State v Bradley Cooper 4-25-11

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
NCEast said:
Night of July 11 BC had a router LE never found.
Click to expand...

This does not pass the smell test. Amazing they had all of the resources of cisco and the fbi for 2.5 years and just now "found" this?
 
Well it is nice to see they are finally doing some actual investigation of this case.
 
WolfpackWoman said:
You don't think what the prosecution did was wrong? They had Mr. Ward's CV and report back in February. They waited TWO FULL months, on the day he was set to testify, to object and file a last minute motion to exclude. You really think that wasn't an ambush against the defense?

And they are currently introducing new experts right now. How does that jive with your statement?
Click to expand...

It was imprudent to rely on a guy for forensics if there was any chance of his getting on the stand and saying, "I'm not an expert in forensics" which he did.

I'm not saying I agree with the judge's decision, but the defense may have put themselves into this spot.

On the other point, is the state this morning declaring new experts for rebuttal? I would agree that would support the defense idea that expert testimony is dynamic and their notion they should be allowed to discuss the MFT through expert testimony.
 
Are they allowing Mr. M to be questioned outside the presence of the jury on Thursday or Friday? Or did I misunderstand?
 
cassius said:
This does not pass the smell test. Amazing they had all of the resources of cisco and the fbi for 2.5 years and just now "found" this?
Click to expand...

Yep--And I'm not sure they can say for sure what he had in his house, without personal knowledge of that. I think it's just Boz grandstanding because the cameras are on and Kurtz just said "their own detective admitted there's no physical evidence in this case."
 
Rebuttal Witnesses need to be on witness list prior to trial?? It seems that Kurtz is complaining exactly the same argument as Boz did in his motion to supress Mr. M.?? Anybody know..or any legal eagles out there know..TYIA

BTW..Good Morning :seeya:
 
DogWood said:
Something Mr. Fry found?

Something to do with VPN and the hyroglifics found on router log?

Correct?

Missed most of it...
Click to expand...

LOL, that is what he said. I think what he meant was heuristics.
 
LyndyLoo said:
Rebuttal Witnesses need to be on witness list prior to trial?? It seems that Kurtz is complaining exactly the same argument as Boz did in his motion to supress Mr. M.?? Anybody know..or any legal eagles out there know..TYIA

BTW..Good Morning :seeya:
Click to expand...

I think that's right. It's his way of saying "Fine, you don't want our experts in, I'm going to challenge your experts on the same grounds."
 
cassius said:
This does not pass the smell test. Amazing they had all of the resources of cisco and the fbi for 2.5 years and just now "found" this?
Click to expand...

Shades of the blow poke in the M. Peterson trial?
 
LaLaw2000 said:
What Kurtz is trying to put over on the Prosecution was wrong. He should have gotten a real expert in the beginning. You do not ambush, and you do not introduce new experts in the middle of a trial.

JMO
Click to expand...

You don't hide behind questionable evidence citing "law enforcement shield". It makes you look corrupt, whether you are or not and it torpedoes your pros case with a jury.

If the evidence were part of say three pieces of evidence that were all concurred upon, you'd be fine. But, when you can't prove two of those pieces and the defense cannot cross the witness on the third effectively, you have a case that will be a miscarriage of justice no matter the jury verdict.
 
cassius said:
This does not pass the smell test. Amazing they had all of the resources of cisco and the fbi for 2.5 years and just now "found" this?
Click to expand...

Good grief! They didn't know this during the case in chief??

A bit of a mess on both sides.
 
WolfpackWoman said:
You don't think what the prosecution did was wrong? They had Mr. Ward's CV and report back in February. They waited TWO FULL months, on the day he was set to testify, to object and file a last minute motion to exclude. You really think that wasn't an ambush against the defense?

And they are currently introducing new experts right now. How does that jive with your statement?
Click to expand...

In every trial I've ever watched, the discussion as to whether to allow or disallow an expert witness, is done at the time the witness is being called to the stand.
 
gracielee said:
In every trial I've ever watched, the discussion as to whether to allow or disallow an expert witness, is done at the time the witness is being called to the stand.
Click to expand...

That is typically the case.
 
gritguy said:
That is typically the case.
Click to expand...

Typically motions in limine are filed prior to a case starting. Typically defense and prosecution keep in contact with each other throughout the process of the case. They alert each other in a reasonable time with issues the other side may need to prepare for. Watching the trial on TV, you would miss a lot of this. Anyone who's involved in litigation in person would know this, hence, why Kurtz made the bad faith argument.
 
Witness on stand, working in three different areas

phone itself, the radio signals that pass thru the air, and then the tower ( which goes through the central areas.

worked on terminals, towers, line to central office, technical design....is a systems engineer
 
Can someone please post that other link for the trial, other than WRAL, again. I made a short-cut for it on my other computer, but not on this one. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 70 more.
Total: 1,150 (members: 71, guests: 1,079)

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
1,079
Total visitors
1,150
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,784
Messages
17,958,852
Members
228,606
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top