State v Bradley Cooper 04-20-2011

[snowshuze]

I'm glad he stopped and shook Mr Rentz hand.

 

[ncsu95]

What the heck was that Canadian tweet yesterday. They were completely wrong (said no court until Friday...when there is no court on Friday at all).

 

[gracielee]

The Defense in this case has a limited budget that does not affect the State.

What is bolded is supposition, you have no idea about the validity of those statements. Or that his working pro-bono was self serving.

Could you cite the 'limited budget' of the defense please? 'Usually' most especially in a first degree murder case, the defense is allowed a hefty budget when it comes to expert witnesses. It is most definitely up to Kurtz to apply for the funds.

 

[jrb0124]

My point being - this is the only specimen this defense could procure as an expert to defend the evidence of the computer and he wasn't even an expert in the area they needed. To *me*, that just says that money couldn't even buy them an expert. His agreeing to testify pro bono was self-serving on his part. If an expert could have been hired, an expert would have been. They only got this guy because he needed something from them.

He got the job done. The files were manipulated - whether intentionally or not and the jury gets this with or without the witness's direct testimony. The pros continuous objections whenever Kurtz got too close for comfort did nothing to preserve the integrity of that evidence, only raised red flags with the jury. I might have been a better idea to go ahead and let him testify - the truth may have been less damaging than what the jurors now have to imagine happened.

 

[gritguy]

The Defense in this case has a limited budget that does not affect the State.

What is bolded is supposition, you have no idea about the validity of those statements. Or that his working pro-bono was self serving.

It is equal supposition about the defense budget.

Any theory as to why Kurtz engaged this expert only is mere supposition.

It seems better to take the defense expert's testimony for what it is rather than either side speculating on significance of the lack of any other expert. Putting a guy up who had never qualified as an expert before was risky, but we don't know why Kurtz did that.

 

[less0305]

I'm glad he stopped and shook Mr Rentz hand.

Mr. Rentz is such a kind person. He smiled and nodded to the witnesses.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Alrighty then..The last witness ( my oh my he was a cuteypie) only saw Nancy and Brad once since discontinuing daycare for his child in 2005...Not sure how this addresses the circumstanctial evidence of activities by Brad in 2008 :waitasec:..but it sure does show that both Brad and Nancy loved their kids, and didnt abuse them.....

As to why she D/c'd the daycare..I think she was pregnant and due to her medical condition..she had to take it easy to preserve that pregnancy..i.e previous miscarriages, and her crohns disease....

 

[ncsu95]

He got the job done. The files were manipulated - whether intentionally or not and the jury gets this with or without the witness's direct testimony. The pros continuous objections whenever Kurtz got too close for comfort did nothing to preserve the integrity of that evidence, only raised red flags with the jury. I might have been a better idea to go ahead and let him testify - the truth may have been less damaging than what the jurors now have to imagine happened.

Very true.

 

[less0305]

The Defense in this case has a limited budget that does not affect the State.

What is bolded is supposition, you have no idea about the validity of those statements. Or that his working pro-bono was self serving.

Thank you. Just as most of what you post is supposition - unless, of course, you are telling us you are part of one of the legal teams.

 

[yeknomaras]

going through witnesses quickly it seems. this is the most people I've seen on the stand within such a short period of time!

I wonder how many more people the Defense will call and when they'll rest.

 

[Cheyenne130]

He got the job done. The files were manipulated - whether intentionally or not and the jury gets this with or without the witness's direct testimony. The pros continuous objections whenever Kurtz got too close for comfort did nothing to preserve the integrity of that evidence, only raised red flags with the jury. I might have been a better idea to go ahead and let him testify - the truth may have been less damaging than what the jurors now have to imagine happened.

That's not what I got from his testimony and I'm sitting here listening just like the jurors. What I got is that it is possible to manipulate files and he showed some of the tools for doing that. He did not show that any files on Brad's computer were manipulated. MOO

 

[gritguy]

Could you cite the 'limited budget' of the defense please? 'Usually' most especially in a first degree murder case, the defense is allowed a hefty budget when it comes to expert witnesses. It is most definitely up to Kurtz to apply for the funds.

No law that if they really needed an expert that Brad's family couldn't chip in for it. Really, there is no telling why they used who they used and no one else.

Those thinking the tampering is bogus may conclude no other expert would support it; those thinking it might be valid may conclude defense had no more money. It is equally possible Kurtz thought this guy will be good and will qualify as an expert in the areas I want testimony offered.

 

[ncsu95]

Alrighty then..The last witness ( my oh my he was a cuteypie) only saw Nancy and Brad once since discontinuing daycare for his child in 2005...Not sure how this addresses the circumstanctial evidence of activities by Brad in 2008 :waitasec:..but it sure does show that both Brad and Nancy loved their kids, and didnt abuse them.....

As to why she D/c'd the daycare..I think she was pregnant and due to her medical condition..she had to take it easy to preserve that pregnancy..i.e previous miscarriages, and her crohns disease....

I found it odd that Mr. Coomings drove that point home. That goes completely against all of the prosecution witnesses that said Brad was an absent father that didn't really care about his kids.

 

[Hartzy34]

BC was Even KEEL versus Even Kill...

Do you suppose that was a coincidence that Mr. Cummings wanted clarification on that remark?

 

[ncsu95]

That's not what I got from his testimony and I'm sitting here listening just like the jurors. What I got is that it is possible to manipulate files and he showed some of the tools for doing that. He did not show that any files on Brad's computer were manipulated. MOO

He was asked several times about the manipulated files on the computer but wasn't allowed to answer due to the objections. The jury heard all that.

 

[Amster]

So....when did the jury release a statement saying they liked a witness?? Or, did someone sneakily ask one of them if they liked a witness? Or, did a family member of a juror get word to the defense team or one of their many messengers that the jury liked a witness? Has this been brought to the judges attention?

 

[less0305]

He got the job done. The files were manipulated - whether intentionally or not and the jury gets this with or without the witness's direct testimony. The pros continuous objections whenever Kurtz got too close for comfort did nothing to preserve the integrity of that evidence, only raised red flags with the jury. I might have been a better idea to go ahead and let him testify - the truth may have been less damaging than what the jurors now have to imagine happened.

They key word being "imagined." Will take a strong imagination to believe that hackers and corruption framed BC.

 

[cody100]

He got the job done. The files were manipulated - whether intentionally or not and the jury gets this with or without the witness's direct testimony. The pros continuous objections whenever Kurtz got too close for comfort did nothing to preserve the integrity of that evidence, only raised red flags with the jury. I might have been a better idea to go ahead and let him testify - the truth may have been less damaging than what the jurors now have to imagine happened.

My opinion runs along the same lines as well. Of course it is hard to know what they are thinking, but it is clear the prosecution did not wanted to keep his testimony out completely.

 

[gritguy]

So....when did the jury release a statement saying they liked a witness?? Or, did someone sneakily ask one of them if they liked a witness? Or, did a family member of a juror get word to the defense team or one of their many messengers that the jury liked a witness? Has this been brought to the judges attention?

Maybe on their facebook page?? :crazy:

 

[gracielee]

He has a very professional linked in page.

Does he also mention 'retards' on that page? Sorry, that one just cut like a knife. We have been having current problems with our grandson, health issues along with the autism. Just typing this brings tears to my eyes. That a grown man would show such a lack of empathy. I wonder if he's married, has children of his own? Do his children take cues from his own words? Could he be the parent of one of the children who makes fun of and causes my grandson to feel hurt/cry?

< rant off >