State v Bradley Cooper 3-21-2011

[Cheyenne130]

Okay, you know what I'm saying. I'm talking about physical evidence linking him to the crime. And you are wrong that the majority of cases are all circumstantial.

If they found BC's blood and skin under her nails and scratches on his face or neck that would not be "circumstantial". It would be direct evidence.

If they found footprints matching his shoes at the scene that would be direct evidence.

Actually based on the definition, blood and skin under the nails is circumstantial. Footprints matching his shoes would also be circumstantial.

 

[ncsu95]

Notice today that the defense kept asking the CCBI agent about wearing booties and who wore booties in the house. He asked about 5 different times. This signals that something (likely from the dump site) was discovered INSIDE the house while LE was collecting evidence and it may tie BC to the dump site off of Fielding Dr. The defense will obviously try and say that one or more agents tracked debri from the dump site into the Cooper residence and that's why that WhateverItIs was found.

Could be. Kurtz made a big deal about it during opening statements including showing the pictures of the people in the house with gloves on but no booties.

 

[otto]

I am FAR from an expert but I think if they had solid evidence they would have been smart to get right to it. Nothing says they have to put all the neighbors on the stand and today was a total waste. It seems they are dragging this out. I think their case will be all circumstantial but that is just my gut feeling.

This is why I wanted to read more details about the indictment. I'm really puzzled that they were able to get one.

Has CPD ever handled/convicted anyone of murder? Does anyone know?

I get the impression that they started with their weakest witness, the giggling one, and they're getting better all the time. I think they'll finish strong.

Putting the neighborhood gossip in court was pointless on its own, but now to hear the family describe what was going on, it has credibility. If the parents got on the stand and described what was going on, I think we'd all be rolling our eyes and thinking the parents were biased. I give the testimony of the parents a lot of credibility because we know it's more than 'just their opinion'. The gossip set the foundation for other testimony ... giving it substance.

It certainly seems to be a circumstantial case ... nothing wrong with that.

 

[jmflu]

If it was some random stranger would it matter? I'm guessing they would take them first and find out their value later.

3 things tell me it was no random stranger.
1) Theft? Nope.
2). Sexual assault? Nope.
3) Manner of death? By strangulation, a very "personal" method of killing someone.

 

[otto]

Could also be under her armpits and grabbing under the bra pulled it under. Based on her face down the hill position, I'm thinking she wasn't dragged by her legs. They were uphill according to today's testimony.

I didn't know that. I think the rolling of the bra could be caused by dragging.

 

[otto]

If it was some random stranger would it matter? I'm guessing they would take them first and find out their value later.

Random strangers that attack someone for sexual assault, and then are interrupted for some reason, don't bother with robbery. Also, cheap diamond earrings aren't worth anything (small is usually cheap). It's not worth the risk to cash in on cheap earrings.

 

[CrimeAddict]

3 things tell me it was no random stranger.
1) Theft? Nope.
2). Sexual assault? Nope.
3) Manner of death? By strangulation, a very "personal" method of killing someone.

I think with the sexual assault thing we are out of luck with any evidence either way. The ME said there was nothing left to examine because it was full of larvae and insects. He did the rape kit but it may not have turned anything up anyways because the insects..

If I could add #4 I would say that it looked "staged" where she was left.
(Where are her other clothes she was suppose to have on and her sneakers she was suppose to have, in a random act they would be in the woods or nearby, why would a perp take her clothes and if they were to take her clothes why didn't they take her bra too?)

 

[jmflu]

I didn't know that. I think the rolling of the bra could be caused by dragging.

They could probably tell. If dragging her cause the bra to roll, dirt would be within all the rolls. If it was not rolled from dragging, it should not have dirt within every roll.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I didn't know that. I think the rolling of the bra could be caused by dragging.

Don't base everything on that. I had two under 3 in my house today so I didn't catch it all. I thought the testimony was that her legs were sort of uphill and her head was down. I hope to be either corrected or someone who was not so distracted concur with what I think I heard.

 

[jmflu]

I think with the sexual assault thing we are out of luck with any evidence either way. The ME said there was nothing left to examine because it was full of larvae and insects. He did the rape kit but it may not have turned anything up anyways because the insects..

If I could add #4 I would say that it looked "staged" where she was left.
(Where are her other clothes she was suppose to have on and her sneakers she was suppose to have, in a random act they would be in the woods or nearby, why would a perp take her clothes and if they were to take her clothes why didn't they take her bra too?)

I agree and I almost added that.

"Sexual assault, interrupted" doesn't make sense because I don't think an attacker would take off her shoes and socks before her bra. ( And if interrupted, take the shoes and socks with? ?)

 

[Cheyenne130]

Random strangers that attack someone for sexual assault, and then are interrupted for some reason, don't bother with robbery. Also, cheap diamond earrings aren't worth anything (small is usually cheap). It's not worth the risk to cash in on cheap earrings.

So who do you think these "I'm so rich I don't have to worry with these diamonds but I'm going to take every other item on her body except this sports bra that her husband will be able to identify that she was wearing even though he didn't see her before she left to run" were?

 

[jmflu]

So who do you think these "I'm so rich I don't have to worry with these diamonds but I'm going to take every other item on her body except this sports bra that her husband will be able to identify that she was wearing even though he didn't see her before she left to run" were?

If LOL were appropriate, I would LOL this.

 

[CrimeAddict]

I agree and I almost added that.

"Sexual assault, interrupted" doesn't make sense because I don't think an attacker would take off her shoes and socks before her bra. ( And if interrupted, take the shoes and socks with? ?)

Gosh its just freaky to realize how easy it probably was IF he did it to take off that teal summer dress and her undies and maybe just started to put the sports bra on her and then just got her in the trunk. He maybe just didnt want to bother running back upstairs to find other clothes and just found a bra and decided to make it look like sexual assault/rape/murder and leave her like that.

 

[sunshine05]

Actually based on the definition, blood and skin under the nails is circumstantial. Footprints matching his shoes would also be circumstantial.

You're wrong.

 

[Maja]

Don't base everything on that. I had two under 3 in my house today so I didn't catch it all. I thought the testimony was that her legs were sort of uphill and her head was down. I hope to be either corrected or someone who was not so distracted concur with what I think I heard.

As I understand, she was found head up towards opening and feet facing the ditch.

 

[sunshine05]

So who do you think these "I'm so rich I don't have to worry with these diamonds but I'm going to take every other item on her body except this sports bra that her husband will be able to identify that she was wearing even though he didn't see her before she left to run" were?

How about a construction van of illegal alien painters....another car was approaching and she started screaming.

 

[Jess]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence


Forensic evidence

Other examples of circumstantial evidence are fingerprint, blood analysis or DNA analysis of the evidence found at the scene of a crime. These types of evidence may strongly point to a certain conclusion when taken into consideration with other facts, but if not directly witnessed by someone when the crime was committed, they are still considered to be circumstantial in nature. However, when proved by expert witnesses, they are usually sufficient to decide a case especially in the absence of any direct evidence. Owing to the development in forensic methods, old undecided cases (or cold cases) are frequently resolved.

http://crime.phoenix-blogs.com/crime-scene-forensics-direct-vs-circumstantial-evidence/



Evidence can be direct or circumstantial. What is the difference? Direct evidence refers to evidence that establishes a fact. A good example of direct evidence is statements or confessions made by the witnesses. Circumstantial evidence, on the flipside, requires that a judge and/or jury make indirect judgments, or inferences, about what transpired at the scene of a crime. For instance, if fingerprints or hairs found at the scene are consistent with that of a perpetrator, jurors may infer that the print or hair definitely belongs to the defendant. Since fingerprints or hairs were found at the crime scene, those pieces of evidence links the defendant to he scene.

Furthermore, circumstantial evidence is more objective while direct evidence is subjective. Circumstantial evidence provides a more credible answer. An eyewitness account of what happened can be wrong approximately half the time whereas saliva and blood evidence can accurately set apart one person from the rest of the general population.

 

[CrimeAddict]

How about a construction van of illegal alien painters....another car was approaching and she started screaming.

Sunshine, Kurtz may be reading this, you are giving him ideas for closing statements.. :crazy:

 

[Maja]

Was there water in the drainage ditch?


If yes, was it dredged for shoes, shorts, top?

 

[lunarmodule]

As I understand, she was found head up towards opening and feet facing the ditch.

I believe it was just the opposite, her head down towards/in the ditch and feet/legs upwards.