The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[RPD]

I may be mistaken, but I didn't think that Howie would do the appeal. An appellate attorney will do that. If I heard the judge's comments correctly yesterday, he said that he would submit whatever is required for BC to be assigned an appellate attorney

Rudolf is handling the Peterson appeal.
Cooper's appeal may or may not be handled by Kurtz.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I don't believe JP was involved, but he had the same alibi Brad Cooper did.

I guess the difference being Brad was the LAST person who saw her alive..and JP was NOT...He (JP) wasnt at the party, doing other things, and yes he was with kids..as was Brad..however, JP was no where near NC on that fateful night unless one wishes to speculate that he was in one of those vans?:floorlaugh:

Of course you dont believe that portions..:seeya:

I do believe you questioned JP's NOT mentioning his trist with NC ( 3 years prior), but unlike Brad, he did go back within a few days to clear the air..and spill the beans...Unfortunately Brad did not give any statement at Police headquarters..so no audio, no transcript of what Brad said was available..He didnt feel nor did his Legal Council important enough to clearify anything...

So, I do give credit for JP stepping up to the plate and airing "HIS" dirty laundry..but Brad was MUM and dont blame him one bit..Date was July 15/16th 2008 Brad knew he had to hide behind legal his lawyers as soon as "Body was found" even before Nancy was ID'd.....He truly never helped in the investigations..but there again it is MOOT now...He is is heading off to Prison..

 

[Danielle59]

I am listening to it now, he really bugs me with this planting of the google maps, its such a joke. The dude needs a vacation and to take a break from this, he is starting to act like he may lose it. He totally believes Brad is innocent, I feel bad for him that he is convinced. The trial is over but his blah blah blah keeps on going like the energizer bunny. He has to be tired! LOL

You really confuse me with this comment. Are you saying you have more information than Kurtz and the experts about the computer and the google maps? I find no humor in a man getting sent to prison for life, away from his children if there is a possibility of him being innocent.

 

[RPD]

Yep, thanks RPD. I just found it. That might be a good guess for BC

Nash also houses Rae Curruth.
Because Cooper is not considered violent, it is very likely he will end up in a medium security, close custody prison like Nash.

 

[otto]

BUT didnt JP turn out to have a solid alibi.....it sure shows just how aware one has to be on every given day of where they were, what they did, who they were with and be able to prove that in the eye's of LE....Not to mention to one time indiscrete items that occured like three years ago.....

So the accusations go on, and the liars are continually be blamed..and I dont hear any BDDI team pointing any fingers on how he dealt with the initial report of "Where is Nancy" right on thru to avoidance of answering anyone after the Body was found.....

Its all moot now, judgement by his (Brad) peers has been rendered..and heinsight by the Def. Team maybe having regrets of NOT bringing a true Expert in "Forensics" of computers to the table is evident!!...

I happen to believe JW did not help them in the least except to continue with the "Conspiracy" theory..and on Cross exam that was shown to the Jurors in spades just where he was coming from...JW was a Hacker, with acceptance by the "Internet World"..but the bottom line > ...his interpretations were skewed just ONE WAY...Could NOT get past "Plantings" :banghead:JW will have his own road to hoe given his experiences...Dont envy him one bit :rocker:

I'm not interested in pointing fingers at JP, but in terms of motive, means and opportunity, his circumstances are the same as Brad. He had motive (9 months), means and opportunity (increased phone contact and running discussion). Their alibis were that they were watching their children after 6:45 in the morning.

 

[ncsu95]

I guess the difference being Brad was the LAST person who saw her alive..and JP was NOT...He (JP) wasnt at the party, doing other things, and yes he was with kids..as was Brad..however, JP was no where near NC on that fateful night unless one wishes to speculate that he was in one of those vans?:floorlaugh:

Of course you dont believe that portions..:seeya:

I do believe you questioned JP's NOT mentioning his trist with NC ( 3 years prior), but unlike Brad, he did go back within a few days to clear the air..and spill the beans...Unfortunately Brad did not give any statement at Police headquarters..so no audio, no transcript of what Brad said was available..He didnt feel nor did his Legal Council important enough to clearify anything...

So, I do give credit for JP stepping up to the plate and airing "HIS" dirty laundry..but Brad was MUM and dont blame him one bit..Date was July 15/16th 2008 Brad knew he had to hide behind legal his lawyers as soon as "Body was found" even before Nancy was ID'd.....He truly never helped in the investigations..but there again it is MOOT now...He is is heading off to Prison..

I stayed out of all the JP stuff with the exception of discussing his potential paternity of KC.

 

[otto]

Kurtz is a criminal defense attorney that is pursuing an appeal.
Seriously, what did you expect him to say?

Did you hear David Rudolf after Mike Peterson was convicted?

"Travesty of justice"
"My client is innocent"
"We will appeal all the way the Supreme Court"

Blah, blah, blah

I didn't hear "travesty of justice." I heard "the judge was not qualified to rule on the case." I didn't hear "my client is innocent." I heard "police did not propertly investigate hard evidence such as tire tracks, foot prints and discarded objects at the scene." I didn't hear "we will appeal all the way to the supreme court." I heard "we allege spoilation of evidence", the Judge should have "recused" himself due to lack of knowledge of the evidence, "we would like a fair trial where the prosecution discloses evidence to the defense, and the defense is permitted to present rebuttal witnesses."

That's what I heard.

This is not Mike Peterson, Jason Young or Scott Peterson; who were afraid of losing their wives income due to corporate downsizing or pregnancy. This is a guy that provided for his family and who stood to gain less and lose more, in every way, by murdering his wife. He's a logical, smart, computer savvy guy. He can figure that much out ... while he's supposedly accessing a map of the dump site 12 hours before putting his wife there.

The prosecution alleges that he had an angry outburst. No one ever saw him have angry outbursts. In fact, it looks like sports were a healthy outlet for Nancy and Brad. Are we to believe that because he is reserved, he has an angry outburst where he murders his wife, and not before or after?

 

[DogWood]

Where is JW now?

Great question!

I just listened to Kurtz. As others have said, what else is he going to say with an appeal in the progress...

Given what he said, I believe he is going to use this case (along with JW & GM) to bolster their own careers. (I'm referring to the comment about judges not being privy to the new tech age and if they are not, they should at least have a consultant.) Not that I think any of those mentioned would work on the other side - just saying they are laying the ground work. Make sense?

I also think it was JW that sent him(Kurtz) a text during closing arguments. There, I said it. Given what he was talking about when he looked at his phone, pressed the track ball and scrolled...JW is full of himself. (Can I say that?)

 

[RPD]

I didn't hear "travesty of justice." I heard "the judge was not qualified to rule on the case." I didn't hear "my client is innocent." I heard "police did not propertly investigate hard evidence such as tire tracks, foot prints and discarded objects at the scene." I didn't hear "we will appeal all the way to the supreme court." I heard "we allege spoilation of evidence", the Judge should have "recused" himself due to lack of knowledge of the evidence, "we would like a fair trial where the prosecution discloses evidence to the defense, and the defense is permitted to present rebuttal witnesses."

That's what I heard.

This is not Mike Peterson, Jason Young or Scott Peterson; who were afraid of losing their wives income due to corporate downsizing or pregnancy. This is a guy that provided for his family and who stood to gain less and lose more, in every way, by murdering his wife. He's a logical, smart, computer savvy guy. He can figure that much out ... while he's supposedly accessing a map of the dump site 12 hours before putting his wife there.

The prosecution alleges that he had an angry outburst. No one ever saw him have angry outbursts. In fact, it looks like sports were a healthy outlet for Nancy and Brad. Are we to believe that because he is reserved, he has an angry outburst where he murders his wife, and not before or after?

You may want to go back and look at Alice Stubbs separation draft that he intercepted. That document places Cooper in the company of Jason Young, Mike Peterson and Scott Peterson. To me, motive was crystal clear.

 

[johnfear]

Where is JW now?

Right now? Having some tequila, I bet.

About three hours ago? He was reading here and posting on another thread while we tried to decide if we leak a copy of the other side of the computer report or not.

 

[otto]

My opinion; they tried to slip something by. They knew the real forensic expert wouldn't say what they needed him to say. So they got JW. When they couldn't slip in his non-expert testimony, they tried to bring in the real guy at the last minute but only gave him a part of the evidence. All he testified to was "spoilage" and a cookie that had been damaged. I don't think the real expert would have found that any files were planted.

This is from the second expert's testimony; the appelate court evidence. It appears as though there were modified files. I would like to know how that happened, but that testimony was denied.

This is a case watched in two countries. The process should be transparent. The omission of this testimony gives the appearance of smokeandmirror, hand-waving "top-secret method" obfuscation ... and it is not transparent. There's a gaping hole in the verdict.

 

[jumpstreet]

Nash also houses Rae Curruth.
Because Cooper is not considered violent, it is very likely he will end up in a medium security, close custody prison like Nash.

Michael Peterson is there also.... Maybe they can have good discussion re ducks and owls... and other fowl subjects.

 

[otto]

I think Kurtz did address the no reaction type behavior by BC. I am not a BDDI but not necessarily a BDI either. I do like to see justice, and perhaps it was served here but with a bittersweet ending that not all of the evidence on the computer was explained to the jury. I am sure the defense wishes they had found the forensic computer guy first and had him to testify, and that was a tactical error on their part IMO. JP's alibi was the kids and his ex-wife if I remember correctly.

His ex-wife dropped the children off at about 6:45 and went to work, the same time that Brad said that Nancy went jogging and when he too was alone and looking after two young children.

 

[ncsu95]

So does it upset you at all that the prosecutor in this case intentionally mislead the jury? And yes, it was intentional. It's what got me really pissed off watching the trial.

When Boz Zellinger was questioning the Cisco guy the first time around (some time in early April), he intentionally mislead the jury about the size of the equipment needed to fake the call. How many times did he ask about the size of the FXO card? How many times did ask if it could fit in a pocket? The point at the time was to make the jury think that the equipment could be easily hidden and disposed of. It even made some people in here believe the same thing. Boz knew that an FXO card won't work unless it is in a router. And he knows that router won't fit in a pocket. So was that okay? There were other times, and several intentional lies during closing arguments. I'm not pissed about the verdict. I'm pissed about our representatives. Was that behavior okay because they got a guilty verdict?

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?

 

[Grammy Jean]

I found it to be quite laughable that Kurtz brought up JP "lying to police in a murder investigation" and that anyone who "lies to police in a murder investigation, that interview should then become an interrogation." Really? What about your client Mr. Kurtz. When was he interrogated? Oh, yeah, NEVER, because he would never go to the police department to answer any questions, give a statement, or to assist in the investigation.

Also Brad admitted to lying in a sworn deposition. Yep, I laughed out loud when Kurtz went off on JP lying!!!!

 

[LyndyLoo]

Ya know what??..I am done, finished fanitooo with this case now..Brad was held accountable and will await appellate renderings to this case..The local blogs, and protests right now serve only to enfuriate or attempt to discount what 12 unbiased people have decided as "Truth" in THIS CASE..So I will slip out the side door and say ADO..

You all have at it..No One (IMO) other than Brad created this heinousness..So will no longer defend their "Verdict"....It is what it is.....and it is now in the "Judical Hands" to deal with placement, and assessments of legalities of that verdict....

Salut Sleuthers..It has been a pleasure..catch ya all later in another case down the road:woohoo:..

BTW..I am NO Prosecution Protector..Believe me, I have seen some very questionable cases in the past (i.e. Cynthia Sommers) ..and thankfully they have been overturned..But that is yet another thread topic.. Have a great night folks:seeya:

 

[otto]

It just seems preposterous to me for the defense not to have sought the foremost expert forensic computer guru in a matter appearing to have the most weight in this trial. I would have taken the PI driver dude out and put the $ toward the forensic expert. To me, this is where either the defense dropped the ball or they didn't have a ball to drop.

Perhaps they were unable to locate the best expert. Didn't the 2nd expert we heard from say that he contacted the defense? ... and he is a real expert, fully qualified and no Facebook embarassments?

The fact that defense was not prepared for this testimony (that is one of the points they argued pre-trial, that they did not have disclosure of computer forensics) should not disqualify the expert from testifying ... they didn't have the evidence, so they had no choice but to guess what expert to use, or to add the expert after prosecution testimony. When the defense tried to add a qualified witness in that specific area of expertise after prosecution testimony, the prosecution successfully argued that adding the witness would severely disadvantage the fairness of the trial. I suppose it might disadvantage the prosecution's case, but how can hearing rebuttal evidence of computer forensics disadvantage the fairness of the trial? Yet, that is what the prosecution argued ... that they would be disadvantaged if they heard rebuttal to the only real evidence they had, evidence that is suspect.

 

[otto]

Criminal defense attorney

Their reputations are bolstered by getting their clients off...regardless of actual innocence. Personally, I don't believe for a minute he thinks that computer was tampered with.

And prosecutors? What do they get out of a "win"? Do they get to keep their jobs? Anyone hear in the minutes after the court cleared "congrats on the promo"? Someone got a "promo" out of this case.

Personally, I fully believe that BZ believes that Brad is guilty, but I don't for a moment believe that he believes that it was a clean case. I think he knows that without a confused Judge, the case could have had a very different outcome.

 

[jilly]

How was he putting his job on the line in that interview? He wasn't under oath in a court of law. He didn't have to be honest. That was 20 minutes of free advertiseing for him. MOO

Free advertising for sure which makes me curious. I wonder how many of the Kurtz defenders would hire him if they needed a criminal defense attorney.

 

[gracielee]

To not state, but only imply, that police could have tampered with evidence to indicate guilt is rather serious. That's a career deal breaker, but it looks like he's prepared to put his money where his mouth is.

He's a defense lawyer, not the pope. :waitasec: