State v Bradley Cooper 5-3-11

[gbay]

I have been, for several days, just not sure. Just not sure what to think. I have a hard time with CPD corruption, but I do think they were very careless in this investigation. I just can't get past some of the simple little details that they did not present or make more of during testimony that would have alleviated some doubt for me. This little banking detail was one of them. They spent so much time on the fluff and not the details. I can not believe they did not spend less time on the friends and more time with concrete evidence. With so little physical evidence, proving their case with what details they had was so important to me. I just don't think its possible to alter the reality of the case they presented and how it just did not go the extra mile for this family. IMHO, the defense did their job in their case but proving reasonable doubt because the prosecution did very little to stop it.

Kelly

I think this may have been brought up in court...we just didn't get to hear all of it. It was one of the testimonies that was blacked out I imagine. We got snippits here and there but missed a ton of the computer activity detail.

 

[johnfear]

You're kidding, right?

No, I am really not.

I sat in on this today and it was like the State just knew how much of a mess this was.

I don't know how to explain it, but it was like bizarro world there.

Cummings looked inept and Zellinger looked like a politician.

Kurtz looked spot on. Trenkle is always awesome (and amusing) to watch.

IT was so weird.

 

[RaleighNative]

I am really not being a smarty when I say this:

Does anyone think it might be possible that WCDA's office needed to throw someone under the bus for this and Cummings volunteered and took Zell with him? Leaving MFH on the sidelines for most of this, but making it look legit.
QUOTE]

Last sentence snipped by me.

Very interesting. I could see that with Cummings. He is #2 behind CW, correct?

Not so sure about Boz. To me he seemed like someone a bit green, but with great potential and passion for his work.

 

[sunshine05]

My thoughts are if there is a verdict tomorrow or Thursday, it will be "not guilty". Anytime beyond that and I think it would be leaning towards a "guilty" verdict.

Anyone else care to make a prediction/analysis?

I think it has to be NG or hung jury. I find it very unlikely that every juror will find him guilty.

As far as timing goes, I have no guesses.

 

[RaleighNative]

No, I am really not.

I sat in on this today and it was like the State just knew how much of a mess this was.

I don't know how to explain it, but it was like bizarro world there.

Cummings looked inept and Zellinger looked like a politician.

Kurtz looked spot on. Trenkle is always awesome (and amusing) to watch.

IT was so weird.

I, along with many others on this board, would love to hear more about your observations in the court room today. Please keep posting!

 

[Cheyenne130]

But only the jurors and those few in the courtroom have heard the critical computer testimony and cross. We must rely on a couple of posts here at WS for the clearest, most detailed reporting of the direct regarding the search and the only details I have seen regarding the cross.

The judge admits he does not understand technology, then almost always rules based on the framing of the issues argued by the State, arguments which were often intentionally misleading and sometimes stating as facts things which were clearly in conflict with evidence and testimony they had presented earlier.

Even those in the courtroom haven't seen all of the evidence. There are photos (the autopsy and body recovery scene in particular) that no one has seen but the jury will see. We still have a lot of blanks.

 

[johnfear]

I, along with many others on this board, would love to hear more about your observations in the court room today. Please keep posting!

I will get there. It really was pretty much: Whatcha see on video is all you get.

Save for the peanut gallery responses.

Did anyone else notice that beyond the obvious stuff, some of both sides seemed to have been taken word for word from this board?

 

[momof7]

I think this may have been brought up in court...we just didn't get to hear all of it. It was one of the testimonies that was blacked out I imagine. We got snippits here and there but missed a ton of the computer activity detail.

I had hoped this was the case. IMHO, so much was blacked out, I did not feel like with what I personally had watched on testimony, even going back 2 or 3 times, really helped the Pros. at all. Not being close enough to go to court, I had wondered if there were things being testified to that would make a difference. Even here, during debate, we could all hear the same thing and have totally different views of the information. For example, I initially, thought the ducks etc were 'missing' turns out, they weren't even looked for. That makes a huge difference to me when I am listening again to the testimony of the Bug Expert, the Detectives. Those are small examples but my feelings. I wonder if that will happen to the jurors once they begin discussing this case.

Kelly

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am really not being a smarty when I say this:

Does anyone think it might be possible that WCDA's office needed to throw someone under the bus for this and Cummings volunteered and took Zell with him? Leaving MFH on the sidelines for most of this, but making it look legit.

I don't even think the families think this was "for real". They were waterworks on one regard and leaving and being silly on the other.

My personal opinion (although I really, really like you as a poster!) is that you are somewhat biased.

 

[cityslick]

I will get there. It really was pretty much: Whatcha see on video is all you get.

Save for the peanut gallery responses.

Did anyone else notice that beyond the obvious stuff, some of both sides seemed to have been taken word for word from this board?

What was the mood of the courtroom (if you can tell) after Trenke? After BZ?

 

[cityslick]

I know people have their opinions about what the verdict would be, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone would be surprised by an NG verdict?

 

[sunshine05]

I am really not being a smarty when I say this:

Does anyone think it might be possible that WCDA's office needed to throw someone under the bus for this and Cummings volunteered and took Zell with him? Leaving MFH on the sidelines for most of this, but making it look legit.

I don't even think the families think this was "for real". They were waterworks on one regard and leaving and being silly on the other.

While listening to the closing, I was thinking that they just didn't have quality, professional attorneys to represent the state in this case. Boz yelled at the jury, was scattered and angry and talking way too fast because he sees the case slipping away. He took it out on the wrong group of people though.

While listening to Cummings, I was thinking that he doesn't have a clear head. He was going through notes, bringing up inappropriate things, yelling and swearing, and the several minute pause for effect at the end was ridiculous. I was embarrassed for both of them.

It almost seemed surreal.

Compare it to defense - Confident, assured, calm and clear.

 

[momof7]

I know people have their opinions about what the verdict would be, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone would be surprised by an NG verdict?

No, I would not be surprised.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I am heading out for the evening..so will just say good night to everybody..but I have to comment on my discomfort with bashing lawyers presenting their cases to the jury..The jury is instructed to judge the evidence NOT the performances..and I feel certain this jury will do just that. It is their job to decide who is credible and who is NOT...

So, I have decided not to even go there..but am looking at the evidence of guilt or innocence...Of course most here know how I believe..but means nadda in how the case is adjudicated..It is the "Triers of the facts"...Lets hope they can come to a consensus..either way..and IF not and there is a retrial, then both sides have learned just what to focus on and what is red herrings...Time will tell!!

Good night fellow Sleuthers..Hope everybody has a nice evening :seeya:

 

[NCEast]

My thoughts are if there is a verdict tomorrow or Thursday, it will be "not guilty". Anytime beyond that and I think it would be leaning towards a "guilty" verdict.

Anyone else care to make a prediction/analysis?

I have to work out of town on Thursday and I am so afraid I'll not hear the verdict. If it's not guilty, I may be glad to be away from the computer.

 

[RaleighNative]

While listening to the closing, I was thinking that they just didn't have quality, professional attorneys to represent the state in this case. Boz yelled at the jury, was scattered and angry and talking way too fast because he sees the case slipping away. He took it out on the wrong group of people though.

While listening to Cummings, I was thinking that he doesn't have a clear head. He was going through notes, bringing up inappropriate things, yelling and swearing, and the several minute pause for effect at the end was ridiculous. I was embarrassed for both of them.

It almost seemed surreal.

Compare it to defense - Confident, assured, calm and clear.

I agree. I'm a fast-talker by nature. Cumming spoke so slowly it drove me crazy throughout the trial.

Yet in spite of this, I could not follow Boz's closing. Anytime he made a point, and I tried to process his point, he was on to the next two points. Plus he came across as shouting on my video, his hand gestures/movements distracted me further, plus his lack of voice inflection. I felt like it was one big run-on sentence.

Watching Boz's closing again won't be of any help to me. I really need to read a transcript to get his points.

 

[BrownRice]

I have to work out of town on Thursday and I am so afraid I'll not hear the verdict. If it's not guilty, I may be glad to be away from the computer.

Sign up for the breaking news text on abc raleigh so you won't miss it!

 

[otto]

Her twin testified in the trial, has been in the courtroom for almost every minute, but drawn notice by many for talking, pointing, giggling, etc. in session, particularly when defense witnesses were on the stand.

She was, and I don't think she had her hair in a pony tail at any time during the trial.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I agree. I'm a fast-talker by nature. Cumming spoke so slowly it drove me crazy throughout the trial.

Yet in spite of this, I could not follow Boz's closing. Anytime he made a point, and I tried to process his point, he was on to the next two points. Plus he came across as shouting on my video, his hand gestures/movements distracted me further, plus his lack of voice inflection. I felt like it was one big run-on sentence.

Watching Boz's closing again won't be of any help to me. I really need to read a transcript to get his points.

My perspective is different. I thought BZ's closing was great! I thought he was passionate and hit the points quickly, but succinctly. I had no trouble following him at all. I had trouble with Kurtz and Cummings but not Zellinger and Trenkle.

 

[NCEast]

She was, and I don't think she had her hair in a pony tail at any time during the trial.

She has had her hair in a pony tail many days. When she doesn't I find myself thinking she needs a good trim when she gets back home and things settle down.