State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[jmflu]

Nice? Her job was to win custody for her clients and she got the job done. She had a window of time to show brad was a liar who likely killed his wife and she worked with it.

Her job was not to respect or protect brad. He had his own lawyers for that.

I love having a knowledgable lawyer on here.

What's your take on Kurtz's defense? As far as his performance in the courtroom, I mean? Does he seem effective? Annoying?

 

[Danielle59]

Nice? Her job was to win custody for her clients and she got the job done. She had a window of time to show brad was a liar who likely killed his wife and she worked with it.

Her job was not to respect or protect brad. He had his own lawyers for that.

Yes, but it should have been in the best interest of the children and to not ask questions regarding the children is highly suspect to me.

 

[gritguy]

That is not BCs hand, it is someone behind him.

Nice catch!

 

[Just the Fax]

That is not BCs hand, it is someone behind him.

Well, you had to notice the little details. :crazy:

 

[jmflu]

That is not BCs hand, it is someone behind him.

LOL!!! (Whether true or not... It totally sounds like something you would say!!).

 

[Danielle59]

He had to write down what their favorite things were. I watch two grandchildren two days a week and I don't have to write down their favorite things. Ask me. I can tell you in a heartbeat.

I am not going there, you watch your grandchildren, he worked to support his family, everyone is not you. Personally, I don't think the mother is always the best one in a custody case, if we were talking about that, I think men can be good parents. So what if he wrote down their favorite things, I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[gritguy]

Yes, but it should have been in the best interest of the children and to not ask questions regarding the children is highly suspect to me.

If she believed he is the murdering loser I believe him to be then nailing his rear to the max was absoutely in the best interest of the children.

Nobody comes off looking good at a depo if done well. It is a discovery device.

Good news for Brad! If he is worried about how his lies looked in the depo he is free to take the stand in this trial and set the record straight! Wouldn't it be a bombshell if he does!?!?

 

[Cheyenne130]

I'm not at the trial but I will relay this. If I had a client I was worried about making look sympathetic at trial, I would prepare them for the fact that I would "consult" with them at times. I wanted them to stay engaged and demonstrate with me and with family/friends in the courtroom courtesy, respect and the appearance of close respectful relationships. You are always testifying at trial on the stand or not!

So maybe Kurtz likes the guy and wants his advice or maybe he wants it to look like that.

The problem is with this particular case that technology plays a huge role. I think the defense is relying too heavily on Brad being their psuedo expert. He is too invested to be helpful to his own case. MOO

 

[dramamama]

You're right, they never officially named him as a suspect or even a person of interest while Nancy was missing, but for them to imply that they weren't even "looking at him for it" is disingenuous, IMO. He's the spouse, for crying out loud. It wouldn't hurt the case to admit that they were looking closely at him while still following up on other leads. It hurts their credibility to claim otherwise.

But again, we are looking at this with hindsight, which is always 20/20. At the time, it was more likely that she took off, or was with a friend, etc. than was actually injured from a run and/or murdered. This is the CPD! Do you think they really go into every domestic dispute, someone missing case, and proclaim murder? Taking pictures is standard...Most missing persons cases are VOLUNTARY! They go into every case remembering this. However, if there is something that tips them off, they take notes, interviews, etc., just to CYA. It does in no way suggest that was their only way of thinking....they were just following protocol.

 

[Maja]

That is not BCs hand, it is someone behind him.[/QUOTE
Believe it's BC's father's right hand.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am not going there, you watch your grandchildren, he worked to support his family, everyone is not you. Personally, I don't think the mother is always the best one in a custody case, if we were talking about that, I think men can be good parents. So what if he wrote down their favorite things, I see nothing wrong with that.

Why did he need to write it down? What was the purpose in these notes?
And I agree on men being great care givers. Not all of them. And the really good ones don't seem to find it necessary to make notes for themselves about what their children like. MOO

 

[gritguy]

I love having a knowledgable lawyer on here.

What's your take on Kurtz's defense? As far as his performance in the courtroom, I mean? Does he seem effective? Annoying?

I thought he had the better opening. I haven't seen enough testimony to have an opinion really. But since his job is to shoot a big hole in the state's case everybody's opinion is equal in that regard.

From what I saw, the judge was testy with him early on. Ive wondered why. Sometimes there are reasons for that, but I don't know about this case.

At any rate my trial cases were all civil; criminal defense is a whole different ballgame. I helped some on both sides but didn't try criminal cases.

 

[dramamama]

I'm completely missing how Stubbs talking to the DA, if she did, or LEO, if she did, before the depo was improper in any way at all. If brad killed his wife that would be very relevant to a custody hearing, obviously.

Did she testify under oath she didn't but people think she did so it's perjury?

I'm missing the point apparently.

Brad had his lawyers with him and he knew the theme of the matter was he was likely a murderer and yet he proceeded to answer questions, untruthfully, with his lawyers there having no problem with it. Is the sin that Stubbs consulted all possible sources to make her case for custody for her clients? I just don't see the problem.

Criminals are not promised they won't be asked questions. They have the right to refuse to answer and the right to counsel and that's it. There is no promise they won't get asked hard questions by a fairly well prepared lawyer in a civil matter.

And I don't know, but under the circumstances, was she able to subpoena a statement from the police? Do we know this? It would be relevant to her custody issue.

 

[jmflu]

I thought he had the better opening. I haven't seen enough testimony to have an opinion really. But since his job is to shoot a big hole in the state's case everybody's opinion is equal in that regard.

From what I saw, the judge was testy with him early on. Ive wondered why. Sometimes there are reasons for that, but I don't know about this case.

At any rate my trial cases were all civil; criminal defense is a whole different ballgame. I helped some on both sides but didn't try criminal cases.

Maybe he is always like this? So many of us would be shaking our heads when we found out we had to hear one of his cases? Dunno...

 

[dramamama]

You might want to listen to the call again. Here's the link.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9273562/#/vid9273562

First of all, it sounds like a male officer that initially interviewed JA on the phone. (Otherwise, there is a serious glandular problem, but that's another issue...) Then the call was handed over to a female dispatcher. Around the 10 minute mark, JA tells the interviewer that she and HP are both very worried that her husband may have done something. She described HP as hysterical. If that information was NOT passed along to LE early on in the investigation, someone dropped the ball. (I don't believe they did drop the ball--I believe that LE knew from the beginning that her friends thought BC did something to her. For them to suggest otherwise, or that they were never suspicious of BC the first day is ridiculous.)

But again this is a possible domestic dispute. Not a murder call. It is more likely that she ran off, or diappeared for a day, than was murdered. Ther is NO WAY they suspected the eventual result at this point, no matter what her friend said.

 

[gritguy]

And I don't know, but under the circumstances, was she able to subpoena a statement from the police? Do we know this? It would be relevant to her custody issue.

The defense should know that. But perhaps she called the DA. Perhaps the detective told a family member everything and that person relayed the info. Hard to say. But she would have been crazy to say well I'm not going to find out everything I can to max this depo cause it wouldn't be fair to brad. The judge is fair. The attorneys are one sided laser focused advocates.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Maybe he is always like this? So many of us would be shaking our heads when we found out we had to hear one of his cases? Dunno...

Like I said a few days ago, I have a one year old granddaughter that is a HUGE fan. If I have the earphones plugged in, all I have to do is put one up to her ear when Kurtz is speaking and she cracks up laughing. Nobody else gets her laughing like he does.

 

[ncsu95]

Next best thing to suicide... get the H out of the U.S. when you think the hammer is getting ready to fall.

Yet he did neither.

 

[ncsu95]

I think the most logical reason for looking at Air Canada was just another way to try to prove Nancy was alive when she wasn't. She couldn't call him, and she couldn't search for flights. He premeditated her murder, and set it up to look like she was alive a lot later than when she was.

The search was on the 13th. No way he did that trying to make it look like it was Nancy. Was he going to suggest she snuck into the house to do it?

ETA: I was corrected again and this search occured on the 14th.

 

[gritguy]

I went to the alternate theory thread last night and came back more convinced than ever. Sometimes in a moment of weakness it can help to consider how thin are the chances anything happened other than BC killed his wife.

Nevertheless, it should not be surprising the state has convinced many people. They have finished their case. Kurtz has the chance to show something else happened, and since he likely can't do that he will focus on there just isn't enough evidence and it is all really confusing and the whole town of Cary saw her running and CPD is dishonest.