State v Bradley Cooper 3-17-2011

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

raisincharlie said:
SG - is Dismukes the only one from CPD that has testified ? You mentioned Daniels - was he just in the courtroom or has he done any testifying if you know?

Thanks for the info - so the FBI guy did not do anything he was not supposed to be doing on the eMachine. Imagine that, according to Kurtz in his opening that was not the case - golly gee.

What did he say about the eMachine in opening statements? I honestly don't remember.

Just the Fax · Mar 17, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Isn't it part of the 911 tape though? I thought that is where you can hear it, although not clearly.

They will certainly play the 911 call.
Some swear they heard "daddy did it", while others said they did not.
Perhaps some jurors will pick it and some won't?

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Oh, one small item I made note of: When they were showing pictures of the 2 cars side-by-side, in one photo you can see BC sitting on the curb outside, in the background. The defense points this out to Dismukes and has Dismukes confirm that BC is wearing short sleeved Tshirt, shorts, and sandals and does not appear to be trying to 'hide' or 'obscure' his neck. Dismukes conceded that was true but BC is shown from the side and the photo quality that distance is fuzzy so you can't tell if he had any marks on him.

Defense kept grilling Dismukes on why he didn't take pics of BC neck since he'd taken pictures at other crime scenes both with and without a subject's knowledge. Dismukes just says he didn't (take pics of BC that day). No real reason, just didn't do it. Daniels is the one who noticed marks on BC neck...Dismukes hadn't seen or noted them until it was mentioned to him by Daniels.

ETA: I have no idea what date the car pics were taken. If on 7/12/08 that means BC changed out of his jeans and long sleeve shirt and pullover and into shorts and a Tshirt. But I don't know if that's the day of the pics or not....it might not be.

Sounds like a pretty important bit of testimony for the defense. I imagine if BC did have scratches, he would be trying to hide them....especially since the prosecution has basically made that claim.

Just the Fax · Mar 17, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Sounds like a pretty important bit of testimony for the defense. I imagine if BC did have scratches, he would be trying to hide them....especially since the prosecution has basically made that claim.

How do you hide scratches behind your neck?
All you can wear is a shirt, and he did.

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

Just the Fax said:
Unbelievable CPD did not photograph his bandaged finger and red marks on his neck. Yep, Kurtz is right, CPD investigated this with a certain element of ineptness.

I think we can all agree on this. And it would be a travesty if he committed this murder and was found not guilty due to ineptness by the police department. It would also be a travesty if he didn't do it and was found guilty for the same reason. I still can't get over the data on the phone being wiped out and then going for a search warrant 2 months later for the same phone (knowing it was already wiped). I certainly hope those are not the facts surrounding the phone.

SleuthyGal · Mar 17, 2011

raisincharlie said:
SG - is Dismukes the only one from CPD that has testified ? You mentioned Daniels - was he just in the courtroom or has he done any testifying if you know?

From CPD we've had Office Hays, the K9 officer and now Dismukes (who is still on the stand). Daniels and Young were in the courtroom. I'm sure they will be testifying at some point soon but neither has testified yet.

so the FBI guy did not do anything he was not supposed to be doing on the eMachine. Imagine that, according to Kurtz in his opening that was not the case - golly gee.

Well CPD didn't access the eMachine and breach privileged communication. There was a special master assigned by Gessner in March 2009 to oversee the handling of info specifically on that eMachine and I think everything was determined to be kosher on the eMachine questions. Kurtz told the judge he was satisfied with the info he got today and his mind is at ease on that issue. I don't think the FBI did anything with that eMachine on that March 2009 date they were discussing, though I'm sure the FBI examined the eMachine at some later date.

Just the Fax · Mar 17, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
ETA: I have no idea what date the car pics were taken. If on 7/12/08 that means BC changed out of his jeans and long sleeve shirt and pullover and into shorts and a Tshirt. But I don't know if that's the day of the pics or not....it might not be.

That photo was very likely taken a few days later when it became a full blown murder investigation.

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

Just the Fax said:
How do you hide scratches behind your neck?
All you can wear is a shirt, and he did.

Come on now. It's been talked about on here in detail about him wearing a long sleeve shirt to hide scratches. So was all that discussion just to discuss his sense of style/fashion during the summer? Now pictures, taken by the police, show him in shorts and a t-shirt and it's no longer means anything?

Cheyenne130 · Mar 17, 2011

ncsu95 said:
I think we can all agree on this. And it would be a travesty if he committed this murder and was found not guilty due to ineptness by the police department. It would also be a travesty if he didn't do it and was found guilty for the same reason. I still can't get over the data on the phone being wiped out and then going for a search warrant 2 months later for the same phone (knowing it was already wiped). I certainly hope those are not the facts surrounding the phone.

I'm confused on the phone myself. Jessica A. said she saw a cell phone in the SUV. Brad was away from the home when Jessica looked in Nancy's car. The police were already there when Brad arrived home. Brad reached in the drawer in the cabinet in the foyer and handed the police officer Nancy's phone. Did she have 2 phones? Was Jessica wrong about what she saw?

LaLaw2000 · Mar 17, 2011

SleuthyGal, thank you again for your excellent reporting!! You are very appreciated.

(are the benches terribly uncomfortable? they look like they are. I am just thinking how hard it must be for the Rentz's as well as the Cooper's to have to sit there day after day.)

SleuthyGal · Mar 17, 2011

In the courtroom today I noticed that Young was using what looked to be a Blackberry smartphone -- i.e. meaning it's his own phone.

SleuthyGal · Mar 17, 2011

LaLaw2000 said:
SleuthyGal, thank you again for your excellent reporting!! You are very appreciated.

(are the benches terribly uncomfortable? they look like they are. I am just thinking how hard it must be for the Rentz's as well as the Cooper's to have to sit there day after day.)

You're very welcome.

Yes the benches are uncomfortable. Think 'wooden church pews' and you get the picture. Someone without ample padding on their tush would start to feel uncomfortable after several hrs.

Cheyenne130 · Mar 17, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
In the courtroom today I noticed that Young was using what looked to be a Blackberry smartphone -- i.e. meaning it's his own phone.

Oh yes! Thank you, thank you, thank you for going today and sharing your thoughts and observations with us! I wish I was closer so that I could take a turn going to court.

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

Just the Fax said:
That photo was very likely taken a few days later when it became a full blown murder investigation.

You mean all the other photos taken on Saturday that were shown today (according to what's been discussed here) were just for the photo albums? It sounds to me like they thought of the house as a crime scene on Saturday and took photos. So I imaginge those photos were also taken on Saturday.

It's definitely possible he changed clothes. It would have been cooler in the morning (at 6:00 am when he went to HT).

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
I'm confused on the phone myself. Jessica A. said she saw a cell phone in the SUV. Brad was away from the home when Jessica looked in Nancy's car. The police were already there when Brad arrived home. Brad reached in the drawer in the cabinet in the foyer and handed the police officer Nancy's phone. Did she have 2 phones? Was Jessica wrong about what she saw?

Probably. Maybe she saw something else that looked like a digital calendar or something along those lines.

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
In the courtroom today I noticed that Young was using what looked to be a Blackberry smartphone -- i.e. meaning it's his own phone.

I bet he knows what not to do now so the data isn't erased.

SleuthyGal · Mar 17, 2011

One of the baliffs is really tall. I mean (to me) he looks like he's about 7 ft tall with these incredibly loooong legs. I'm only a little over 5' so I was joking with a couple of the CPD who were sitting in front of me (whose names I don't know and who I never recognized) that this Bailiff's legs are probably as long as I am tall.

Just the Fax · Mar 17, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Come on now. It's been talked about on here in detail about him wearing a long sleeve shirt to hide scratches. So was all that discussion just to discuss his sense of style/fashion during the summer? Now pictures, taken by the police, show him in shorts and a t-shirt and it's no longer means anything?

We still don't know when that photo was taken. Could have been 7-16-08 when the first SW was issued......4 days later.
4 days is plenty of time for superficial scratches to heal on his arms.

Cheyenne130 · Mar 17, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Probably. Maybe she saw something else that looked like a digital calendar or something along those lines.

I think you're probably right because the police would also have looked in Nancy's car and none of them have mentioned a second phone. Of course we haven't heard from all of them yet so I suppose it's possible that something could come up later.

ncsu95 · Mar 17, 2011

Just the Fax said:
We still don't know when that photo was taken. Could have been 7-16-08 when the first SW was issued......4 days later.
4 days is plenty of time for superficial scratches to heal on his arms.

I guess the prosecution will clear that up if it was taken on the 16th. If they don't say anything, we can assume it was taken on the 12th.

State v Bradley Cooper 3-17-2011

Active Member

Justice For The Fisher's

Active Member

Justice For The Fisher's

Active Member

Former Member

Justice For The Fisher's

Active Member

New Member

Louisiana

Former Member

Former Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Former Member

Justice For The Fisher's

New Member

Active Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics