State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[SleuthinNC]

FYI, websleuths is an AWESOME gathering place.

It is GOOD that it is mainly for victims and witnesses for the pros, etc.

I don't think we would have it any other way. I have seen way worse get forgotten in the mix of trials than we have seen here. As far as current trials go, I think it's actually one of the tamer setups.

Does this trial's use and mention of websleuths sway your posting either way? (You post more, you post less)

When I googled a topic discussed here and my own websleuths post came back in the search results it did give me pause. I am pretty out on the 'net, have been for years but this is definitely a niche I don't typically frequent and won't after this trial.

 

[NCEast]

FYI, websleuths is an AWESOME gathering place.

It is GOOD that it is mainly for victims and witnesses for the pros, etc.

I don't think we would have it any other way. I have seen way worse get forgotten in the mix of trials than we have seen here. As far as current trials go, I think it's actually one of the tamer setups.

Does this trial's use and mention of websleuths sway your posting either way? (You post more, you post less)

The mention of WS didn't alter my postings either way. I have been pretty quiet today because I don't feel quite up to par.....it's that blasted old age thing again
I agree that this is a terrific place to spend time discussing various aspects of a crime/trial. Hope to see more of the same folks in the JY trial.

 

[Madeleine74]

I know if I ever commit a heinous crime like a murder I'm going to two places: here and that other news-related site. Now that I know people will bend over backwards and forwards to place the blame on someone else, I will certainly appreciate that and use it to my great advantage! :wink: :biggrin:

 

[Palomine]

Thank Goodness we ended early today, I went off to Vote and now have to do my income taxes! I can hardly wait for tomorrow

 

[metafizik]

In a way, the 2 hour argument will benefit Kurtz since he is generally long-winded. It will force him to be much more concise in his closing.

My question is, how much of the state closing will rely on testimony that has been discredited? Like the ducks. Like the necklace. Etc.

I think you are probably right. Even though Kurtz's opening statement was very long the trial IMO has played out almost to the letter as he stated it would. He did an excellent job of discrediting the states flimsy evidence during his case in chief and did it very expediously. He should have no problem getting his point across effectively in less than 2 hours.

As for the ducks and necklase - what can you say? I think the jury is probably tired of the parade of lies the state has forced them to endure and they would wise to just let those go. As someone else said the state should be able to sum their case up in about 15 minutes.

 

[sunshine05]

When I googled a topic discussed here and my own websleuths post came back in the search results it did give me pause. I am pretty out on the 'net, have been for years but this is definitely a niche I don't typically frequent and won't after this trial.

Me too. I am not planning to follow anymore trials after this!

 

[less0305]

I know if I ever commit a heinous crime like a murder I'm going to two places: here and that other news-related site. Now that I know people will bend over backwards and forwards to place the blame on someone else, I will certainly appreciate that and use it to my great advantage! :wink: :biggrin:

Aint that the silly truth!!

 

[ncsu95]

I think you are probably right. Even though Kurtz's opening statement was very long the trial IMO has played out almost to the letter as he stated it would. He did an excellent job of discrediting the states flimsy evidence during his case in chief and did it very expediously. He should have no problem getting his point across effectively in less than 2 hours.

As for the ducks and necklase - what can you say? I think the jury is probably tired of the parade of lies the state has forced them to endure and they would wise to just let those go. As someone else said the state should be able to sum their case up in about 15 minutes.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what the prosecution can focus on. It can't be these in my opinion:

1. Sticks (I certainly hope they don't mention the sticks after the duck fiasco)
2. Brad saying the wrong color dress since she was actually wearing a black dress on Friday. That mistake would be easy since she was already at the party and he didn't spend much, if any time with her at the party. She was most likely in the black dress that Friday morning.
3. The affair with HM since her own indescretion with JP and the unknown guy came out
4. Brad's cleaning since we heard her voicemail to her father. Again, I fully believe she ripped into him about the state of the house. It's reasonable to associate the cleaning with that.
5. The snooping of email. I thought up front that this would be important since he supposedly read her email Friday night...but since they never said what it was he read, I'm assuming it was benign and nothing to set him off.
6. The trip to Lowes to purchase the dropcloth since the dropcloth was found unopened in the garage.
7. The MEs time of death since the ME said they weren't confident in their findings.
8. The bug experts time of death since that ranged from 11 am on 7/11 to 11 am on 7/12 and they admitted that the sample size was too small.
9. The spoofed phone call since they offered many theories about how it could have been done yet never came close to showing that it was done. They offer 10 different ways to spoof a call, but not all 10 could have been done because several would have required BCs interaction at that moment. Also, you have Daniels saying they don't have proof of a spoofed call
10. Any of NCs friends testimony since as Coomings so eloquently put it "it makes our witnesses look like liars".

I guess that leaves you with the google search and the testimony of Daniels and Young. And both of those present major challenges since the computer wasn't secured and there was evidence of tampering. The defense didn't get all of the testimony in, but they got most of it in. And the detectives present their own huge challenge because of stuff they did and didn't do. Screwing up the cell phone, sitting on the bed, not photographing scratches, getting chummy with NCs friends, not wearing booties in the house, not having notes that were consistent with each other like the discussion about what she was wearing (2 different statements), etc.

Honestly, what can they focus on that won't be called into question by the defense? Not being snarky, I'm seriously curious where people believe the prosecution should focus their closing?

 

[huck22]

First-time poster, long-time lurker.

I've followed this trial since the day Nancy went missing because Lochmere is only minutes from my home. I'm comfortable saying that most, if not all, of the people in this area believed that Brad committed this murder due to the information put forth by the media and the individuals surrounding this case. I talked to my sister-in-law several weeks ago about the developments in this case and she said, "Wasn't he caught buying bleach at 4am the morning she disappeared?"

That was in the media at the time and that false rumor spread like wildfire throughout the community. So even if Brad is found not guilty, there will be a likely uproar because people haven't followed the case closely and simply believed what was spoon fed to them in those first couple of weeks.

But after following this trial in its entirety, my long held belief that Brad is guilty has been replaced with absolute embarrassment by the actions of the Cary police and the Wake County DA's office. I do not think Brad committed this crime the way the prosecution has laid it out. Did he kill Nancy? I really don't know, but if I was a jury member on this trial, there is no way I could deliver a guilty verdict.

Living in this area for as long as I have, it's no surprise that NC's friends were able to push the police investigation in a particular direction. But the complete ineptitude of the police's handling of evidence along with the prosecution's inability to deliver a coherent argument has been baffling to me.

The google map search and the router in use at 10:21pm on the 11th are the only pieces of evidence that have me questioning whether or not Brad did it, and one of those is corrupted and the other was not admitted into evidence. The duck fiasco was laughable and she wasn't wearing the necklace that she always wore on the 11th.

I feel horrible for NC and her friends and family, but being the father of two small children, a greater disservice would be to find Brad guilty without any legitimate evidence other than marital strife and leave those children with the unimaginable burden of a dead mother and an imprisoned father convicted of killing her.

 

[bloghooligan]

I think you are probably right. Even though Kurtz's opening statement was very long the trial IMO has played out almost to the letter as he stated it would. He did an excellent job of discrediting the states flimsy evidence during his case in chief and did it very expediously. He should have no problem getting his point across effectively in less than 2 hours.

As for the ducks and necklase - what can you say? I think the jury is probably tired of the parade of lies the state has forced them to endure and they would wise to just let those go. As someone else said the state should be able to sum their case up in about 15 minutes.

I'm not an attorney but if I was, I'd have my closing argument drafted or at least in mind at the beginning of a trial, particularly a trial as lengthy as this. nline:I can imagine the state is doing some rewriting/redlining/editing tonight.... nline:

 

[sunshine05]

(snipped for space)

Honestly, what can they focus on that won't be called into question by the defense? Not being snarky, I'm seriously curious where people believe the prosecution should focus their closing?

I think they will mention the domestic violence, InterAct stuff, the episodes of yelling in the parking lot.

The fact that he didn't attend the memorials

Definitely the Google search

They will mention the bug stuff and word it in a way that is inconclusive but "could have been" indication of TOD

I'll bet they bring up the mica somehow too, even though it was meaningless.

They will mention how there are 10 ways to spoof a call, but won't mention that they didn't prove any of them, just that they believe he did.

 

[oenophile]

Although I recognize for some people there simply isn't enough evidence that could ever convince them, especially if there isn't a bloody crime scene, DNA match, a confession, a videotape of the murder, the perp twisting a handlebar mustache and looking evilly into a camera lens (as he confesses), and a victim who has managed to write in the dirt next to her own body the name of the perp (which then can be analyzed and determined to be her own writing/DNA). And still...some would argue that is simply not enough.

Any one of the following things would convince me he is guilty:

1. Full stomach contents in the body when found;
2. Tire marks or footprints near where the body was found that are definitively matched to BC or his car;
3. An actual router configured with an FXO port that had been programmed to make an outbound call at a specific time;
4. BC DNA found under the fingernails;
5. Any physical evidence that there was a dead body in the trunk of that car.
...etc etc

There is a whole world of possible evidence that would clearly incriminate him if he had done it. Police found none. Instead, they uncovered evidence that ruled him out as a suspect, and they attempted to discredit that evidence through rather wild theories.

 

[cassius]

I'm not an attorney but if I was, I'd have my closing argument drafted or at least in mind at the beginning of a trial, particularly a trial as lengthy as this. nline:I can imagine the state is doing some rewriting/redlining/editing tonight.... nline:

Attorneys will start formulating their closing argument almost immediately upon taking a case, they just have to fill in some gaps as they are borne out during the course of the trial. Having been "blindsided" as some suggest will have no bearing on Kurtz's preparation to deliver his closing.

 

[Danielle59]

Me too. I am not planning to follow anymore trials after this!

Me Three!

 

[jrb0124]

I know if I ever commit a heinous crime like a murder I'm going to two places: here and that other news-related site. Now that I know people will bend over backwards and forwards to place the blame on someone else, I will certainly appreciate that and use it to my great advantage! :wink: :biggrin:

If you truly believe that, I challenge you to post it in this forum (same site, different trial).

I imagine you'll get some feedback challenging your sanity

 

[Palomine]

Just because criminals are better prepared to kill without leaving evidence, should they all be found not guilty

I can hardly wait to hear the evidence that was prejudicial to Bradley that the Judge would not let in...I hope it is released to the public immediately after verdict

 

[NCEast]

I'm having a hard time figuring out what the prosecution can focus on. It can't be these in my opinion:

1. Sticks (I certainly hope they don't mention the sticks after the duck fiasco)
2. Brad saying the wrong color dress since she was actually wearing a black dress on Friday. That mistake would be easy since she was already at the party and he didn't spend much, if any time with her at the party. She was most likely in the black dress that Friday morning.
3. The affair with HM since her own indescretion with JP and the unknown guy came out
4. Brad's cleaning since we heard her voicemail to her father. Again, I fully believe she ripped into him about the state of the house. It's reasonable to associate the cleaning with that.
5. The snooping of email. I thought up front that this would be important since he supposedly read her email Friday night...but since they never said what it was he read, I'm assuming it was benign and nothing to set him off.
6. The trip to Lowes to purchase the dropcloth since the dropcloth was found unopened in the garage.
7. The MEs time of death since the ME said they weren't confident in their findings.
8. The bug experts time of death since that ranged from 11 am on 7/11 to 11 am on 7/12 and they admitted that the sample size was too small.
9. The spoofed phone call since they offered many theories about how it could have been done yet never came close to showing that it was done. They offer 10 different ways to spoof a call, but not all 10 could have been done because several would have required BCs interaction at that moment. Also, you have Daniels saying they don't have proof of a spoofed call
10. Any of NCs friends testimony since as Coomings so eloquently put it "it makes our witnesses look like liars".

I guess that leaves you with the google search and the testimony of Daniels and Young. And both of those present major challenges since the computer wasn't secured and there was evidence of tampering. The defense didn't get all of the testimony in, but they got most of it in. And the detectives present their own huge challenge because of stuff they did and didn't do. Screwing up the cell phone, sitting on the bed, not photographing scratches, getting chummy with NCs friends, not wearing booties in the house, not having notes that were consistent with each other like the discussion about what she was wearing (2 different statements), etc.

Honestly, what can they focus on that won't be called into question by the defense? Not being snarky, I'm seriously curious where people believe the prosecution should focus their closing?

I am impressed with your list. Even though it hurts to admit it.

They really don't have many straightforward choices. I still think Det. Daniels' testimony may be important, at least parts of it, some of the inconsistencies in Brad's depo, and his demeanor on the morning of the 12th. The real estate agent's call from Nancy with the ASAP, the separation agreement and Brad's flipping out when he saw the money involved. They can bring up the Google search since that appeared to be what the biggest 'gotcha' of the case hinged on but I'm thinking the defense will show reasonable doubt about anything they say regarding that. There are just too many 'ifs' about the Google search. Since the spoofed phone calls were never proven, opening the door for the defense on those may shoot them in the foot.
They are going to have to work hard tonight to pull out the various parts of testimony that was solid, make all of their dots connect in a manner in which the jury will understand, and bring home the emotional aspects of Nancy as a murdered mother and daughter.

 

[ncsu95]

Just because criminals are better prepared to kill without leaving evidence, should they all be found not guilty

I can hardly wait to hear the evidence that was prejudicial to Bradley that the Judge would not let in...I hope it is released to the public immediately after verdict

Yes, if they kill without leaving evidence, and it can't be proven that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt....then they should not be brought to trial until that evidence is found, or they should be found not guilty.

 

[otto]

I find the dress thing quite interesting too. Brad thought maybe it was a black dress, which I wondered about throughout the trial. Then we see that Nancy was wearing a black dress that day, probably up until she went to the party. That's another point that the prosecution made so much about - that Brad got the dress wrong. It was suggested that he was deliberately hiding the right dress. Now it looks like an innocent mistake.

 

[NCEast]

I'm not an attorney but if I was, I'd have my closing argument drafted or at least in mind at the beginning of a trial, particularly a trial as lengthy as this. nline:I can imagine the state is doing some rewriting/redlining/editing tonight.... nline:

If they drafted early, they have a lot of editing to do.
Perhaps they did it as they went along in the trial--highlighting the positive elements of each person's testimony. They have their work cut out for them regardless and I really hate to have to say it again. The coincidences in this trial were many but I don't know how they can incorporate all of them, without proof, in any positive manner that the defense won't rebuke.
I am seeing Kurtz already paced off with his dueling sword.