State v Bradley Cooper 04-19-2011

[CaryFrom NJ]

That's like comparing the tortoise and the snail.

Actually - I do have to agree. They are both awful in their vocal tones and failure to speak quickly. I mis-spoke with I said "quick"

 

[unc70]

I want the real killer of Nancy brought to justice. If that is not Brad then it must be someone else. If someone framed Brad Cooper then that person must be the real killer, yes? If the real killer didn't frame Brad Cooper then the person who did frame him must know who the real killer is (and that it is not Brad Cooper).

And I want to know why this framer chose to go the route of changing a computer file as their method to this frame job. That's pretty specific. I want to know how they knew there wasn't other evidence to lead to the killer.

Nothing says that the "framer" and the "real killer" have to be the same person or even know each other.

 

[Albert]

I don't think it's too far-fetched that CPD may have looked at Fielding DR relative to the Cooper's residence. Not to try to plant any evidence, but as part of the investigation. Then changed the date so no one would suspect they were using the computer during those 27 hours.

None of this would be happening right now if they hadn't left it up and running for 27 hours. Why would they do that?

And at the same time the CPD must have taken the 2 left shoes. I think you are onto something

 

[ncsu95]

I like Kurtz. Granted his voice is strange and grating at first, but it doesn't bother me. And, he fights hard for his client. So, I have to disagree with you on who wouldn't. But you are correct that Judge G doesn't hide his total dislike for him. As for rulings, you are entitled as always to your opinion.

I do too. I think he is pretty level headed as well. He has been respectful with his tone to everyone in this trial. Even his co-council has lost it a couple of times. And the manner in which Zellinger was talking to Jay Ward this morning was ridiculous. You can get your point across to the judge (it doesn't take much in this case) without belittling the witness. the "did you even know that before I told you" question was completely out of line. He had every right to question his credentials and his methods, but he didn't have the right to talk down to this guy.

 

[Just the Fax]

Just wondering if you are this snarky in person or is it just the persona you use when you hide behind a computer?

I NEVER suggested he is a possible murder suspect. NEVER. And I said "played" together. If you are going to get so literal, get it right.

Did I say you did?
I said "according to some".

 

[johnfear]

Here's where they were going.

1) The CTF definitely "left something out". I don't know what. I don't care.
2) There is no planted evidence, there was a manipulation.
3) The manipulation was two-part. a) someone was looking ahead of the search warrant on BC's Cisco Thinkpad (7-25 if memory serves) and then covered up the looksie into it and IT IS IN THE MFT, but doesn't qualify as exculpatory.
4) The guy on the stand today is awesome, FYI. The jury LOVED him.
5) Why did they let three of the blacked out witnesses sit in open court IN CAMERA VIEW? Could you guys see them?
6) They called out Chad for apparently recording GJ headed to the stand. Was this on the live stream?

This crap is so boring it's silly and I really want to catch up on all your posts, but it KEEPS expanding. So, courtroom, today...fun. (Not really. We sat there for like four hours of nothing)

OH, by the way, Zellinger was a and may have screwed up the "smoking gun" today in misquoting the case law on methodology. Several people on each side noted it. I think Kurtz moved for the mistrial and the bias thing to call the judge's bluff for a day or two. This also buys him time to get some better answers from the pros re: "How am I supposed to get an expert when I don't know what I'm dealing with?"

He got several sustains in AND got an overrule in his favor.

I bet this looked really boring from home (most of it truly was) HOWEVER, parts of it seemed fun.

They are definitely gonna take it to the wire. I believe a few of you were there when CC was hemming and hawing over some of the things happening around the google search and the whole "ummm, it was not an update that I remember, but we ruled it out....because we ruled it out. I am not sure why it got ruled out."

Sorry I can't read all of the wonderful posts tonite, but I will catch up in the morning and weigh in with something witty somewhere.

 

[jrb0124]

And at the same time the CPD must have taken the 2 left shoes. I think you are onto something

CPD has stated, during testimony, that they 'do not consider the shoes (other sides) missing'.

However, what they could have been doing at the same time is erasing the data in NC phone - which they have admitted to.

 

[sunshine05]

Actually - I do have to agree. They are both awful in their vocal tones and failure to speak quickly. I mis-spoke with I said "quick"

I think Kurtz does TRY to get to the point but with evasive/forgetful witnesses that is a huge challenge.

He spent a lot of time questioning the credentials of JW today, but he had to. Once he was deemed an expert witness in certain categories, Kurtz went straight to it with the demo of how to hack into someone's network.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Actually a brilliant move by Kurtz.
He knew full well the judge had grounds for his rulings.
His tantrum and grandstanding may work to get some future rulings to go his way, even if it is not in the best interest of justice.

Kinda like K and Roy working the refs.

Orrr giving him enough rope to hang himself...I happen to think Boz is getting this too...Kurtz is being allowed to go so far into this..and it may come back to bite him in the end...like I said..I dont believe it was helpful to show how easy it was to crack servers ( ala getting into nancy's emails)..and abilities to delete data remotely..now that one really surprise me,, But we will see how it shakes out after cross and re-direct and re-cross...

Please guys rmember AT&T has call logs..and those time stamps are in concrete..and I do think jurors will understand them..put them together with just who had access to those #'s...Hacking is not going to be even part f their equation in my opinion..:twocents:

 

[Albert]

"Compromised" is an adjective too, and that's how I am using it. Defense doesn't need a who or a why, the jurors can come to their own conclusions. Remember, the defense only needs to create reaosnable doubt, they don;t have to prove anything. The fact that the laptop could have been accessed by someone other than BC greatly diminishes the integrity of that evidence.

Cool, so now all pedophiles caught with child on their computers will be let off the hook if their computer was on a WEP network.

 

[dramamama]

I wish I could remember where off the top of my head, it was probably a true crime book regarding either OJ or SP, but there was an excellent description of CE. It is thought by some, that CE is a chain, and if one link is broken in their mind, then the entire case falls to pieces. Rather, CE is like a rope, and each piece of CE just strengthens the cord, so if individual pieces are disputed by members of the jury, it doesn’t matter, because the strength of the rope is still there.

That being said, reasonable doubt would have to destroy many if not most of the cords in the strength of this rope. So for the defense to be successful to me, they need to not show some flashy scenarios, but get serious in showing the following:
1. Show me a witness who will verify Brad’s statement, regardless of what NC said, that they had not discussed divorce in two months and were reconciling. Just one.
2. Show me another person who was snooping on NC’s email.
3. Show me a witness who claims BC never used the FXO card in his home, and had a work-related purpose for ordering one that can be verified.
4. Show me a witness that can verify BC never took a router from Cisco to accommodate an FXO card, or if not, one that can verify a safe return of one.
5. Show me another suspect’s computer that researched Fielding Dr. before the murder.
6. Show me the allowance withdrawl BC made for NC that weekend, despite her painting, to show her a liar.
7. Show me a video, where either BC is asleep when he said he was, or a log from another computer that shows someone hacked BC’s system, and looked at NC’s email the night before the murder when he said he was sleeping.
8. Show me a witness who will testify that at least ONE OTHER TIME in the marriage BC cleaned and did all the laundry in an attempt to appease his wife.
9. Show me a witness who can claim that NC ran with two left shoes regularly bc of a foot disorder.
10. Show me a witness who can testify that NC threw the sticks and ducks away on Saturday morning, before her run, because she didn’t like them.
11. Show me a witness who can testify that BC did in fact spill gas in his trunk the weekend he said he did weeks before the murder.
12. Show me a witness who saw the cleaned garage before NC came home, and then saw her and the kids mess it up after their return from vacation.
13. Show me a witness who can state why BC was concerned about search dogs for his missing wife, but could not provide one single article of clothing to help in the search bc he suddenly did all the laundry. Can anyone testify seeing him berate himself for the irony of finally doing the one thing to help his marriage was the one thing that would keep her missing?
14. Show me a witness that can also testify that even though NC was a regular, if not almost daily runner, she wore the same black and red sportsbra every day, despite the heat and perspiration.
15. Show me a witness that can say they saw that stain on NC’s dress.
16. Show me a witness, who either saw, or heard from BC that NC gave her treasured necklace to him because she was so angry the night before she went missing.
17. Show me the IP address of the person who hacked not one, but all of the computers in that house.
18. Show me one person who was seen at the crime sight, who knew NC.
19. And show me a witness who either saw NC jogging with someone else that morning, or saw her enter a home or other location with someone else.
I could go on and on, but you get my point. ( And if some of you don’t, please ask, and I will keep going…) Stop talking Kurtz and show me. Otherwise, this is done.

 

[Just the Fax]

I know you mentioned in an earlier post that you wished you could have stood next to him (CD) hooping and hollaring when BC was arrested - but I would caution you to take the advice of those more familiar with him before forming a friendship. I don't think it will be what you expect.

No interest in having anything at all to do with CD.
Why would I?
The applauding I missed when Brad was cuffed had nothing to do with him.

 

[SleuthinNC]

But they wouldn't need to convince a jury of anything to re-open the case. I thought it was interesting when DD said the case was still "ongoing" and then when Kurtz asked about it later he said "oh. I just mean because we're still going to court over this case, etc.". I think they know they don't have their guy but it is way too late to admit it. I want the killer to be caught (if it's not BC) so I hope they keep an open mind if he is found not guilty.

The problem is even if they find somebody else, having charged and tried somebody else for the murder leads to some pretty clear reasonable doubt for the next trial.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Did I say you did?
I said "according to some".

Very good. So - you didn't anwer my main question. Are you this snarky in person or just when behind a computer? You seem to be very "in your face" to a lot of posters who do not agree with you. It is quite childish, to be honest

 

[sunshine05]

Thank you johnfear! Excellent summary, much appreciated.

 

[Danielle59]

do you mean this?

i had heard about cd and dd, but not a great and sudden rash of divorces.

Didn't JA and her husband also divorce?

 

[otto]

He was definitely a different judge after Kurtz accused him of bias. I was quite surprised.

Agree 100%.

 

[jrb0124]

4) The guy on the stand today is awesome, FYI. The jury LOVED him.

Thanks for you observations johnfear.

Some posters here felt the witness was a third rate hack, who BC 'would look down his nose at', who lost the jury in testimony, will get torn up on cross and perhaps lied for $$$.

Glad to hear this is not true from your perspective. I also thought he came across as genuine, and did a good job today.

 

[Danielle59]

That is the only one and they are not on bad terms.
Drama, drama , drama.

You have no clue what kind of terms they are on, bad or good.

 

[jrb0124]

No interest in having anything at all to do with CD.
Why would I?
The applauding I missed when Brad was cuffed had nothing to do with him.

Oh okay. You said you wished you could have stood next to him, so I thought it was something a little more personal.