The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[ncsu95]

Well maybe somebody else will want to discuss it, because I saw nothing any different than any other trial I've observed. If you want to see some wild prosecution, then watch the Michael Peterson trial. Frieda Black, was that her name? was so dramatic, and so out-spoken. Now that trial, that prosecution, would certainly keep you awake. No snoozing in that court room. Kurtz was clearly out of his league. Not a good idea, IMO, to take on a premediated murder case for your first dip into the big time. MOO

I loved her "Pure T Filth".

 

[TXredhead178]

I was hoping for some comments. It doesn't mean you have to change your opinion about guilt or innocence. Was the behavior of the prosecutor ethical? That moment in the trial turned out to be a very big moment. It lead to the defense bringing a router in to show the size of the router that the Cisco witness said was needed. That lead to JG allowing the Cisco person to come back for rebuttal (which was BS that it was rebuttal). So it wasn't an insignificant moment in this trial.

Was it okay that Boz intentionally mislead the judge a number of times on technical issues raised during objections? Confused him so much that he didn't even know what he was sustaining or overruling.

I do have issues with this stuff. I'm pissed off again just remembering back to some of those moments. Was that behavior okay? Was it okay to outright lie during closing arguments? I expect more out of our representatives. Do you?

Ok, I'll bite ... I think it's unethical for either side to lie and mislead. But our adversarial system tends to encourage both sides to put a lot of "spin" on their positions, and yes, unfortunately sometimes the line from spin to lies gets crossed (though that line isn't always clear). I don't think this is the way it should be, but I also don't think it's right to hold one side to a higher standard than the other where this is concerned, though I do understand the point about about the DA's office representing the people. Under the circumstances, I suppose vigorous cross-exam and counter-argument is the best way to mitigate this. It helps to have judges who are completely on-the-ball, too. Seems our best recourse, as citizens, is the ballot box when it comes to public officials who aren't up to our standards.

I would have liked to have seen more information brought out during this trial, particularly as it concerned the electronic evidence. I don't think the prosecution had anything to fear from allowing more defense witnesses to testify re: the technical aspects of this case. It was clear those experts' analyses had weak points, too, which could easily have been brought out in cross-examination. I do wish more time had been spent on these aspects of the case.

It will really be interesting to hear from the jury, should they choose to comment on the case at some point.

 

[cody100]

yes...:liar:....definitely

And on what do you base that comment?

 

[Tink56]

Yup, Mark Gerragos said 'he was going to show us the REAL KILLER!

And...he's out looking for him with his old pal O.J... :great:

 

[lib's mom]

I loved her "Pure T Filth".

"HARD CORE *advertiser censored*!"

"This isn't just one man and one woman, this is everwhicha way!"

"ANAL SEX!"

Love me some Freda quotes.

 

[jilly]

Kurtz was definitely emboldened by the bloggers...He stated in his "set up" interview...in front of his law books (Must have been his dad's), with make up and lighting...that he read 20,000 of 25,000 blogs and 75% were positive. Maybe he should have been looking for the right computer witness rather than reading blogs...My reaction to all of this is so negative, I can't even begin to comment.

Who was the defense's jury/trial consultant? Which jurors did Kurtz and company recognize as favorable to the defense DURING the trial? There are a gazillion things I could say about the new meaning of "handling media relations" during a trial for a defense team? UGH...:maddening: :banghead:

bbm

I am stunned to learn that! Unreal! He absolutely got caught up in the vitriol. His closing argument was for the benefit of the bloggers!

 

[Cheyenne130]

bbm

I am stunned to learn that! Unreal! He absolutely got caught up in the vitriol. His closing argument was for the benefit of the bloggers!

And that was yet another of his mistakes. He should not have listened to those GOLO people. They gave him a warped impression. MOO

 

[lib's mom]

Kurtz was definitely emboldened by the bloggers...He stated in his "set up" interview...in front of his law books (Must have been his dad's), with make up and lighting...that he read 20,000 of 25,000 blogs and 75% were positive. Maybe he should have been looking for the right computer witness rather than reading blogs...My reaction to all of this is so negative, I can't even begin to comment.

Who was the defense's jury/trial consultant? Which jurors did Kurtz and company recognize as favorable to the defense DURING the trial? There are a gazillion things I could say about the new meaning of "handling media relations" during a trial for a defense team? UGH...:maddening: :banghead:

That's not what he said. He said that he was aware that there were that many quotes, and he was aware of how many were favorable, but that he, himself, had only personally read 20 or 25 of them.

He never said he read 20,000 to 25,000 postings.

 

[otto]

I think Kurtz did just fine personally and BC's defense representation was as good as I have ever seen. The only thing that might have been better would be a defense attorney that JG liked, if there is one.

So much was made of the fact that Brad didn't spill his emotions all over the floor and neighborhood ... he was convicted of first defree murder and no one in his family spilled their emotions all over the floor. There are such people as reserved people; real people but they're not spilling on TV. His parents were very stoic, even in light of the Cooper parents trying to talk to them immediately after the reading of the verdict ... with the cameras on them.

 

[Amster]

And that was yet another of his mistakes. He should not have listened to those GOLO people. They gave him a warped impression. MOO

I think he was banking on the jury cheating and following the case on GOLO. I'm convinced the majority of those posters were defense plants. It was pretty obvious if one followed several message boards. Same posts, word for word, just different user names. :loser:

 

[Amster]

I wonder why Brad's family didn't attend his wedding? Did they always dislike Nancy?

 

[Cheyenne130]

That's not what he said. He said that he was aware that there were that many quotes, and he was aware of how many were favorable, but that he, himself, had only personally read 20 or 25 of them.

He never said he read 20,000 to 25,000 postings.

That's what I heard as well. "20 out of 22,000" or something like that.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think he was banking on the jury cheating and following the case on GOLO. I'm convinced the majority of those posters were defense plants. It was pretty obvious if one followed several message boards. Same posts, word for word, just different user names. :loser:

I don't know. I read that for less than two minutes and had to go take a shower. If he based his opinion for his defense on GOLO, he needs a brain transplant. MOO

 

[otto]

No, I meant have we ever heard a defense attorney say he had evidence of tampering and could prove his client was framed? Legitimate question I think.

How can that be? Wasn't there a recent case of a mentally retarded/mentally challenged man having a signed confession where he spelled his name incorrectly? That was right in NC where a mentally deficient man was accused of murder and after 9 hours there was a written confession, even though he was illiterate ... and his name was spelled wrong. He went to jail for a very long time before anyone was brought into question for the planted evidence.

 

[cody100]

So much was made of the fact that Brad didn't spill his emotions all over the floor and neighborhood ... he was convicted of first defree murder and no one in his family spilled their emotions all over the floor. There are such people as reserved people; real people but they're not spilling on TV. His parents were very stoic, even in light of the Cooper parents trying to talk to them immediately after the reading of the verdict ... with the cameras on them.

I think that many people have a preconceived opinion as to how everyone should react under certain situations. If they don't conform to that, something must be wrong with them. Yes, I do think his family is very private as he is. My heart goes out to them as well as NC's family.

 

[cody100]

I think he was banking on the jury cheating and following the case on GOLO. I'm convinced the majority of those posters were defense plants. It was pretty obvious if one followed several message boards. Same posts, word for word, just different user names. :loser:

Why would you say that comment? Do you have something to substantiate your statements ?

 

[Tink56]

Do you know what he made for those 2 1/2 years?

According to FindLaw a small firm in Raleigh averages the following for years 1-7/billable hours:
$49.46

$51.61

$53.76

$56.77

$61.08

$66.67

$70.97

If Kurtz was making $85 per hour for a 5-day week, at $85/hr. he was making approximately $132,000 year. Actually this is quite good during a recession, IMO, of course.

And, he probably could have been making more if he was handling additional cases on the side.

 

[cody100]

How can that be? Wasn't there a recent case of a mentally retarded/mentally challenged man having a signed confession where he spelled his name incorrectly? That was right in NC where a mentally deficient man was accused of murder and after 9 hours there was a written confession, even though he was illiterate ... and his name was spelled wrong. He went to jail for a very long time before anyone was brought into question for the planted evidence.

I do remember that, but I am having trouble remembering where it happened.

 

[cody100]

According to FindLaw a small firm in Raleigh averages the following for years 1-7/billable hours:
$49.46

$51.61

$53.76

$56.77

$61.08

$66.67

If Kurtz was making $85 per hour for a 5-day week, at $85/hr. he was making approximately $132,000 year. Actually this is quite good during a recession, IMO, of course.

And, he probably could have been making more if he was handling additional cases on the side.




$70.97

Are those numbers hourly rates, and what was his hourly rate for that time period?

 

[otto]

I think Kurtz did just fine personally and BC's defense representation was as good as I have ever seen. The only thing that might have been better would be a defense attorney that JG liked, if there is one.

I would like to see transparency in process. This trial was shrouded in secret methods only known to the FBI, methods that would compromise national security if released. That's absolutely absurd. If there is evidence, by law it must be released to defense through disclosure laws prior to trial ... I hope National Security does not trump Human Rights when it comes to a murder trial ... Brad and Nancy were not terrorists that fall under that cloat of secrecy.

That, disclosure, did not happen in this case. When defense finally understood the scope of the testimony, they realized they needed to add a new witness ... who was disqualified by the judge. The expert was qualified by law ... but it made no difference. The judge would have disqualified every witness because the prosecution argued that their case would be compromised if defense council were allowed rebuttal witnesses.

I would also like to see the case tried by a judge that understands the evidence.