Heck, we're all complaining about the case and we aren't required to sit there everyday and listen to this.
State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011
- Thread starter otto
- Start date
- Status
Heck, we're all complaining about the case and we aren't required to sit there everyday and listen to this.
Danielle59
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 878
- Reaction score
- 0
I was wondering about that, too. I think it was okay to point out about the cash since so much testimony has gone on about that. As far as asking about timing a drive to Fielding Dr. or sitting out there, it seemed out of the scope of testimony. I'm not an attorney and have never closely followed a case, so I have absolutely no basis for my opinion, but it just seemed outside the scope to me. Gritguy, can you weigh in?
That was my exact reason for wondering too.
I wonder if comments like this could be used on appeal if he was found guilty.
rebuttal
RoughlyCollie
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,072
- Reaction score
- 0
She had $150-$200 a week for things other than food. I think she had a generous allowance at BC's salary level.
There was a note from a juror that said they want the attornies to use their time better because the jury would like their life back. The judge pointed out (jury wasn't present) that no court this afternoon and tomorrow afternoon was to accomodate the jury so "whatever" (yes, he did say "whatever").
On a few issues:
JP and the baby.
While it would be damaging to his lifestyle and rep, many are right, the baby is BC's, financially, because he is the "presumed father" and sufficient time has passed that a DNA test would make no difference. But as to why it woulc cause financial hardship or a confrontation, is that it is proof of an affair by NC, and would be a reason, in North Carolina, to refuse her alimony.
On the necklace.
ONE photo of her with out it (I am under the impression that there are few photos of her without out but that is moot) and any testimony that she NEVER took it off goes out the window.
As for the milk thing, NC and BC were "perfectionist" of sorts. She goes with a vehicle at ALL until she can get the one she wants? Why would it be out of the realm of possibility that they would NOT give the child the wrong kind of milk when all that was required for the right stuff was a trip to the store?
JP and the baby.
While it would be damaging to his lifestyle and rep, many are right, the baby is BC's, financially, because he is the "presumed father" and sufficient time has passed that a DNA test would make no difference. But as to why it woulc cause financial hardship or a confrontation, is that it is proof of an affair by NC, and would be a reason, in North Carolina, to refuse her alimony.
On the necklace.
ONE photo of her with out it (I am under the impression that there are few photos of her without out but that is moot) and any testimony that she NEVER took it off goes out the window.
As for the milk thing, NC and BC were "perfectionist" of sorts. She goes with a vehicle at ALL until she can get the one she wants? Why would it be out of the realm of possibility that they would NOT give the child the wrong kind of milk when all that was required for the right stuff was a trip to the store?
They can't introduce new evidence in rebuttal unless it directly rebutts something brought in by the defense.
Maja
Seeker of Truth
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 1
Jury position possibilities:
1) Following what Det D said about all computer, phone, etc evidence, bottom line: Anger got to BC, he lost it, and killed his wife.
2) Too confusing, too much extraneous, irrelevant, data - lost us weeks ago.
3) Lack of evidence - we are not at a place of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and don't see us getting there.
1) Following what Det D said about all computer, phone, etc evidence, bottom line: Anger got to BC, he lost it, and killed his wife.
2) Too confusing, too much extraneous, irrelevant, data - lost us weeks ago.
3) Lack of evidence - we are not at a place of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and don't see us getting there.
Danielle59
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 878
- Reaction score
- 0
The ducks don't matter, the necklace doesn't matter, all that matters is that he supposedly murdered her and so what if all the witnesses for the State are not being discredited one after another and there is no other evidence. <sarcasm off>
LyndyLoo
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2010
- Messages
- 3,993
- Reaction score
- 3
I happen to believe she was removed from her house naked, and jogging bra half on..so yes was naked. I do also think as an experienced jogger and marathoner she would NOT go out half naked, wearing 2 left shoes...I think that sticking point is going to be what most jurors will grasp onto..that the 2 left shoes were missing, and their mates still in her closet or where ever..as I speculate that Brad grabbed them not realizing he grabbed wrong shoes....
I am just answering your question..yes she was naked..and NOT alive when she left her house...and who knows what hour Brad removed her???
You would be amazed what some jurors grasp onto when they deliberate.so guess we will see just what they do..
Danielle59
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 878
- Reaction score
- 0
Rebuttal is usually the rebutting of the Defense's case, the Defense is not introducing this new evidence to rebut.
I believe he was referring to July 11th, not the 12th.
I'm talking about the morning of the 11th. You said Brad wouldn't know what she was wearing that afternoon. I'm saying he obviously saw her that morning, so he would know what she was wearing then.
fran
Former Member
IMHO, I believe that MAY be the problem. Mr. Cooper DOES KNOW what's on the puter. After all, it was HIS and he WORKED for Cisco. He knows what they're doing.
JMHO
fran
From yesterday - there was some discussion about CISCO VPN logs from a router that is missing that took an FXO card.
To me that is new evidence and I have not heard the defense mention what model routers he had or did not have when presenting their case.
Danielle59
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 878
- Reaction score
- 0
The discussion was about Friday the 11th and what she was wearing that day during the day. The possibility that BC saw her in the black dress in the monring before work was being offered as consideration. The current conversation had nothing to do with Saturday the 12th.
Juries are a fickle animal and very difficult to read at times. But the fact that they actually sent a note during the trial asking it to be over tells me 1) that some or all of them are discussing the case in some form and 2) they've probably already decided that the defense has established reasonable doubt. Just my take on it...flame away.
Our friend Google Maps shows the FL guy as 3.4 miles, 7 minutes with traffic from his store. So roughly 8-10 minutes earlier puts him there closer to 7:15.
YMMV
yeknomaras
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 1
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
- Status