Lights On Again

I watched a bit of the Cooper trial on wral.com this morning and saw the video tape an investigator took at the Cooper house. The front yard was clean and well-kempt. The back yard had very little grass, was cluttered and messy. Was it even a safe place for two little girls to play? Regardless of the verdict, that contrast between what was on the street and what was out of sight seems like a good metaphor for the lives Nancy and Brad lived.

I saw Nancy's mother, Donna, testify for the Prosecution yesterday. Nancy had let her family know that the marriage was an unhappy one and the last time Donna saw her, she cried and said she just wanted to go home to Canada. She couldn't, because Brad cut off her access to money and had possession of her passport and the children's. Ultimately, we have Nancy's word about the money and the passports. She told friends as well as family the same things and that speaks to its truth but still, it's her word. How will a jury weigh that? I wonder if bank records will be entered to support the assertions?

Donna cried some on the stand but was able to speak clearly and portrayed her family as taking Brad in as one of their own when he first came into their lives. She looked directly at him from the stand. And she told about hugging him after Nancy's body was found. He was stiff, not responsive, and didn't look at her. She looked up under the brim of his cap, into his eyes, and knew in her heart that he had killed her daughter. That was the last thing the jury heard at the end of the day yesterday. No mattert how heartbreaking and powerful a statement like that is, it is not evidence. How will the jury handle that?

I didn't hear the cross examination but it must have been very brief this morning. Court goes into session at 9:30 and by 10:15 or so, police witnesses were back on the stand.

The pacing of the trial is something I think about. So far the prosecution has gone from the almost professional, clinical testimony of police and investigative officers to very emotional testimony from Nancy's friends, back to police, then to Nancy's mother, now back to police. It could be that some witnesses have time constraints and have to be put on the stand when they are free, but I think that the pacing is deliberate.

If Officer A saw an item in the Coopers' house that might be evidence, Crime Scene Investigator B would pick it up, package and label it, pass it on to Officer C who would log it in. If the item is sent for lab tests, it is logged out, logged in at the lab, logged out again...and the report comes later. No one can testify to something he or she does not have firsthand knowledge of, so A, B and C all are called--and maybe someone else besides--to establish who handled the item, how and when. The purpose is to make sure that the thing tested is the thing that Officer A first saw in place.

 Today we learn that Brad Cooper showed investigators a shovel in a creekbed and took them to it. Does this mean anything? Don't know yet. There were cleaning supplies in a bathroom in the house. Does this mean anything? Don't know yet. The dress Nancy wore the night before she died was found to be soiled and that seems to mean it had fecal matter on it, but we don't officially know that. Whatever soiled the dress, does it mean anything? Don't know yet.

The tediousness of getting details into testimony and then revealing what they mean--at least in light of the Prosecution's case--could lull jurors to sleep, or annoy them. Perhaps mixing the vivid and emotional testimony from friends and family is designed to keep them riled up and alert.

Something that could not have been planned: yesterday, before Donna testified, jurors were shown photographs of Nancy's body in the condition in which it was found and one of the jurors was sickened by them. I hope that poor juror was able to sleep last night.