State v Bradley Cooper 3-17-2011

ncsu95 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

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

ncsu95 said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Just the Fax said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

ncsu95 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

SleuthinNC said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Just the Fax said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

less0305 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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

otto said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.:waitasec:

ncsu95 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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.

jilly said:

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.:waitasec:

Click to expand...

Hello Ms. Jilly - hope you are well :seeya:

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.

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.

SleuthyGal said:

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.

Click to expand...

SG,

I just wanted to personally THANK YOU for going in there today!

Also, sounds like a bummer day to be a juror. When I was on one, they kept sending us out of the courtroom so the lawyers could debate issues, at times I thought I was wearing out my shoes walking back and forth. It was BORING, and I have a high boredom threshold. Let's just say that the jury rooms are adequately comfortable, but nobody's idea of a place to spend excess leisure time.

Thanks for the excellent reportage!

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.

Let's just say that the jury rooms are adequately comfortable, but nobody's idea of a place to spend excess leisure time.

Click to expand...

This jury seems to be having a GREAT time when they are in the jury room. Inside the courtroom we can hear them laughing a lot (like after lunch before court gets started again). The judge even joked to them when they came out that he was sorry to "break up their party but there was more testimony to hear." They appear to be getting along well and (apparently) having some fun when on their own, together.

Just the Fax said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.