State v Bradley Cooper 3-17-2011 - Page 11

Just the Fax · #**251** 03-17-2011, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

Scott Peterson placed himself in the same location the body was found. That is huge.

There are at least 15 little things in this case that = huge.
Its all relative.

ncsu95 · #**252** 03-17-2011, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carolinalady

We know that Brad said Nancy yelled up at him about a t-shirt, then said "nevermind" and he heard the door shut. So, before that, was she t-shirt-less? Bella says that she was wearing black shorts and a white shirt, so she would've had to see her right before NC left the house (assuming she left the house). Again, going on my memory that the bedrooms are upstairs, Bella would've had to come downstairs to see Nancy.

Some 4 year olds would be able to distinguish one day's happenings to the next and others are not. I'm not 100% sure Bella didn't see her Mom, but I am doubtful based on Brad's own words and thinking about the above scenario.

Not necessarily. If she woke up to go tend to Katie, she could have been wearing black shorts and a t-shirt to sleep in. Then later changed into her running clothes.

borndem · #**253** 03-17-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

Maybe she got up to go to the bathroom and saw/talked to her mom or dad, then went back to bed.

I'm not so sure I would remember it if I had been in that situation -- again, their days were so similar to each other... morning? after a nap?

And by the same token, there were a lot of runners in the areas where NC and CC ran, same ones, different ones, every day. I think one day would blend into another in a likewise manner. I would probably be hesitant to say for the record that I had seen someone on a particular day unless we had a specific conversation or something in my day were out of the norm. These folks were giving info on a very important event....

Albert · #**254** 03-17-2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

You mean a policeman shouldn't have asked her if she saw her mommy? Really?

That would be like asking a blind person what they saw and asking the deaf person what they heard.

carolinalady · #**255** 03-17-2011, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

Not necessarily. If she woke up to go tend to Katie, she could have been wearing black shorts and a t-shirt to sleep in. Then later changed into her running clothes.

I wasn't thinking about that being her sleeping attire, but you are right, it's a possibility.

Just the Fax · #**256** 03-17-2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

Not necessarily. If she woke up to go tend to Katie, she could have been wearing black shorts and a t-shirt to sleep in. Then later changed into her running clothes.

Clea Morwick knows exactly what the child said and apparently in what context.
Clea was interviewed, and based on that interview and Coopers statement she was asleep, there was no reason to traumatize the child with questions about her mom.

carolinalady · #**257** 03-17-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albert

That would be like asking a blind person what they saw and asking the deaf person what they heard.

How so? Some 4 year olds are extremely observant and perceptive and would be capable of distinguishing the difference in days. Some are not. I just don't understand why they wouldn't ask (if for nothing else to figure out it was when she got up in the middle of night because her sister was crying or that she clearly had her days confused).

ncsu95 · #**258** 03-17-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borndem

I'm not so sure I would remember it if I had been in that situation -- again, their days were so similar to each other... morning? after a nap?

And by the same token, there were a lot of runners in the areas where NC and CC ran, same ones, different ones, every day. I think one day would blend into another in a likewise manner. I would probably be hesitant to say for the record that I had seen someone on a particular day unless we had a specific conversation or something in my day were out of the norm. These folks were giving info on a very important event....

The woman that testified in the custody hearing called the police on Sunday after seeing the posters. That's the very next day....not days, weeks or months later. Her body hadn't been found at this point. I find that very credible. She was 100% positive it was NC because she made eye contact from less than 10 feet and spoke to her. I know eye witness testimony can be wrong, and maybe she was wrong...but she matched the description, time, and location that she would have been if she had gone jogging.

ncsu95 · #**259** 03-17-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albert

That would be like asking a blind person what they saw and asking the deaf person what they heard.

So if Bella told someone on that Saturday that she heard mommy and daddy screaming at each other, you wouldn't want that to be brought before the jury? What if she said she saw daddy choking mommy?

borndem · #**260** 03-17-2011, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberPro

Oh, yes, maybe more than a bit old-fashioned. Punch Cards, Mag Core, Paper Tapes. I am sure this rings a bell. It was SLIGHTLY before I started in computers, but only by a year or two. I cut my teeth on PDP-11/34's was around for the birth of the PC. Spent a lot of time at Radio Shack drooling over the TRS-80's... WAY out of my price though.

"Open the Pod Bay Door Hal" .... I know a song, would you like to hear it?

"Will I Dream?" - I used to have HAL as the background on my desktop.... good to see him again!

Here's a song for ya: Daisy, daisy, give ...me .....your...... annnswerrr... ....do...I'm ......half ............cra... ......zy.... ..all..... .......for... ...thhhhfffmmm.. ......_________________

Ring a bell??

Yes, I knew punch cards (hated 'em) and you used a machine as big as a Buick to punch them -- we punched JCL for test jobs, but I did not deal with paper tapes -- did see a few, but did deal with mag tapes. We were an IBM shop....CoBOL, assembler, CICS....JES...

Just the Fax · #**261** 03-17-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

So if Bella told someone on that Saturday that she heard mommy and daddy screaming at each other, you wouldn't want that to be brought before the jury? What if she said she saw daddy choking mommy?

The judge ruled what a 4 year old child said is not admissible....period

Just the Fax · #**262** 03-17-2011, 06:05 PM

Cassidy young saw and heard her mom being killed.
The jury will never hear from her or who she told later

less0305 · #**263** 03-17-2011, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

You mean a policeman shouldn't have asked her if she saw her mommy? Really?

My highly intelligent, sweet, adorable 4 year old granddaughter INSISTS she had a sister who died. Her name was Barbara. She didn't. She is an only child. But she INSISTS it to the point of crying and getting upset if you tell her she didn't and that she shouldn't tell that story. I remember when my daughter was in the 4 to 5 year age group she had pulled a hang nail on her finger. It got infected. I took her to the doctor. When the doctor asked her what happened she declared, "I got runned over by a car." Sure, the policeman could have asked, but I'm not sure that anything a four year old says could be reliable. A four year old could repeat anything she was told to say - or a four year old with a very vivid imagination could say anything out of the blue. Had the child said, "I saw daddy hit mommy this morning," would that have good enough evidence for you, or could the other side of that be that some of these meddlesome, gossipy, swinging neighbors told her to say that?

SleuthinNC · #**264** 03-17-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just the Fax

The judge ruled what a 4 year old child said is not admissible....period

According to WRAL twitter feed "Judge rules that he will not allow that testimony at this point."

I read that as not admissible now but not closing door on ever allowing it.

less0305 · #**265** 03-17-2011, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

So if Bella told someone on that Saturday that she heard mommy and daddy screaming at each other, you wouldn't want that to be brought before the jury? What if she said she saw daddy choking mommy?

No, because Bella could have heard them yelling the week before and associate it with the present. Bella could have seen daddy being extremely loving and hugging mom really tight and she could think he may have been hurting her. A four year child's perception of time and events is not very reliable, in my opinion - whichever way the mop flops.

Just the Fax · #**266** 03-17-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SleuthinNC

According to WRAL twitter feed "Judge rules that he will not allow that testimony at this point."

I read that as not admissible now but not closing door on ever allowing it.

Kurtz can make an argument later, but unless he has something totally unforeseen, it seems obvious the judge will not allow based on the facts surrounding her statement to the neighbor.

ncsu95 · #**267** 03-17-2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just the Fax

Cassidy young saw and heard her mom being killed.
The jury will never hear from her or who she told later

There is a big difference between a 2 year old and a 4 year old. And I'm not certain that the jury won't hear what she told Michelle's sister.

ncsu95 · #**268** 03-17-2011, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by less0305

My highly intelligent, sweet, adorable 4 year old granddaughter INSISTS she had a sister who died. Her name was Barbara. She didn't. She is an only child. But she INSISTS it to the point of crying and getting upset if you tell her she didn't and that she shouldn't tell that story. I remember when my daughter was in the 4 to 5 year age group she had pulled a hang nail on her finger. It got infected. I took her to the doctor. When the doctor asked her what happened she declared, "I got runned over by a car." Sure, the policeman could have asked, but I'm not sure that anything a four year old says could be reliable. A four year old could repeat anything she was told to say - or a four year old with a very vivid imagination could say anything out of the blue. Had the child said, "I saw daddy hit mommy this morning," would that have good enough evidence for you, or could the other side of that be that some of these meddlesome, gossipy, swinging neighbors told her to say that?

I think it is up to a jury to decide how credible it is.

jilly · #**269** 03-17-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by otto

This is true. First we have opinions and gossip from the neighborhood, now we have police testimony where he believes a license plate was removed because there was a loose or missing screw and a tool in another location, he believes that she was murdered in the house although there is no evidence of that ... and what else ... bunch of beliefs and opinions with nothing to support them. I have to wonder what the jury is thinking - whether they are thinking that trials and convictions are based on beliefs and opinions or whether they are going to wait for some "connect the dots" facts.

I have to say, I have never heard such testimony from a police officer during a trial. Seems all his testimony is based on a gut feeling.

Just the Fax · #**270** 03-17-2011, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ncsu95

There is a big difference between a 2 year old and a 4 year old. And I'm not certain that the jury won't hear what she told Michelle's sister.

You are right about the difference in a 2 year old and 4 year old. if the 4 year old does not get in ths trial, the 2 year old's utterances certainly won't.

waughx6 · #**271** 03-17-2011, 06:50 PM

Does anyone know if NC allowed the girls to have TV in their rooms? I know at the party he asked for her help and she told him to figure it out or something similar. Maybe.....she got home, Brad was sleeping, she checked on the girls, noticed the TV, got angry, woke him and things escalated from there. Maybe she insulted him or something since she was already fed up with him. I know that when my DH deploys for a year, and comes home, I get irritated when he tries to take over. Never to the point of a real fight, but we arent in the middle of a nasty divorce either. JMO

SleuthyGal · #**272** 03-17-2011, 06:52 PM

Okay I'm back.

Most of the afternoon was spent with the jury out and the lawyers discussing testimony, how to proceed, what the questions would be, etc.

First up was the Bella comment and how to proceed. You already know the judge ruled on that. They pretty much asked all these questions with the jury out and saw how the topic might come up. Then the judge ruled.

They questioned Dismukes on his various 'beliefs,' who he interviewed, asked WHY didn't Dismukes contact some of the witnesses who claimed they saw Nancy until Sept (i.e. 2 months later). Dismukes said he contacted some of the witnesses (by phone?) but others later. The defense hammered on this.

Defense also tried to insinuate that Dismukes knowledge of the house and what was what and where came from JA and HP. They were in contact a lot with Dismukes, almost daily at first, then more sporadically. The insinuation was that Dismukes decided that BC was guilty because the friends thought Brad did it.

I don't know WHAT the state has on BC, but nothing forensic or physical has come up yet, with the exception that some items were moved and couple items missing.

Then the defense introduced one of the computers (the eMachine) that Brad purchased after the other computers were removed. This item was in evidence at CPD but it also had privileged communication. The jury was sent out after that and a long discussion ensued about trying to figure out what happened on that particular day in which the eMachine was taken out of evidence. Who accessed it and why. Where was it sent? This went on and on and on. JA Young went to retrieve his laptop and he and Daniels spent time going through documents with the prosecution. Kind of like a treasure hunt. Nothing happening in court, jury out. Finally Young shows Kurtz something on the laptop and they talk and Kurtz is satisfied that nothing untoward happened to the laptop, CPD did not access the data on it, and the FBI guy who was present didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do.

Then the discussion continued with the judge asking 'how to unring that bell?' Meaning: the jury heard the defense ask about the eMachine and heard the defense talk about 'privileged communication on that machine.' So they have to figure something out on what to instruct the jury.

By this point it was 4:45pm and the judge let the jury go for the day. They continued discussing the eMachine thing and also then discussed with the judge which M.E. photos can be brought into the case (at a later time).

I think that was it.

Questions? Ask away.

SleuthyGal · #**273** 03-17-2011, 07:01 PM

Oh they debated about the HT video for awhile...figuring out if they had to use the HT system (software) to show the video, which I guess had some constraints, or if they could use the copy that the defense had created (in a different format). Judge wanted to see both formats.

Then he ruled that they had to show the HT video using the HT software, as the video quality was markedly better. They only showed Dismukes the first video where BC is walking in. It was a quick presentation.

raisincharlie · #**274** 03-17-2011, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jilly

I have to say, I have never heard such testimony from a police officer during a trial. Seems all his testimony is based on a gut feeling.

Hello Ms. Jilly - hope you are well

Just have to open mouth on this as I don't find it all that unusual seeing as how it came from an officer who was not in charge of the case and was assigned specific duties that may be limited to certain things. Dismukes is not the lead on the case. We know he testified, it is unclear to me what others may have testified if any at this point. This was demonstrated earlier by Deputy Harper of WCSO - she collected and managed certain shoes associated with EMS personnel that had entered the area where Nancy was found. She recollected other shoes were collected by other officers but could not testify to anything else about them as she simply did not know - she took care of her assignment and stayed out of the others. Also with tweets and some articles, it is difficult to ascertain the extent of Dismukes' testimony, since we are getting one liners and a few paragraphs out of a day and a half of testimony. The jury heard it all, that's all that matters.

raisincharlie · #**275** 03-17-2011, 07:07 PM

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.