State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[GhostCrab]

Honestly, I think the fact that the jury note suggested that the attorneys have their witnesses lined up and ready to go means that they're getting aggravated at court dismissing 20-30 minutes early on a fairly regular basis. They left about 25 mins early yesterday and 30 mins. early today. I know it's aggravating me. I really don't think they're complaining about getting out early when it's on a day they requested, but those 20-30 mins. can add up.

That being said, I kinda do think they have their minds made up. Deliberations will be *fast* I think.

They won't be fast if they don't agree. I just hope they take the time to weigh the evidence and not take a "whatever gets us out of here faster" approach. And it makes me wonder how they will handle the computer and phone evidence since it is complicated and would take time to go through.

uh boy.

 

[macd]

IMHO, the closing on this one better be GOOD!

I'm seriously not so sure as I was at the beginning.

Of course, isn't that how the jury is supposed to be, even at this time?

No decision yet! Still open to both verdicts until deliberation.

JMHO
fran

Closing will be important.
The prosecution showed a mountain of circumstantial evidence.
Defense clouded some of it during cross.
Defense shattered some of it and clouded other bits during its case-in-chief.

Both sides will need to weave together the pieces that are left to reveal the story that remains.

 

[RaleighNative]

If I'm remembering correctly the actual trial began on March 7th. I might be wrong but I think that's correct. And the State rested last week....so that was roughly 6 weeks of prosecution witnesses? And one week and a day or so, thus far, for the defense. Trenkle said yesterday that he thought the defense would rest by the end of this week, but he wasn't 100 percent. However, with the new witness and the router just coming in, or not, that may still take another week before the jury is able to deliberate.

Okay, so the judge had no issue with the prosecution taking their time. But now, 1 week and 1 day into the defense, and he's saying "hurry it up"????:maddening:

 

[unc70]

I don't think I would have brought HP's name up on cross. Her and JA's stories are falling apart and I think the state (and LE too) is starting to look gullible for having put so much weight on them. JMO obviously.

They said you were gullible, and you believed them.

ETA: Clarify I was not referring to you, GhostCrab.

 

[yeknomaras]

Okay, so the judge had no issue with the prosecution taking their time. But now, 1 week and 1 day into the defense, and he's saying "hurry it up"????:maddening:

the Judge didn't say that. in fact he looked pretty annoyed that the jury sent him that note.

 

[GhostCrab]

They said you were gullible, and you believed them.

Oh no, not me, I never believed them. I called bs on them during their testimony.

 

[cityslick]

the Judge didn't say that. in fact he looked pretty annoyed that the jury sent him that note.

That's how I took it as well. He made it a point to say the whole reason they were breaking today and tomorrow was because of them.

 

[NCEast]

Okay, so the judge had no issue with the prosecution taking their time. But now, 1 week and 1 day into the defense, and he's saying "hurry it up"????:maddening:

The judge didn't say it, the jury did. And I agree,,,,they need to be patient and hear all the evidence with an open mind.

 

[ncsu95]

the only point I'll make about the necklace/earrings is that if she wasn't wearing the necklace OR earrings, but was found WITH at least one earring, that means she probably put her jewelry back on. now, that doesn't mean she would put it ALL back on, but I know personally that if I take off my jewelry to go swimming, I will put it all back on again after. even the things I wear *always* .... you don't know what chlorine will do to your jewelry, ya know? but anyway

I'm sure she had both on at the party.

 

[yeknomaras]

That's how I took it as well. He made it a point to say the whole reason they were breaking today and tomorrow was because of them.

yea. he even ended with "whatever... *rolls eyes*" lol

 

[Bottle Cap]

Can somebody recap for me the significance of the necklace, beyond someone saying she always wore it? They said she always did, and she turned up in a bathing suit without it on at the store. She didn't have earrings on at the store, but she did when she died.

It's like the ducks, I can't understand what it has to do with much of anything and am obviously missing something here.

 

[ncsu95]

:floorlaugh:..whoopsy..sorry..however, who knows if he even saw her that morning, since they seem to avoid each other..Would she have had her bathing suit on that morning? too..?

No idea. Maybe so since she had early afternoon pool plans. Pure speculation though. He didn't leave the house until after 9:00 though, so we know he saw her. And, given that she was wearing what he described her wearing, it's reasonable to assume that he saw her wearing that and that is what he described to the police. If I remember correctly, she was already at the party when he got there...and I don't believe they spent much, if any, time together at the party. So it's reasonable to believe that is what he remembered her wearing if she was wearing that Friday morning.

 

[gracielee]

Brad would have had no idea what Nancy was wearing that afternoon (July 11) as he was at work..or should I say out to lunch with co-workers at that time...but, I do agree, many men just have no clue about what their wives wear, or dates for that matter....and I wont even go into remembering dates of importance.....I do think Brad was guessing, Dont think he spent muchh time even looking at his wife by this point in their relationship...

I wish he would have just said..He had no idea what she was wearing and leave it at that......

And didn't she leave for the evening party before Brad came home from work?

 

[macd]

Can somebody recap for me the significance of the necklace, beyond someone saying she always wore it? They said she always did, and she turned up in a bathing suit without it on at the store. She didn't have earrings on at the store, but she did when she died.

It's like the ducks, I can't understand what it has to do with much of anything and am obviously missing something here.

One of the pieces of circumstantial evidence was: she never took it off, but it was found in BC's possession after her death.

This testimony goes to impeach that one piece of circumstantial evidence.

 

[cityslick]

Can somebody recap for me the significance of the necklace, beyond someone saying she always wore it? They said she always did, and she turned up in a bathing suit without it on at the store. She didn't have earrings on at the store, but she did when she died.

It's like the ducks, I can't understand what it has to do with much of anything and am obviously missing something here.

You need to go back and re-read threads throughout the trial for that explanation. All I can say it was another piece of CE that was cited over and over again because JA/HP/others stated it as fact that she never ever took the thing off, therefore if she really went jogging that morning, she would of been wearing it. Thus, since she didn't have it on, she must of not went jogging, which means BC must of took the necklace off her after he killed her.

I could go on, but you get the point.

 

[Madeleine74]

The jury should not have already decided on either side. Their note is a bit troubling because it implies they are done. Maybe they're not even listening anymore at this point...

 

[sunshine05]

I'm sure she had both on at the party.

I can't remember. Did anyone say she was wearing it that night? I seem to remember a few saying they didn't remember.

 

[ncsu95]

I'll go out on a limb.....the fact that the jurors send a note during the defense's case, on the tail end of trashing Nancy, spending a morning going over the map again.....well I'd say they are tired of listening to the defense. I know I am.

Were you tired of listening to the prosecution bring witness after witness up that offered basically nothing? How many did they bring up that said they found nothing? How many did they bring up to do nothing more than say BC had an affair with HM? There hasn't been a single "wasted" defense witness to this point. Maybe they are tired of hearing the prosecution cross about stuff like facebook, or DD being a lesbian, or Mrs. C not helping the prosecution.

Reports from people in the courtroom seem to think that the prosecution is the one that has lost this jury. I don't know because I haven't been in the court...but that is what has been said based on jury reactions.

 

[otto]

I'm also concerned about the jury bringing this up...especially since it's now the defense presenting their case.

However, wasn't the jury told this trial would last 4-6 weeks? How long, exactly, was the pros presenting their case? It's not the defense that has gone on and on and on.

But who knows? It's all speculation. I'd imagine both sides are concerned.

I seem to recall 8 weeks being mentioned at the beginning.

 

[GhostCrab]

Can somebody recap for me the significance of the necklace, beyond someone saying she always wore it? They said she always did, and she turned up in a bathing suit without it on at the store. She didn't have earrings on at the store, but she did when she died.

It's like the ducks, I can't understand what it has to do with much of anything and am obviously missing something here.

You might want to revisit the state's opening. They broke the state's case down there.....

The short and quick answer is that Nancy's friend's said that she NEVER (emphasis theirs) took the necklace off. Ultimately her body was found without it and it showed up in a drawer at the Cooper's house some time later, implying that it had to have come off while she was struggling with Brad and he put it away. Part of the CE that is supposed to be pointing toward BC as the perpetrator of her death.