State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[LyndyLoo]

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.

: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..?

 

[cassius]

Rebuttal is usually the rebutting of the Defense's case, the Defense is not introducing this new evidence to rebut.

In light of the jury asking to speed things up, I don't see how JG let's them start bringing new stuff in. He could totally lose them and have a mistrial.

 

[fran]

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..

A little OT, but then again, about what jurors will 'grasp onto.'

There was a murder case in Texas awhile ago. The guy admitted he killed the person, but said it was self defense.

OTOH, the state said he murdered the person in cold blood, cut his body up, dumped it in black trash bags in water, left town, returned by air, recovered the head and it disappeared.

One juror said they, 'Didn't think you could convict someone if the victim had no head.'

Seriously, that was the reason the juror gave and the guy was found, 'not guilty.'

weird,
:banghead:
fran

 

[kantoo]

A little OT, but then again, about what jurors will 'grasp onto.'

There was a murder case in Texas awhile ago. The guy admitted he killed the person, but said it was self defense.

OTOH, the state said he murdered the person in cold blood, cut his body up, dumped it in black trash bags in water, left town, returned by air, recovered the head and it disappeared.

One juror said they, 'Didn't think you could convict someone if the victim had no head.'

Seriously, that was the reason the juror gave and the guy was found, 'not guilty.'

weird,
:banghead:
fran

was that the guy in Galveston?

 

[Lori59]

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.

 

[fran]

was that the guy in Galveston?

I don't recall. But he's also suspected in the murder of a 'friend' several years earlier in California and he allegedly killed her because she was going to reveal, I THINK, that's he'd also killed his missing wife.

He's actually some rich guy, son of an enormously wealthy family, but he's a little {crazy} (imho).

JMHO
fran

 

[LyndyLoo]

A little OT, but then again, about what jurors will 'grasp onto.'

There was a murder case in Texas awhile ago. The guy admitted he killed the person, but said it was self defense.

OTOH, the state said he murdered the person in cold blood, cut his body up, dumped it in black trash bags in water, left town, returned by air, recovered the head and it disappeared.

One juror said they, 'Didn't think you could convict someone if the victim had no head.'

Seriously, that was the reason the juror gave and the guy was found, 'not guilty.'

weird,
:banghead:
fran

I know, there is always someone who gets something in their heads and just cant get past it..Look at the lonely juror in the Spector Case....Sometimes it is the closings that help connect things..and the less complex that explanation the better..

Sorry for OT..but it will be interesting indeed to see how this case pans out!

 

[fran]

I know, there is always someone who gets something in their heads and just cant get past it..Look at the lonely juror in the Spector Case....Sometimes it is the closings that help connect things..and the less complex that explanation the better..

Sorry for OT..but it will be interesting indeed to see how this case pans out!

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

 

[kantoo]

I don't recall. But he's also suspected in the murder of a 'friend' several years earlier in California and he allegedly killed her because she was going to reveal, I THINK, that's he'd also killed his missing wife.

He's actually some rich guy, son of an enormously wealthy family, but he's a little {crazy} (imho).

JMHO
fran

yeah...Robert Durst....was dressing up like a little old lady in Galveston

 

[NCEast]

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.

I had wondered if they were directing their note to the defense as well. However, in all honesty, I think the defense has done a much better job with moving their witnesses on and off the stand, and eliciting testimony from them, than the State did. I think the jury is just ready for this thing to be over and done with regardless of anything else. I understand their feelings.....but I hope their impatience will not run over into their deliberations. I want them to deliberate as completely and competently as possible.

 

[RaleighNative]

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.

 

[unc70]

Me too.

She might have swiped her e-VIC, but all the ones I have seen are scanned. Can't be sure without a replay, but it looked like swiping something. She appeared to be paying cash at the end. Looked like she had to show her ID to purchase alcohol. Could she have had a coupon or two?

BTW Super double coupons this week at HT. Have to wait up late Tuesday night to see the specials. So exciting to get that email. Must admit I do read them; even take the Thursday 5% Old F--t discount.

 

[macd]

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.

Good point. Has there been any discussion yet about the spoofed call during the defense case?

EDIT: Oh yea, the defense computer expert, JW, discussed the what routers support an FXO and how big they are.

 

[GhostCrab]

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..

I think he was referring to 7/11.

 

[lib's mom]

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.

 

[SleuthinNC]

They also expressed concern right as the prosecution finished their side. It's so hard to tell though. Were they already feeling reasonable doubt and not needing a whole lot more info from the defense or are they convinced of guilt and nothing the defense has to say can change that.

It's hard to believe the 2nd reason, that would be a real problem as far as a fair trial is concerned.

 

[NCEast]

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.

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.

 

[SleuthinNC]

It could also have been a warning that if the prosecution is going to bring something else in it had better be a slam dunk.

 

[sunshine05]

I don't understand why they aren't having the jury present for the information being presented this afternoon. As BZ keeps saying "this material is nothing new". No reason they should not be able to cross examine this. And now bringing in new router logs last minute. Come on!

 

[Amster]

State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011 - Page 26 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Home run??

Never mind....:innocent: