State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[otto]

Most of the men on this forum have analytical minds....many of the rest of us do not. We feel what we feel.
I have said from day one I want this to be a fair trial with evidence supporting the supposition that Brad killed Nancy. I think he did, but I do not feel at this point in time that there has been enough evidence, hard evidence, that is easy to understand, to prove it. The computer testimony was a wash with respect to not so much coming out on either side. I would not want to be a juror, going into deliberations, and not really understanding why they had to sit through 7 or 8 weeks of testimony that made very few points on which to render a verdict.

When the jury doesn't understand, or is unclear, I think that one of the outcomes is that they dismiss the evidence entirely. Without that electronic evidence, even though Brad is the most likely suspect, I don't think there is enough to convict.

 

[NCEast]

I thought the one Boz cited yesterday was "State vs. Ward". I thought at the time it was weird since that was the witness's last name.

You're right. My bad.

 

[gritguy]

I also think gritguy when he made hsi statment was implying what Kurtz may have said to himself when he used the word "I."

You nailed it. :rocker:

On this issue at least, forum authorities know exactly who I am and what I do for a living.

I have nothing to do with the case other than interest in it stemming from the time of the murder and being extremely local to it, and the circumstances of it making me pretty angry that someone could and would do that.

I think they have the right guy, but I see a lot of the challenges of the state's case here are well reasonsed and I certainly respect the contrary viewpoint.

 

[Danielle59]

No I'm saying that you (and likely anyone else, unless on the defense team) have no idea of the defense budget or its sources of funds or the cost of any given potential expert or whether that had any impact on Kurtz's decision on this expert testimony.

I don't think anybody in the legal system has unlimited budgets. I never ran across anyone who did.

ETA: Doing a little research, if the client is indigent, the defense attorney makes an ex parte motion to the court to allow retainer of an expert. The fee bill is then sent to the office of the IDS for payment, after services are rendered. I have no idea if Kurtz made such a motion for other experts and if so whether they were allowed or denied. If I gathered correctly from the forum that the witness today was not to be paid, then perhaps there was no motion.

My remarks were just based on money coming from the State, not from other funds. Others could be funding him. I was also thinking about the FBI who typically, I beleive, the Defense would not have access to.

 

[NCEast]

Thanks. Honestly, I am not sure who on here is male or female. Some are obvious...but I've also been surprised by some. For some reason, I assumed you were male.

Even if I don't always agree with you all with the analytical thoughts who want the facts, the data and the proof of things, I am still all about fairness and justice.
I'm an old lady, probably old enough to be your mom. I'm judging by your NCSU95--graduated in 95? Both my father and my brother had NCSU engineering degrees. My oldest son is there now working on one. Mine are in criminal justice and psychology. I am the odd person out in the family.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Okay folks..I am outa here until tomorrow morning 930AM..half day tomorrow as I understand it..and I have to ask..full day friday?....Hummm..I guess that depends on the defense CIC..and unless State has rebuttal witnesses we could very well be into Closings next week>>,,yaaa Hoooo..

Anyway goodnight or day all..its been a pleasure debating and commenting..you all have a great evening...maybe get together with your loved one....Hee Hee for those that are clued to this website...

Have a great evening...Salut from Canada!!!:canada::leaf2::wave:

 

[SleuthinNC]

Today is another illustration of what has bothered me with this trial, the rulings are inconsistent.

Early in the case Det. Young and Zellinger argued that the fact that NC had a Facebook page was not relevant basically because it's just a silly non-important social media site. Flash Forward to today and suddenly Facebook is this big important thing that should destroy the credibility of a network security expert.

The Judge just sits back and claims ignorance while making rulings that are neither consistent nor appropriate.

 

[gracielee]

I have no clue as to their direct budget numbers, I do know he is indigent and does not have as much money or access to Experts as the state would have.

Indigent defendants have access to county or state funds to pay for expert witnesses. Lack there of would invite an appeal. I'm sure we have all read about court hearings where the defense requests special funds to hire experts. Done all the time.

 

[NCEast]

Okay folks..I am outa here until tomorrow morning 930AM..half day tomorrow as I understand it..and I have to ask..full day friday?....Hummm..I guess that depends on the defense CIC..and unless State has rebuttal witnesses we could very well be into Closings next week>>,,yaaa Hoooo..

Anyway goodnight or day all..its been a pleasure debating and commenting..you all have a great evening...maybe get together with your loved one....Hee Hee for those that are clued to this website...

Have a great evening...Salut from Canada!!!:canada::leaf2::wave:

Hey--before you go. I'm not certain that tomorrow is THE Thursday the child has an appointment. But I'm sure I just heard the judge say NO court on Friday.

 

[Danielle59]

You nailed it. :rocker:

On this issue at least, forum authorities know exactly who I am and what I do for a living.

I have nothing to do with the case other than interest in it stemming from the time of the murder and being extremely local to it, and the circumstances of it making me pretty angry that someone could and would do that.

I think they have the right guy, but I see a lot of the challenges of the state's case here are well reasonsed and I certainly respect the contrary viewpoint.

You write good posts even though I don't always agree with you.

 

[Danielle59]

Today is another illustration of what has bothered me with this trial, the rulings are inconsistent.

Early in the case Det. Young and Zellinger argued that the fact that NC had a Facebook page was not relevant basically because it's just a silly non-important social media site. Flash Forward to today and suddenly Facebook is this big important thing that should destroy the credibility of a network security expert.

The Judge just sits back and claims ignorance while making rulings that are neither consistent nor appropriate.

I totally agree with you, and I would put money on it that all the Prosecution witnesses are at this minute out making sure that all the security in the world is on their facebook and any other social networking site, or removing the pages in toto.

 

[cody100]

Today is another illustration of what has bothered me with this trial, the rulings are inconsistent.

Early in the case Det. Young and Zellinger argued that the fact that NC had a Facebook page was not relevant basically because it's just a silly non-important social media site. Flash Forward to today and suddenly Facebook is this big important thing that should destroy the credibility of a network security expert.

The Judge just sits back and claims ignorance while making rulings that are neither consistent nor appropriate.

I certainly think NC's facebook was as relevant as JW's. Today's was in effect trying to tear apart his credibility.

 

[gritguy]

My remarks were just based on money coming from the State, not from other funds. Others could be funding him. I was also thinking about the FBI who typically, I beleive, the Defense would not have access to.

No doubt the state has considerable investigatory resources and they have a great head start on the defense. The defense gets some of that back through the Brady obligation to provide exculpatory evidence, should the state discover any.

But the defendant could have applied for reimbursement for a different expert, and we just don't know if his team did.

I would think the judge would approve an expert for payment on computer stuff, since one is obviously needed by both sides.

I really don't know why they didn't go with a more seasoned person.

 

[NCEast]

Indigent defendants have access to county or state funds to pay for expert witnesses. Lack there of would invite an appeal. I'm sure we have all read about court hearings where the defense requests special funds to hire experts. Done all the time.

They should have used some of that money and hired a forensics expert in computer technology. I'm still baffled at why they used Jay Ward instead.... unless Kurtz was dazzled by his resume and his sales pitch--that ego we saw yesterday morning--he could have pretty much sold himself to anybody.

 

[lib's mom]

OT: Out all day, just starting to catch up, but had to ask...have you had Blue Moon Bakery's raspberry brownies? Give me one and I am in HEAVEN!

No, I haven't. And I'm sitting in Pinehurst right now and don't appreciate you planting Blue Moon thoughts in my head! I know who runs that place, but I think they're in league with the devil. And I'd happily sign up with them.

Raspberry Brownies. Dang it all.

 

[Danielle59]

Indigent defendants have access to county or state funds to pay for expert witnesses. Lack there of would invite an appeal. I'm sure we have all read about court hearings where the defense requests special funds to hire experts. Done all the time.

I knew that, but my remarks concern the level of funding from the State.

 

[sunshine05]

When I post something I post about its possibilities, I don't post it as fact. Why do you think I am part of the Defense team? I am not part of the Defense team, but I have to wonder why you would assume that? Because I believe in justice, or because I am not in lockstep with your thinking?

A couple weeks ago I was accused of being BC's mom. It's quite funny actually, the accusations that are made here but really it just wastes board space. It's okay to think something and not type it, especially if you think it isn't adding anything of value to the discussion. Accusing posters of things is not very helpful.

 

[gritguy]

I totally agree with you, and I would put money on it that all the Prosecution witnesses are at this minute out making sure that all the security in the world is on their facebook and any other social networking site, or removing the pages in toto.

I don't even use facebook (anymore) and I'm scared after today!

There have been some serious lessons/reminders on computer security handed out the last few days.

 

[gracielee]

Most of the men on this forum have analytical minds....many of the rest of us do not. We feel what we feel.
I have said from day one I want this to be a fair trial with evidence supporting the supposition that Brad killed Nancy. I think he did, but I do not feel at this point in time that there has been enough evidence, hard evidence, that is easy to understand, to prove it. The computer testimony was a wash with respect to not so much coming out on either side. I would not want to be a juror, going into deliberations, and not really understanding why they had to sit through 7 or 8 weeks of testimony that made very few points on which to render a verdict.

My vote is guilty. I don't have any reasonable doubt and I am using my common sense as to weighing the testimony of all the witnesses so far. So, put me down for a GUILTY.

 

[Danielle59]

No doubt the state has considerable investigatory resources and they have a great head start on the defense. The defense gets some of that back through the Brady obligation to provide exculpatory evidence, should the state discover any.

But the defendant could have applied for reimbursement for a different expert, and we just don't know if his team did.

I would think the judge would approve an expert for payment on computer stuff, since one is obviously needed by both sides.

I really don't know why they didn't go with a more seasoned person.

Thanks, and I am curious why they didn't too, or now I wonder if they did and were denied. Maybe some said without having access to the FBI data they wouldn't do it. I bet we never know exactly unless it comes out in an appeal.