State v Bradley Cooper 3.14 .2011 - 3.?.??

[ncsu95]

You misremembered. He said Nancy was 'supportive' of his doing the MBA because it would allow him to move up in the company and increase his earning potential. However, she didn't 'push' him to do it. It was his idea.

Okay, thanks.

 

[ncsu95]

I am curious...if they found Nancy's hair or blood in his trunk, which is circumstantial evidence, would you still believe there was reasonable doubt?

If they found a strand of hair, that is probably something easily explained. If she reached into the trunk to get something, hair could have fallen in (a single strand...we shed hair continuously). If they found blood in the trunk, I would no longer be on the fence.

 

[jmflu]

Her body showed up where he "went fishing" that day. If someone can place Brad on Fielding Dr, then I can agree he is guilty. Peterson said he went fishing in SF that day.

Eta: how weird that I just posted this as you were posting that!

Is that the only evidence you will accept? No circumstantial evidence such as her blood in the trunk that day?

 

[johnfear]

Her body showed up where he "went fishing" that day. If someone can place Brad on Fielding Dr, then I can agree he is guilty. Peterson said he went fishing in SF that day.

I think that's where they (the prosecution) were headed with the second HT trip, no?

Kurtz almost drew us a map there as well.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Depends on if there is reasonable doubt or not. If the defense provides reasonable doubt in a circumstantial case, I would have a hard time convicting.

If any defense provides reasonable doubt to where the jury cannot find guilt 'beyond a reasonable doubt' when considering all the evidence, (including a Direct Evidence case) then the defendant should be acquitted. For instance, eyewitness testimony is Direct Evidence, but it can be much less convincing because it's subjective.

 

[Just the Fax]

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Take, as an example, the Laci Peterson case. This was the one in, California, I think, West Coast anyway, not to be confused with the Peterson case in Durham.

They never found a real smoking gun on Scott Peterson, but there was plenty of evidence and no doubt in my mind that he was guilty. Or perhaps a better way to say it was as I told my wife "If he is NOT guilty of this crime, he could give lessons on how to LOOK guilty." Now that I think about it, there are a few other parallels to this case. There was a "mysterious van" seen in the area that had carpet in the back. Someone walking a dog claimed to have seen Laci in a park that morning. In fact, the defense threw such a smoke screen in search of a SODDI defense that it mainly made them a laughing stock. "Be sure to keep a sharp eye out for that roving band of Hawaiian Mormons who are kidnapping pregnant women."

Perfect example of the chaos and confusion Kurtz is presenting in this case.
Same ole tired tactics to confuse the jury and present reasonable doubt.

 

[ncsu95]

Her body showed up where he "went fishing" that day. If someone can place Brad on Fielding Dr, then I can agree he is guilty. Peterson said he went fishing in SF that day.

In the same sense, I believe Jason Young is guilty. The circumstantial evidence showing him leaving the hotel out the side door along with witness testimony seeing a vehicle like his in the driveway (along with other circumstantial evidence made public so far) has me feeling that way. I won't follow the trial like I am this one, but I am curious about the totality of the evidence against him.

 

[rwesafe]

It appears you just don't understand the definition of circumstantial evidence even though I provided the definition. Seriously, what you are saying is that the only way you can 'cope' with someone being sent to jail is if there is DIRECT evidence? That means if there is no eyewitness, no confession, and/or no videotape of the crime, the person shouldn't have to go to jail? Because everything else...is 'circumstantial' evidence. That is the definition.

DNA? circumstantial

Fingerprints? circumstantial

Blood? circumstantial

Computer searches? circumstantial

Ballistics / bullet matching? circumstantial

Defendent having the exact same weapon as the murder weapon? circumstantial

Fibers, hair, and other trace evidence linking the suspect to the crime scene and/or the victim? circumstantial


Courts every day in this country convict people of crimes on those and additional circumstantial evidence.

Chances are if someone broke into your home and killed you and they were skilled at killing without leaving evidence, that all the fibers, hair, and heated email exchanges, and other trace evidence that accumulates during normal living situations might send your innocent loved one to jail...and especially so if you told your neighbors that he was an [unusual person]...This is as much a tragedy in my mind as your death would be. That this country has sent men and women to sentences of death or life in prison on less is nothing to celebrate or be proud of. It is always a good idea, as far as I am concerned, to look at every situation as if it could be you sitting in that defendants seat...would you want every stone turned or would you be satisfied to know that you were sentenced to life or death based soley on circumstantial evidence? Condemn me if you like, but I speak for what I would want for myself if I ever found myself in the unfortunate situation of being wrongly accused.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Timeline comes into play. The defense can't say Brad didn't have time to murder his wife. He clearly did. He was close enough to the dump site where he could reach it within 5 minutes. She could have been murdered at 12:30am or 1:30am or 4am or 6am. The autopsy will not limit the TOD to within less than a range of a few hrs.

The only way they can play with the timeline is to try and assert that her murder happened after 7am, assert that she went jogging, try to find people who will swear they saw her (and not have those persons' testimony impeached on the witness stand), and try to create doubt about the source of the phone calls received on his cell phone.

 

[ncsu95]

Eta: how weird that I just posted this as you were posting that!

Is that the only evidence you will accept? No circumstantial evidence such as her blood in the trunk that day?

No, see my other response. I've posted my reasons for having reasonable doubt at this point (without real evidence...just based on discussions and affidavits so far as well as the opening statements). But they don't have to place him at the scene. I was just comparing the 2. But if they proved he made those calls, that will be enough circumstantial evidence for me.

 

[otto]

Eta: how weird that I just posted this as you were posting that!

Is that the only evidence you will accept? No circumstantial evidence such as her blood in the trunk that day?

Doesn't the evidence have to paint a picture of what happened? So often I read in discussions like this that people want one piece of evidence to define guilty or innocence. It's never like that, but rather the interpretation of all the evidence; the big picture. If all the evidence indicates the marriage was a mess and that Brad used technology to snoop on his wife during divorce proceeding ... nothing strange in that. If all the evidence gives no doubt that Brad planned and carried out the murder of his wife ... that's what I'd like to see.

 

[Just the Fax]

In the same sense, I believe Jason Young is guilty. The circumstantial evidence showing him leaving the hotel out the side door along with witness testimony seeing a vehicle like his in the driveway (along with other circumstantial evidence made public so far) has me feeling that way. I won't follow the trial like I am this one, but I am curious about the totality of the evidence against him.

Slam dunk if you look at the totality of the evidence.
That was over 3 years, so that makes it even more intriguing the same DA indicted Cooper in less than 4 months.

 

[jmflu]

No, see my other response. I've posted my reasons for having reasonable doubt at this point (without real evidence...just based on discussions and affidavits so far as well as the opening statements). But they don't have to place him at the scene. I was just comparing the 2. But if they proved he made those calls, that will be enough circumstantial evidence for me.

Right, that's why I put eta at the top so you would see I edited my post after I saw yours. We both wrote at the same time.

 

[johnfear]

Timeline comes into play. The defense can't say Brad didn't have time to murder his wife. He clearly did. He was close enough to the dump site where he could reach it within 5 minutes. She could have been murdered at 12:30am or 1:30am or 4am or 6am. The autopsy will not limit the TOD to within less than a range of a few hrs.

The only way they can play with the timeline is to try and assert that her murder happened after 7am, assert that she went jogging, try to find people who will swear they saw her (and not have those persons' testimony impeached on the witness stand), and try to create doubt about the source of the phone calls received on his cell phone.

But, we can say he couldn't have possibly have had the time to do everything the prosecution wants you to believe he did. How could he have cleaned the garage in the middle of the night with no one noticing? With a party across the street and those young hispanics in the white van watching him? (kidding) Wouldn't they have called the police? Or simply made a note of the noise?

You really need the prosecution in this case to nail down something attached to the foundation they are presenting.

I thought today went decently, but I am of the mindset that this is the outskirts and getting closer there had better be some damning evidence that doesn't come with: Q) So, why didn't you tell the police that NC was scared of BC? A) Because they didn't ask.

I mean, really?? You sat NEXT to the guy and "knew in your gut" he had killed his wife and it didn't cross your mind to tell the detectives that she was scared of him because they didn't ask? But, you thought it might be a good idea to send an exile email? Did the neighbors ask you what they should do? Was your response to ostracize the guy? At that point, did you think to tell the cops she was scared? Oh, wait...better to wait and just say that in court. And please don't tell me you wore that tee shirt so your kid could see his dad on television wearing a shirt with his name on it. Not during a murder trial, dude.

BTW, please don't think that this is truly representative of Cary,NC. We aren't all like....oh, who am I kidding...this could be any neighborhood in the city.

 

[SleuthyGal]

You being deliberately obtuse does not phase me.

Chances are if someone broke into your home and killed you and they were skilled at killing without leaving evidence, that all the fibers, hair, and heated email exchanges, and other trace evidence that accumulates during normal living situations might send your innocent loved one to jail...and especially so if you told your neighbors that he was an ...This is as much a tragedy in my mind as your death would be. That this country has sent men and women to sentences of death or life in prison on less is nothing to celebrate or be proud of. It is always a good idea, as far as I am concerned, to look at every situation as if it could be you sitting in that defendants seat...would you want every stone turned or would you be satisfied to know that you were sentenced to life or death based soley on circumstantial evidence? Condemn me if you like, but I speak for what I would want for myself if I ever found myself in the unfortunate situation of being wrongly accused.

I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm trying to be very clear and exact.

I'm not emotionally tied to Brad Cooper or his being guilty or innocent.

If I had a loved one and they were accused of a murder they did not commit AND there was evidence linking them to the crime, I would (of course) feel horrible. I would fight for them. I would have to consider the possibility they were involved, but I wouldn't automatically assume they were. I would, naturally, have an emotional stake in them being innocent. And if they were factually innocent then I would do everything in my power to try and refute the evidence that was presented. I'm not saying innocent people don't get convicted--we know they do.

I'm saying that circumstantial evidence can be among the most powerful. And I'm also saying that the majority of murder cases don't have eyewitnesses or confessions.

I don't personally believe B.C. is getting railroaded in this case. I believe there will be evidence presented that ties him to the crime. I don't know what that evidence is (yet), but I believe there will be some presented.

I don't know that the CPD didn't look at others during the course of their investigation. Do you know for a fact they did not look at any other person as a possibility for doing this murder?

 

[rwesafe]

I am curious...if they found Nancy's hair or blood in his trunk, which is circumstantial evidence, would you still believe there was reasonable doubt?

I'm not sure. Last week I got my hair caught in the back my SUV where a part of the wheel well cover thing had cracked...when I went to pull the crack apart enough to pull my hair out...I have long hair...I cut the meaty part of my thumb area open and received 17 stitches. Blood and hair everywhere! I have a small bald spot now too :floorlaugh: Of course if no such injury or evidence of such an injury was witnessed by friends or family, doctor....I would expect that my hair and blood would be evidence of foul play and not an accident injury. Hair alone would mean nothing to me as I shed like a feline and my hair is all over my car and trunk probably in the wheel wells to as I am constantly fetching crap my kid rolls under the truck out from under the truck.

 

[jmflu]

Doesn't the evidence have to paint a picture of what happened? So often I read in discussions like this that people want one piece of evidence to define guilty or innocence. It's never like that, but rather the interpretation of all the evidence; the big picture. If all the evidence indicates the marriage was a mess and that Brad used technology to snoop on his wife during divorce proceeding ... nothing strange in that. If all the evidence gives no doubt that Brad planned and carried out the murder of his wife ... that's what I'd like to see.

Oh, I agree. I am just sensing that some would not convict short of a video of BC dumping the the body. With all the circumstantial evidence presented and that still not being enough, I was wondering if blood in the trunk would be enough to tip the scales.

 

[ncsu95]

Slam dunk if you look at the totality of the evidence.
That was over 3 years, so that makes it even more intriguing the same DA indicted Cooper in less than 4 months.

I agree. And honestly, based on the DAs record, I didn't think BC would ever be arrested. So he has to have something that we don't know yet. But I'm not making up my mind until that something is presented. Based on the totality of what we know right now (from both sides including the witnesses that say they saw her jogging), I am firmly :fence:

 

[Just the Fax]

You being deliberately obtuse does not phase me.

Chances are if someone broke into your home and killed you and they were skilled at killing without leaving evidence, that all the fibers, hair, and heated email exchanges, and other trace evidence that accumulates during normal living situations might send your innocent loved one to jail...and especially so if you told your neighbors that he was an ...This is as much a tragedy in my mind as your death would be. That this country has sent men and women to sentences of death or life in prison on less is nothing to celebrate or be proud of. It is always a good idea, as far as I am concerned, to look at every situation as if it could be you sitting in that defendants seat...would you want every stone turned or would you be satisfied to know that you were sentenced to life or death based soley on circumstantial evidence? Condemn me if you like, but I speak for what I would want for myself if I ever found myself in the unfortunate situation of being wrongly accused.

I think you will find many wrong convictions are due to direct evidence---most often mistaken identity. Personally, I think it is very scary if a case is built on eye witness accounts vs powerful CE.

 

[SleuthyGal]

But, we can say he couldn't have possibly have had the time to do everything the prosecution wants you to believe he did. How could he have cleaned the garage in the middle of the night with no one noticing? With a party across the street and those young hispanics in the white van watching him? (kidding) Wouldn't they have called the police? Or simply made a note of the noise?

With the garage door closed you believe you would hear your neighbor move stuff around (stuff like toys, boxes, a couple bikes) inside that garage? I highly doubt that.

It's not (just) the prosecution who says he did all these things...Brad himself lists the amount of tasks he was doing within that time period! He has himself up at 4am, taking care of Katie, possibly starting laundry, cleaning floors, checking emails, making trips to HT, checking VM and receiving calls, making calls, playing with the girls. Of course he left out the part where he stops to dump Nancy's body and he didn't mention making room for his car in the garage by moving some things around, but the rest of the list? It comes from HIM!