State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11

[DogWood]

I wish I had a transcript of Kurtz's opening.
I want to check some things, but can't bring myself to hearing that voice again. :noooo:

I'll find it. lol

 

[jumpstreet]

Bottom line is that he lied about going to Lowes that morning...

Hmmm... do we know he actually lied about this trip (depo, etc), or just know from (today's) testimony that he didn't mention it to the detective when summarizing his previous day's activities?

 

[Tipstaff]

Wondering if all the 'thinking and debunking' that goes on in these pages is helpful to either the defense or the prosecution. Those who see Brad Cooper as guilty lean towards seeing things pointing that way and those that see him as not guilty debunk the prosecution case. Imagine this very helpful to the defense at this point - who still has to has to put on their case.

Anyone have an opinion on this or wonder if there are 'students' of either side throwing things out and seeing what 'sticks'?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Wondering if all the 'thinking and debunking' that goes on in these pages is helpful to either the defense or the prosecution. Those who see Brad Cooper as guilty lean towards seeing things pointing that way and those that see him as not guilty debunk the prosecution case. Imagine this very helpful to the defense at this point - who still has to has to put on their case.

Anyone have an opinion on this or wonder if there are 'students' of either side throwing things out and seeing what 'sticks'?

That would be a dangerous game on their part to plan their stategy on what is said on public boards. We have access to information (or misinformation) that the jury should not be privvy to. To introduce something or ignore something based on our emphasis whether it's the state or the defense wouldn't be realistic. MOO

 

[sunshine05]

Wondering if all the 'thinking and debunking' that goes on in these pages is helpful to either the defense or the prosecution. Those who see Brad Cooper as guilty lean towards seeing things pointing that way and those that see him as not guilty debunk the prosecution case. Imagine this very helpful to the defense at this point - who still has to has to put on their case.

Anyone have an opinion on this or wonder if there are 'students' of either side throwing things out and seeing what 'sticks'?

I think it could be. I mentioned how the SUV wasn't searched, or at least there was no mention of it and the very next morning, the first thing they asked the detective about was the SUV.

I don't think it necessarily helps one side vs the other because the prosecution is still presenting and they are still able to tie up loose ends.

 

[Lori59]

Hmmm... do we know he actually lied about this trip (depo, etc), or just know from (today's) testimony that he didn't mention it to the detective when summarizing his previous day's activities?

LIE by omission....not telling the detective. What would be the big deal for him to say ..yeah after helping Nancy, I was late but stopped by Lowes. He blamed Nancy for his being late.....so he was aware of what he did that morning. The detective found the receipt...that is how he knew Brad went, not by Brad. So he lied by omission to me and I hope we find out why he felt the need to lie about that purchase. I'm sure there is more for them to bring this into the trial. We shall see either way soon.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Anyone have an opinion on this or wonder if there are 'students' of either side throwing things out and seeing what 'sticks'?

I'm sure the defense is very well aware of this forum, and likely other forums out there as well. As for the prosecution? No idea. I think there are some very helpful ideas they could glean and I wish the ADAs were reading this board, but I don't think they are.

 

[Tipstaff]

That would be a dangerous game on their part to plan their stategy on what is said on public boards. We have access to information (or misinformation) that the jury should not be privvy to. To introduce something or ignore something based on our emphasis whether it's the state or the defense wouldn't be realistic. MOO

You are so right BUT an interesting option much like a mock Jury.

 

[jumpstreet]

Wondering if all the 'thinking and debunking' that goes on in these pages is helpful to either the defense or the prosecution. Those who see Brad Cooper as guilty lean towards seeing things pointing that way and those that see him as not guilty debunk the prosecution case. Imagine this very helpful to the defense at this point - who still has to has to put on their case.

Anyone have an opinion on this or wonder if there are 'students' of either side throwing things out and seeing what 'sticks'?

It's a great question Tipstaff...and I've wondered the same thing myself. We already have posts that indicate the defense team definitely monitors the forum (during trial, and even possibly back pre-arrest).

If I were on the defense team (I'm not), then I'd definitely assign someone to monitor it just to get a sense for some of the 'perceptions' of how the trial is going. What are the questionable spots... what needs to be explained/mitigated, etc. Defense can't get into the minds of the jurors, but they can't get some insight into a sample of 'would be' jurors right here.

WS is somewhat unique from others (such as GOLO) in that (a), it's moderated (b) members seem to try to dig in, and get informed, and (c) reasonably high number of pro-prosectution posters. [ would seem to make it a potentially helpful resource for the defense... ]

Does the prosecution monitor this site... hard to say, but if I had to guess... I'd say 'no'.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think it could be. I mentioned how the SUV wasn't searched, or at least there was no mention of it and the very next morning, the first thing they asked the detective about was the SUV.

I don't think it necessarily helps one side vs the other because the prosecution is still presenting and they are still able to tie up loose ends.

We had all those questions about the Dell, where/when it was seized, etc. and that was cleared up bright and early this morning.

If I were an attorney and I had access to feedback such as we discuss on these boards it would interest me. Even if it is as simple as seeing things that may be confusing and providing clarity. If we are confused jurors may be as well.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yeah, why didn't Brad want CPD to know he stopped in at Lowe's on Fri morning 7/11/08? He was merely being a 'good guy' getting a painting type supply for his wife, wasn't he? What was the big deal? Did Brad not want to have to answer questions about his Lowe's purchase? I assume that's why he said nothing about that little trip--I don't believe it slipped his mind. He didn't tell them on purpose.

 

[jmflu]

I just wanted to say something in response to a post by one of the ABBs earlier.

If I were married to someone I argued with often (I'm not talking about domestic violence) and they turned up dead and I didn't do it, I wouldn't be sitting in jail thinking of all the ways I perceived they did me wrong. I would be remembering the good times and regretting the bad ones. I certainly wouldn't be blaming them for my being in the position I was in.

To bash the decedent is wrong, unnecessary, and speaks more ill of the basher than the one being blamed.

 

[Lori59]

A smart poster, (sorry don't remember who) posted earlier about Nancy's additional jogging habits of ponytail and cap. In contrast to how she was found. Great thought. The pictures shown today of all of Nancy's jogging clothes layed out.....including hats was interesting. Hope the State points out that she was found without a hat and no hats are missing from the house.

 

[jumpstreet]

That would be a dangerous game on their part to plan their stategy on what is said on public boards. We have access to information (or misinformation) that the jury should not be privvy to. To introduce something or ignore something based on our emphasis whether it's the state or the defense wouldn't be realistic. MOO

I wouldn't imagine they would base/plan their strategy on the public board posts. It does seem a reasonable resource to monitor to get a sense for the points of contention/question (that are being discussed by (in theory) 'reasonably informed and curious folks)...

They can then choose to what extent to factor this into their overall strategy (along with everything else)...

 

[Cheyenne130]

You are so right BUT an interesting option much like a mock Jury.

Following up on what SleuthyGal said, I think it is helpful for them to see how a presentation comes across to normal people who have not seen all the evidence. Someone here pointing out that they missed a point because we were left confused would certainly help them to clear up a point. (I used "point" too many times in that sentence but I'm sure you get the point.) It's not bad to monitor and adjust but remember that we know more than the jurors.

 

[Albert]

Someone who wants to hide something and have mothers who think their sons do no wrong.

I don't think this is the case about his mother, the detective mentioned that she said, "Thank you for the way you are handling this arrest" I don't think these are the words of a mother who feels their son can do no wrong.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I wouldn't imagine they would base/plan their strategy on the public board posts. It does seem a reasonable resource to monitor to get a sense for the points of contention/question (that are being discussed by (in theory) 'reasonably informed and curious folks)...

They can then choose to what extent to factor this into their overall strategy (along with everything else)...

Hah! Thanks! I clarified my thoughts and said almost exactly the same thing! :great:

 

[jumpstreet]

LIE by omission....not telling the detective. What would be the big deal for him to say ..yeah after helping Nancy, I was late but stopped by Lowes. He blamed Nancy for his being late.....so he was aware of what he did that morning. The detective found the receipt...that is how he knew Brad went, not by Brad. So he lied by omission to me and I hope we find out why he felt the need to lie about that purchase. I'm sure there is more for them to bring this into the trial. We shall see either way soon.

Gotcha... was just checking if it was confirmed lie, or the 'by omission' kind. To me, it would definitely be different if detective asked him explicitly if he went anywhere on the way to work, etc, and he said 'no'. I didn't catch that the detective asked him to describe every single thing stop/store he visited on the 11th, etc...

Reasonable explantion (to me) for this is he didn't think it relevent to the question at the time. [ Not saying we won't later found out the stop is central to the whole case ].

I guess the way I look at it - for all we know he stopped at Starbucks (or Kangaroo or wherever) on the way to work too, and didn't mention that to the defective. Would he have lied (by ommision) about Starbucks?

I see your point - it was just the 'lie' part that snagged me... just wanted to confirm the basis for that. As you said.. we'll see...

 

[SleuthyGal]

A smart poster, (sorry don't remember who) posted earlier about Nancy's additional jogging habits of ponytail and cap. In contrast to how she was found. Great thought. The pictures shown today of all of Nancy's jogging clothes layed out.....including hats was interesting. Hope the State points out that she was found without a hat and no hats are missing from the house.

That was me!

I am occasionally smart...and other times...not so much. :waitasec:

 

[jmflu]

If Brad really stopped by Lowe's for the purpose of doing something to help Nancy, he would have exploited it by using it as another example of how great a husband he was.