State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

[FullDisclosure]

One more slightly OT post before court resumes:
I notice that the Websleuth's discourse has been unusually civil and respectful for the most part today. Has anyone else noticed the same thing, and what's up with that?

 

[Star12]

BC was 'texting' at the HT cash stand - could he not initiate the call from his smart phone at that time?

 

[NCEast]

This may or may not help some of you who are curious about where they are headed here.

http://www.3cx.com/PBX/FXS-FXO.html

I hope they are going somewhere with these "foundations" but I have a feeling that a rough translation of what we are going to see at the end is:

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, we have a mixed bag here. He could have ______. He did _______. He was _________.

_______ + _________ + _________ + BC = 1st degree murder.

Because a lot of this looks like spaghetti and kitten chow thrown on the wall at this point. The closing should boil it down in a nice time-line (a la Sleuthygal) for them.

But, again, I think Alice Stubbs did some SERIOUS damage to the pros. today. She basically provided reasonable doubt in a nutshell.

I think we will have a jury struggling over the idea of anger killing versus first degree murder.

We have clearly witnessed premeditated retaliation to a divorce, but I can tell you from experience that it SUCKS to have a law firm check bounce and that would have sent me into popping kittens out of every pore. (Mainly because of how threatening and unrealistic divorce attorneys start out to be to get to "resolution").

At this point, with all the convoluted technological crap and the fact that they have summed it up to be possibility after possibility, we have lost the idea of premeditation of murder. This guy was definitely ALL of the the other things we are calling him and POSSIBLY a "rage killer".

But proving that he "snapped" crushes the first degree murder and puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the length of time she was asphyxiated. (Give me til midnight and I get off work and go over this one with case law in North Carolina if you'd like) The idea here (with this trial) seems to be that he "snapped" and that the strangulation was what made it first degree, but they have muddied the waters so badly, I don't think this jury will come back to it. I keep hoping for an amendment to the indictment mid-trial to include the 2nd degree, but I think THAT would lay the ground for a hung jury because it would call into doubt everything else they've done for the State.

Remember that there is an awful case going on in Hickory where a women is alleged to have chain sawed a little girl she abused for two years and THAT case was only indicted as second degree.

Please expand on why you think A. Stubbs did serious damage for the prosecution??
Forgot to say thank you for your thoughts. You are one on here I really pay attention to

 

[NCEast]

Live again.

 

[FullDisclosure]

BC was 'texting' at the HT cash stand - could he not initiate the call from his smart phone at that time?

If by that you mean the call would have happened immediately after he initiated it, then no. It doesn't fit the timeline of the HT trips and calls (well documented).

 

[raisincharlie]

This may or may not help some of you who are curious about where they are headed here.

http://www.3cx.com/PBX/FXS-FXO.html

I hope they are going somewhere with these "foundations" but I have a feeling that a rough translation of what we are going to see at the end is:

Ladies and gentleman of the jury, we have a mixed bag here. He could have ______. He did _______. He was _________.

_______ + _________ + _________ + BC = 1st degree murder.

Because a lot of this looks like spaghetti and kitten chow thrown on the wall at this point. The closing should boil it down in a nice time-line (a la Sleuthygal) for them.

But, again, I think Alice Stubbs did some SERIOUS damage to the pros. today. She basically provided reasonable doubt in a nutshell.

I think we will have a jury struggling over the idea of anger killing versus first degree murder.

We have clearly witnessed premeditated retaliation to a divorce, but I can tell you from experience that it SUCKS to have a law firm check bounce and that would have sent me into popping kittens out of every pore. (Mainly because of how threatening and unrealistic divorce attorneys start out to be to get to "resolution").

At this point, with all the convoluted technological crap and the fact that they have summed it up to be possibility after possibility, we have lost the idea of premeditation of murder. This guy was definitely ALL of the the other things we are calling him and POSSIBLY a "rage killer".

But proving that he "snapped" crushes the first degree murder and puts the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the length of time she was asphyxiated. (Give me til midnight and I get off work and go over this one with case law in North Carolina if you'd like) The idea here (with this trial) seems to be that he "snapped" and that the strangulation was what made it first degree, but they have muddied the waters so badly, I don't think this jury will come back to it. I keep hoping for an amendment to the indictment mid-trial to include the 2nd degree, but I think THAT would lay the ground for a hung jury because it would call into doubt everything else they've done for the State.

Remember that there is an awful case going on in Hickory where a women is alleged to have chain sawed a little girl she abused for two years and THAT case was only indicted as second degree.

Have to disagree with you - the manner of death - strangulation, asphixiation alone can support premeditation. It takes 4 minutes, 4 long minutes, 4 minutes in which one could come to their senses and if not, well it is pretty darn sensible to conclude, they meant to kill the person they were strangling. In this case there is no doubt there was considerable animosity. Premeditation can be limited to seconds.

As to the Zahra Baker case - Elisa Baker got an agreement out of the dumb prosecutor - reveal the body part locations and we won't charge you with 1st degree. No comparison at all, none.

 

[RaleighNC]

I don't see anything about his personality that would point to a loss of control. In fact, I see 180 degrees opposite.

Not rage here, seething, building, intolerable tension and anger.

Look up superheated water and microwave ovens... That's Brad.

[video=youtube;1_OXM4mr_i0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_OXM4mr_i0&feature=related[/video]

 

[booradley]

I was surprised he would have to pay for her (airfare, food, lodging) to accompany the children to his location for visits if he was unable to travel to Canada. I know this was a starting point proposal, but has anyone here seen this in a separation/custody agreement? Is this common now? I would never have dreamt of asking my ex to pay for me to accompany our child to see him. If I returned home when she did, it was on my dime. At other times he came to get her, or she flew as an unaccompanied minor.

Yes, I have. My bff ex lives in another state, he pays for my friend to fly with their son for visits, she sometimes has to stay overnight due to flight schedule, he pays for hotel.

 

[johnfear]

Please expand on why you think A. Stubbs did serious damage for the prosecution??
Forgot to say thank you for your thoughts. You are one on here I really pay attention to

She confirmed that Nancy was open to mediation and that Nancy had emailed/called at odd hours.

One specific call/email was at 4:42 am. Stated she would be headed for a run. (Java Jive open at 5:00 am over there?)

 

[SleuthinNC]

I am thinking he removed all traces of any sort of equipment prior to the search warrants/searches. There are a million places he could have disposed of the FXO or any other item that would have seemed suspicious. I have no idea if the LE officers did a complete search of his house, they were slack in other areas, which somewhat leads me to think they searched with murder in their minds and not so much technology.

Now we are talking about killing NC, disposing the body, cleaning up the house, cleaning out the garage, disposing of shoes, clothing, routers, line cards, cleaning out the trunk, wiping call traces ...

The list is getting pretty long of things for him to have accomplished flawlessly.

 

[johnfear]

Have to disagree with you - the manner of death - strangulation, asphixiation alone can support premeditation. It takes 4 minutes, 4 long minutes, 4 minutes in which one could come to their senses and if not, well it is pretty darn sensible to conclude, they meant to kill the person they were strangling. In this case there is no doubt there was considerable animosity. Premeditation can be limited to seconds.

As to the Zahra Baker case - Elisa Baker got an agreement out of the dumb prosecutor - reveal the body part locations and we won't charge you with 1st degree. No comparison at all, none.

The body part reveal was to get the DP off the table, no?

 

[cityslick]

January 2nd, 2008 on the order.

 

[sunshine05]

johnfear - Could you explain why you felt Stubbs' testimony was damaging to the State's case? I may have missed something and would like to hear your thoughts on how she provided reasonable doubt. TIA

 

[otto]

Brad ordered it Jan 2, 2008 ... I'm not sure that can be connected in any pre-meditation argument.

 

[SleuthinNC]

So this witness is going to explain that it is possible to do this using an FXO and that Brad had access to an FXO through work. However, he would still have to use the Cisco Call Manager to initiate the call, and there would have to be records of that, right?

He would have had his own call manager at his house that he had full control over.

 

[NCEast]

She confirmed that Nancy was open to mediation and that Nancy had emailed/called at odd hours.

One specific call/email was at 4:42 am. Stated she would be headed for a run. (Java Jive open at 5:00 am over there?)

Right. I was disturbed by that as well and mentioned it here just after her testimony.

 

[SleuthinNC]

So do I understand correctly that Brad had access to a gadget that allowed him to make remote telephone calls from his home to his cell phone? He ordered the equipment through work for internal use, and the gadget was not found at his home. However, he had access to the equipment and it would tie things together in terms of the phone calls between 6 and 7 AM, and the estimated time of death between 1 AM and 6 AM?

He also needed equipment to put the FXO card in which has also not been accounted for.

 

[NCEast]

To use Cisco equipment at home it does not have to be checked out. Employees can take stuff home without checking it out. per witness.

 

[cityslick]

Right. I was disturbed by that as well and mentioned it here just after her testimony.

I missed that but thanks for pointing it out.

 

[cityslick]

I think January order kinda blows the 'he ordered the FXO specifically for this' theory out of the water, no?