State v Bradley Cooper 03/31/11

[Cheyenne130]

I didn't get to see that part, but I did catch the part where Kurtz brought up the emails with photo attachments from HP TO Adam (yes, they were on a first name basis) Dismukes requesting from Jennifer all photos of NC from 10/07 (when she purchased the necklace) up to the time of her death. She specifically requested *only* photos with her wearing the necklace. Is everyone here okay with that too?

I thought she explained that fairly well. She did want photos where the necklace could be seen. I did not get the impression that she was saying, "Please don't send any pictures showing her without the necklace." That is what Trenkle wanted you to believe but that was not her intention according to testimony. According to her friends, she never took it off so why would there even be any such pictures among her friends? I would think that there would be photos in the Cooper household that the attorneys could use if they want to try to make that point, but I believe she only had that necklace 9-10 months before her death.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Let me back up a minute here. (You might want to read my other side to this as well)

A lot of you guys are about laying out your opinions on this case and I completely see where you are coming from. Which...is fine and I even see where you might not see where I am coming from.

One of the things I love about this forum, as opposed to other forums I've encountered is that we can debate and hate each other for a minute and be friendly tomorrow. So...in the interest of continuing that...I probably need to change my signature so that it reads something to the effect of: "I'd rather try and figure out what my enemy is going to do next when going to war than plan my breakfast."

This case (from a legal perspective) is going poorly. In the climate we are in, it was tried in the media a long time ago. In fact, I remember fighting along side a lot of the posters here in various other places on the net because I was so convinced that the evidence would overwhelm me and I would be blown away with the swiftness that Chief Bazemore promised me in closing this "domestic violence case of the worst kind".

And I sat and watched as the police faded from our neighborhood over here, thinking that they had definitely found yet another killer and removed him from our midst.

Now....if there is a smoking gun in this case, I will eat my words (way more happily than you'd think) because Justice (with a big old J) has been served and a jury of this man's peers has agreed to that. I think Kurtz and Trenkle are shoring up nearly every single appeals argument as they go so as to appropriately outline it and make a very short appeals process.

But, if they don't have anything and just by the off chance they were wrong, I have two really big problems with that. 1) NC and her loved ones deserve justice and it will be nearly impossible for her to get that and 2) that could potentially mean a killer were wandering free to do such again. (Which I doubt)

Either way, I try and play within the guidelines, but I refuse to quit posting my thoughts on where the defense might be coming from because that's when they win. And while the lawyers have to do that job, the criminals can't think for a minute they had to do the crime.

I totally agree with this and these are my issues as well.

 

[Cheyenne130]

You couldn't see the necklace in the picture. How does that make it a lie?

They were made aware that the picture they had on their website was a misrepresentation. The witness sent them a disk with additional pictures to prove it. That picture remained on their website up until very recently because that is where I saw it when the discussion came up here about her being in a picture showing that she was not wearing the necklace. That is how the website labled the picture. I went again to look last night and the picture is now gone. (Imagine that.)

 

[Cheyenne130]

Was this photo viewed in court? I missed it if it was.

Not yet and I doubt that it will be now. It was on a page of the website of Kurtz and Blum where they laid out some of their points as to why their client is innocent. It has recently been removed.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Kurtz & Blum were trying to do an "AHA!" on their website by showing a picture in which they claimed Nancy was not wearing her necklace.

EXCEPT....

She was.

Other pictures of her from the same event show she WAS wearing her necklace. The picture K&B posted was taken from further away in the room and it was fuzzy and hard to make out any details. They knew this. They certainly KNEW this once they received the disk from Jennifer F, with her attached memo, correcting their 'error.'

And they kept the picture up on their website ANYWAY. For the next 2 years. KNOWING it was a LIE.

That is lying.

They believe the public is gullible and unfortunately, they are correct.

 

[SleuthinNC]

You guys have a much better command of the case than I do. I'm turning here for reference on what's happening. I did watch a lot when I got home. Particularly I began with, though they are not evidence or argument, the opening statements to see the outline of things.

I expected, in my opinion, the prosecution to lay out points more forcefully and really bang home some key things. I was surprised when the ADA said there are things that "don't quite add up." You're sending the guy to jail - they need to totally add up! Well, I was never a district attorney but those I had the pleasure to work with would have you leaving an offering in the plate when the last word of the opening finally evaporated - they really got you fired up about the injustice you were there to address.

The DA approach here to me has really spent a lot of time on showing Brad to be an all around bad guy liar, in the opinion of many people. I think they've got him on being a liar. That's consistent with the opening, but it leaves me thinking yes, yes but give me the evidence he actually did it, most particularly the telling points that paint his activity as inconsistent with normal routines but consistent with what would have been necessary to cover up the murder.

That's just an opinion. I've seen comments here that the defense cross has been annoying - I'd like to watch some of that.

I agree with what you have said here. I almost feel as though the prosecution argument up to this point has been "We don't really know how he did it, but he was a really jerk, and we know he did it."

I keep hoping there is something solid yet to come.

As far as defense cross being termed annoying, some don't like his voice, I think others don't like the fact that defense is doing their job and neutralizing a lot of prosecution witness testimony.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Lochmere always seemed to me pretty safe in the a.m. Friendly people out and enough that as pointed out by SG it'd be hard to make an abduction without a witness. At night, it got a bit more sketchy.

When I first came back to Raleigh, I got an apartment at The Park which sounds nice and backs up to Lochmere (and is across the street from the subject HT), but it had its adventures in tenants.

OT - Small World! When we moved here we lived in The Park as well. I remember being very afraid of the crazy swans at the lake! :floorlaugh:

 

[Cheyenne130]

I agree with what you have said here. I almost feel as though the prosecution argument up to this point has been "We don't really know how he did it, but he was a really jerk, and we know he did it."

I keep hoping there is something solid yet to come.

As far as defense cross being termed annoying, some don't like his voice, I think others don't like the fact that defense is doing their job and neutralizing a lot of prosecution witness testimony.

I don't like it because it's meant to distort. I get that their job is to get an acquital for their client but I don't like the way they word some questions in order to try to misrepresent facts and I don't like the way they use certain words to try to make the witness appear as if they are on a vengeful mission and not there to represent the truth as they know it. MOO

 

[cityslick]

I don't like it because it's meant to distort. I get that their job is to get an acquital for their client but I don't like the way they word some questions in order to try to misrepresent facts and I don't like the way they use certain words to try to make the witness appear as if they are on a vengeful mission and not there to represent the truth as they know it. MOO

Quite honestly though, they're going to do whatever they can legally to try to get a 'not guilty' verdict. As well they should. Doesn't mean it's right or fair.

Don't be surprised if the state does the same thing when they cross during the defense's case. At the end of the day they are all lawyers. They get a certain reputation for a reason.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I don't like it because it's meant to distort. I get that their job is to get an acquital for their client but I don't like the way they word some questions in order to try to misrepresent facts and I don't like the way they use certain words to try to make the witness appear as if they are on a vengeful mission and not there to represent the truth as they know it. MOO

If Kurtz had not specifically asked if their was any instance where he had put something in front of the jury during his questioning which was untrue and the prosecution did not have any example to show that he had I would go along with the distortion argument. They have not misrepresented anything any more than the prosecution has in my view.

 

[less0305]

LOL, I bet it did. I never walk without my dogs, so I usually feel pretty safe. One is an 85 lb. Rottie/German Shepherd mix and the other is a 90 plus lb. Catahoula Leopard Dog. Yes, I walk them together. I was a bit concerned about a pit bull I'd seen, so I asked a deputy I met about mace or bear spray. He suggested I wear a holster and pack my revolver. That 'as long as it wasn't concealed I would be legal.' :seeya:

Off topic - BUT, OMG!!! I wanted a Catahoula Leopard Dog sooooooo badly!!!! I couldn't find any breeders or any for sale in my neck of the woods!!!! I finally saw one on a rescue site, but it was already taken when I saw it and contacted the agency. I LOVE THOSE DOGS!!!! We ended up with two boxer puppies and they're a little over 4 months old now. They're my babies and we had a boxer in the past so we knew the breed and knew how family-oriented they are. Catahoulas are supposed to be very good family dogs also - but are excellent guard dogs. I'd love to see a pic of yours!

 

[less0305]

Double jeopardy...No ...

Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). "

www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

If he has received a verdict for murder (or whatever) the cannot be tried for the same crime again. Try, try again does not apply. Her family could sue him for Wrongful Death -- civil suit -- and be awarded $$ damages based on many things that were taken away when the person died.

And I really really really hope his attorney claims in court that Bradley lied in his depositions!!! And then I hope the state socks it to him on perjury under oath charges!!! Oh, please please please charge him with perjury!! I know it's not the same, but if he walks out of this murder unscathed - at least get his stupid butt on perjury. A criminal record. Even though I know he's going to go back to Canada and it won't make a difference, but I just want that satisfaction.

 

[gracielee]

Off topic - BUT, OMG!!! I wanted a Catahoula Leopard Dog sooooooo badly!!!! I couldn't find any breeders or any for sale in my neck of the woods!!!! I finally saw one on a rescue site, but it was already taken when I saw it and contacted the agency. I LOVE THOSE DOGS!!!! We ended up with two boxer puppies and they're a little over 4 months old now. They're my babies and we had a boxer in the past so we knew the breed and knew how family-oriented they are. Catahoulas are supposed to be very good family dogs also - but are excellent guard dogs. I'd love to see a pic of yours!

He's an adult rescue. Since the loss of our last dog we'd had since puppyhood, we decided to focus on adult rescue. We've had him since he was about 2 yrs. old, IIRC close to 4 years now, so he's about 6. He has one brown eye and one very blue eye. And he's the most stubborn dog we've ever had, but we adore him. Be happy to share photos.

 

[sunshine05]

I thought she explained that fairly well. She did want photos where the necklace could be seen. I did not get the impression that she was saying, "Please don't send any pictures showing her without the necklace." That is what Trenkle wanted you to believe but that was not her intention according to testimony. According to her friends, she never took it off so why would there even be any such pictures among her friends? I would think that there would be photos in the Cooper household that the attorneys could use if they want to try to make that point, but I believe she only had that necklace 9-10 months before her death.

Yes, keep twisting things.....the only people who buy it are posters on this forum (sorry).

 

[jmflu]

Because everyone else is uninformed?

 

[iucpa]

And I really really really hope his attorney claims in court that Bradley lied in his depositions!!! And then I hope the state socks it to him on perjury under oath charges!!! Oh, please please please charge him with perjury!! I know it's not the same, but if he walks out of this murder unscathed - at least get his stupid butt on perjury. A criminal record. Even though I know he's going to go back to Canada and it won't make a difference, but I just want that satisfaction.

Why such personal hatred/bias? Don't you just want justice to prevail? I'm keeping an open mind until all the evidence for both sides has been presented. So far, there is no doubt there is not even close to enough evidence to even start to think he's guilty, so I wouldn't come close to saying what you just said...

 

[less0305]

Why such personal hatred/bias? Don't you just want justice to prevail? I'm keeping an open mind until all the evidence for both sides has been presented. So far, there is no doubt there is not even close to enough evidence to even start to think he's guilty, so I wouldn't come close to saying what you just said...

There's been enough evidence for me. Sorry if that stinks for you. I personally dislike and am biased against anyone who would take a loving mother from two very young little girls. I was pretty sure before the deposition, but I was firmly convinced after the deposition. I do want justice to prevail! And I would like to see BC charged with perjury upon the completion of his murder trial. He lied under oath. I think his own attorney alluded to that fact. I also hope that Nancy's family pursues a wrongful death suit. He's a disgraceful, selfish bag of skin and bone. I have no doubt he killed his wife and I have no doubt he wrecked his children's lives by taking away their mother. MOO.