we know nothing about it after that point.

About the google search, I wonder how much they will put into JW's testimony as the state did not put anything to rebut him nor did they cross him on what he was specifically talking about.

 

[MrsWendy]

personally, I would like to shake each member of the jury complaining about time. whether you think BC is guilty or not, the man deserves a fair trial and is basically fighting for his life right now. excuuuuuuse me if that interferes with your schedule. but being a citizen of a country means you have to serve on a jury every once in a while. don't be so selfish.

I can't blame the jury for being impatient. This trial has being going on for 2 entire months now. That is an awfully long time to serve on a jury, especially for those members of the jury who have jobs that they haven't been able to do. And when you add the fact that much of the two months has been wasted by pointless testimony that added no value, I can see why they are getting antsy.

But I do agree that he deserves a fair trial and that they should do everything the can to ensure that he gets one, no matter how impatient they may be.