State v. Bradley Cooper 4-12-2011

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Hello, everybody! I was in the courtroom again today and got "made" by another sleuther. She is a delight, and now I have a new friend. I just was able to make it to my computer tonight, and I read the first few pages, and then the last page of posts...will catch up later. It sounds like people aren't being nice to each other? C'mon, guys!

If anyone has any specific questions about today, I'll answer as best I can. Lay it on me.

Nice post, FullDisclosure

 

[jmflu]

less0305, thank you for post #907! You lay it out quite nicely as well as factually. I think the Prosecution needs you on their team. You can take Mr. Cummings place, LOL!

I have stated a million times that I do not believe in coincidences where murder and/or crimes are concerned. I learned quite a lot when my husband was Night Commander in a large police department (21 years). I also learned quite a lot during my 10 years on the parish Sheriff's Department eventually winding up being the Booking/Classification Lieutenant.

I have seen the BC's of this world. They may fool some people but they do not fool me. They would not have fooled my late husband for one moment either. There are no coincidences such as these in real life, and we ARE talking about real life here. The names and faces may change, but the personalities and the behaviors do not. BC has displayed classic behavior, IMO.

On July 16, 2008, before the COD had been announced, I posted that I was thinking that Nancy may have been strangled or suffocated. I also stated that if there was no rape or sexual abuse it would, IMO, point to the husband.

In prior posts in 2008, I had surmised that BC most likely had a tremendous sense of entitlement, and that Nancy most likely had many more friends than he. This was after BC had displayed such odd behavior on video in the first couple of days after Nancy was murdered. Now we know so very much more, don't we?

BC will always know what he has done. If he does not pay for it in this life, he will pay for it in the hereafter. Once a person crosses that line and does murder, there will be nothing to keep him/her from doing it again. BUT, I do feel that BC will be convicted and will not have the chance to murder again.

I do not post very much because the debate goes in endless circles. I just thank the posts I agree with and do not comment. I do not like to argue. I just want to say that I hope there is justice for Nancy, her beautiful daughters, her twin Krista, her younger sister, her brother, and her Mom and Dad. Nancy also had some very good and decent friends who want justice for her. GB them all!

JMO

Great post.

 

[jmflu]

I haven't followed the testimony today except very briefly and do not know why there is so much thread activity, but I can assure you she was no "jilted lover". I would describe her as level headed, relieved to have figured him out and her only regret being she had spent the time with him she did. My personal memory fades on this point, but I'm farily certain she moved out of the building before Nancy moved in. The reason she moved out of the building was because Brad had been caught breaking into her apartment to snoop after they broke up. This is why Brad lied about her name in the depositions. At one point I lived in the same building.

Most of us really value your input and thank you for your personal insight into this man.

 

[BrownRice]

But Brad said he worked out, trained, 12 to 13 hours a day on the week-ends. And he worked out a couple hours every night, usually getting home around midnight. So when did he do all this parenting?

I'm starting to assume this can't be true though. If NC went out frequently with her girlfriends, BC had to have been home. And I'm sure the stay at home moms didn't begin their nights out at midnight. They certainly could have been out still at midnight, but they wouldn't be starting at that time.

Is this just another exaggeration that he was gone 18 hours a day, every day?

 

[Wyn]

I brought this over from another thread. I'm posting and then I'm going to bed because I have to work tomorrow and believe me when I say, I need my beauty sleep. Y'all can have at it, chew up, spit it out - but this is how I see it - clear as day:
:seeya:

A man and woman are having a very rough spot in their marriage to the point where there are affairs,
money problems, seeking out attorneys for separation agreements/divorce advice, talk of "hate" to anyone who would
listen, and hiding passports, important papers, etc. Suddenly the woman goes missing the day after a fight over the
fact that the man did not give the woman the expected allowance. The man NEVER EVER withdrew the money from his
bank - not that Friday when it was expected, and neither on Saturday when his wife was just "on a run or out with her friends." Coincidental?

The man removes the woman from all money accounts, bank accounts, credit cards - and doesn't tell her himself. Coincidental?

The man is agreeable to a separation and the woman taking children back to Canada until he sees a copy of a draft
separation agreement that would have him paying out 75 % of his income in child support and expenses and has a provision
for alimony, at which time he cancels all plans for the woman to be able to leave. Coincidental?

The man mops, cleans, scours, launders the very day his wife becomes missing when it's not usually in his nature to
be THE main housekeeper. Coincidental?

The man can't find his wife and makes some attempt to ride around and look for her - and yet when his cell phone rings
he doesn't answer it, and when he realizes it is a call from a police officer, doesn't return the call immediately.
Coincidental?

The man makes two trips to a Harris Teeter which happens to capture his image on camera on the very morning his wife becomes
missing. Coincidental?

The man wears odd clothes for the weather and changes shoes between trips to the store within a 15 min. time frame. Coincidental?

The man tells officers his wife went jogging. No running shoes can be UNACCOUNTED for except two left shoes. Coincidental?

The woman is found wearing only a jogging bra - no SHOES, no pants, no undies, no socks. Coincidental?

The man happens to name the exact clothing item his wife was wearing when found dead after he told police officers he did not see her
leave the home. Coincidental?

The man has neck scratches and a bandaid on his finger. Coincidental?

The man informs police that he and his wife for the last couple months have been getting along fine and any marital
discord hasn't taken place. Coincidental?

The man tells police that he doesn't know how to access the call history on his cellular phone when he clearly is an expert
in his technological field dealing with phones, prototype phones, video phones. Coincidental?

The man is not truthful with police regarding his phone calls and movements in the day and hours leading up to his wife's
disappearance. Coincidental?

The man was the last person to have seen or spoke to the woman before she became missing. Coincidental?

The woman disappeared during an unplanned run alone, when her normal pattern was to run with one of a couple different running
partners. Coincidental?

The man does not notify the woman's family for assistance in locating his missing wife. Coincidental?

Items seen less than 24 hours before the woman became missing were removed from a foyer area of the home. Coincidental?

The man gave two to three descriptions of clothes the woman wore the night before. Coincidental?

The woman showed no signs of sexual assault, her missing clothing (for a run) were never found, expensive diamond earrings
remained on her body. Coincidental?

The woman died from strangulation (considered a soft kill where no blood evidence is left behind). Coincidental?

The man described his route to the grocery stores and yet his car was seen in video coming from a different direction.
Coincidental?

The man discloses he has cleaned the trunk of his car in the recent past. Coincidental?

The man shows no emotion that the mother of the children he adores is missing and then later found dead. Coincidental?

The man does not attend a memorial service for a woman he had been married to for years and was the mother of his
children. Coincidental?

The man has inconsistent stores relating to his actions between 8:00 p.m. on the night before his wife went missing and until
the early morning hours of the morning she went missing. Coincidental?

The man refused to speak with police officers after only a few days and never once contacts police to determine how the
investigation into the woman's disappearance/death is going. Coincidental?

The man and the woman have been seen screaming obscenities to each other on multiple occasions. Coincidental?

The man and the woman were seen to have a disagreement/argument on the night before her disappearance. Coincidental?

The man makes inquiries as to how to wipe hard drives. Coincidental?

The man purchases equipment that is related to the activity of re-routing phone calls and spoofing calls from one location
and to appear to be placed from another location? Coincidental?

The man sets up routing of calls through a foreign country, makes test calls, has the capibility, equipment, and knowledge
to spoof a call to himself. Coincidental?

The man accesses the woman's email accounts serendipidtously and forwards all e-mails to his own e-mail account for
over three months until her death. Coincidental?

The woman's time of death is estimated to be between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. Coincidental?

The man happens to be in possession of a diamond necklace that the woman did not take off for runs. Coincidental?

The man states under oath he was asleep between 8:30 p.m. and 4 a.m. and computer forensics prove he was logged into his
computer four times between 10 p.m. and 12 a.m. Coincidental?

The man spends the day and days after the woman disappears searching jobs in Canada, flights for Air Canada, power washing his house,
internet boards regarding the woman's disappearance and death. Coincidental?

The man told countless lies in a sworn deposition regarding the events surrounding his marriage and events of the woman's death.
Coincidental?

That is a lot of coincidences to happen all within a very very short amount of time. I can't EASILY explain ALLLLLLLLL that coincidence away. I think you really have to stretch to explain away all of the circumstantial evidence that has already been admitted into this court case.

Excellent! This post covers all the reasons why I think Brad killed Nancy. Brad Cooper must be the unluckiest man on earth IF someone else murdered Nancy.

Reports of seeing Brad being a "good dad" while out at the pool, etc. may mean nothing. I've know more than one dad (back in the day as my teenager likes to say) who doted on their small children while in public. Especially when there were bikini clad women in attendance to admire his behavior.

Here's an interesting link (at least to me) where you can pinpoint crime in Cary.
http://209.42.194.57/CaryCrime/ViewCrimeData.aspx?ItemID=31&PortalID=1

 

[less0305]

less0305, thank you for post #907! You lay it out quite nicely as well as factually. I think the Prosecution needs you on their team. You can take Mr. Cummings place, LOL!

I have stated a million times that I do not believe in coincidences where murder and/or crimes are concerned. I learned quite a lot when my husband was Night Commander in a large police department (21 years). I also learned quite a lot during my 10 years on the parish Sheriff's Department eventually winding up being the Booking/Classification Lieutenant.

I have seen the BC's of this world. They may fool some people but they do not fool me. They would not have fooled my late husband for one moment either. There are no coincidences such as these in real life, and we ARE talking about real life here. The names and faces may change, but the personalities and the behaviors do not. BC has displayed classic behavior, IMO.

On July 16, 2008, before the COD had been announced, I posted that I was thinking that Nancy may have been strangled or suffocated. I also stated that if there was no rape or sexual abuse it would, IMO, point to the husband.

In prior posts in 2008, I had surmised that BC most likely had a tremendous sense of entitlement, and that Nancy most likely had many more friends than he. This was after BC had displayed such odd behavior on video in the first couple of days after Nancy was murdered. Now we know so very much more, don't we?

BC will always know what he has done. If he does not pay for it in this life, he will pay for it in the hereafter. Once a person crosses that line and does murder, there will be nothing to keep him/her from doing it again. BUT, I do feel that BC will be convicted and will not have the chance to murder again.

I do not post very much because the debate goes in endless circles. I just thank the posts I agree with and do not comment. I do not like to argue. I just want to say that I hope there is justice for Nancy, her beautiful daughters, her twin Krista, her younger sister, her brother, and her Mom and Dad. Nancy also had some very good and decent friends who want justice for her. GB them all!

JMO

I appreciate you and your husband's service as a public servant! Once you've worked in law enforcement it sorta opens your eyes, doesn't it? You made a good post. Thanks for your levelheaded approach and I wish I could use as much restraint as you in not getting into the endless dog-chasing-his-tail convos here. Please post again - however you feel comfortable - because I always enjoy your input!!

 

[NCEast]

I run along Lochmere Drive from Cary Pkwy- down to Kildair, along Regency Lake, down Lily Atkins (very close to the area of Fielding Drive), behind the greenway off of Cary Pkwy. Yes. I have seen quite a few "sketchy" people. They are there. Depends on the time of day you run / walk. There have been many mornings that I am the only 1 out running along these paths. It is not like everyone joins in a does a neighborhood run. There are not always people out and about running / walking in these areas at all times during the day.

Let me just ask - why is it so unreasonable to think that this could have been a random act of violence? Why?

Please don't think I'm being snarky because I'm not. But you just said that you too have seen some sketchy people along your run route. Yet you run alone--sometimes the only runner. You are seem to think that Nancy's murder could have been a random act of violence. Are you not afraid the same could happen to you?

 

[cody100]

Please don't think I'm being snarky because I'm not. But you just said that you too have seen some sketchy people along your run route. Yet you run alone--sometimes the only runner. You are seem to think that Nancy's murder could have been a random act of violence. Are you not afraid the same could happen to you?

Morning, I am sure she will eventually answer your question. I saw alot of her thread where she indicates that she runs with her dog. According to her, no one would mess with this dog.

 

[ncsu95]

But Brad said he worked out, trained, 12 to 13 hours a day on the week-ends. And he worked out a couple hours every night, usually getting home around midnight. So when did he do all this parenting?

I don't believe he was training for the ironman any longer. And he didn't do that stuff continuously.

 

[ncsu95]

Well now, this one really BLEW it for me, didn't it just!

Sigh; suspect that even this crucial evidence will also be pooh-poohed away along with all of his other bizarre and untruthful words and actions - with valid reasons for this search likely to be:

1. Ah, but he thought she'd run off a new lover and he wanted out
2. Nothing out of the ordinary - everyone looks for a job
3. If N had fled to Canada, he wanted to be near his kids
4. LE messed his laptop and the dates were skewed
5. CPD framed-in that date on his search engine - just to help their case
6. He was actually trying to help NC get a job
7. He missed his mom. So what?
8. He was so distraught NC never returned from jogging; planned to return to Canada
9. He didn't know she was dead; went about biz as usual
10. Someone else may have run that search - while he was out searching for his missing wife.

Hell no. Flight risk? Incredible timing? Devious? Cunning? Calculated?

Book 'im Danno!

Or he got so sick of the accusations and crap from the neighbors and Nancy's friends from the day before that he looked to see if it was even an option to return to Canada. I realize his wife was missing at that point and people think being on the web at all is strange. I honestly have no idea how I would react in that situation. I'm sure his mind was going all kinds of different ways.

 

[ncsu95]

Blimey! So *this* is how BC searched for Nancy, eh? Everyone else tracking her usual running path outdoors - and BC searches murder, missing persons and criminal investigation sites? What was he hoping to find here? A confession by some random attacker?

And if he was already onto W/S back then - it's more than feasible to consider he revisited on many more occasions! Ditto his defense team - big time. Especially as this salient little search-snippet is included in trial discovery.

No wonder many posts appear to slay CPD - inept investigation; bad policing. Can just imagine his team thinking... "May not get him off on the murder charges - but the investigation may be faulty. Ahhh, that's it: technical hitches and glitches by sloppy police work! After all, that's how OJ got off. It may be our only chance cause as sure as hellfire burns ... BCs obvious involvement seems rather tantamount"

And so ... they're bringing it on. Ha ha .... "state hasn't proved a thing...". Bolly Hocks to that: state has more than demonstrated his mindset, goals, character, deception, abuse ... and all but destroyed his time-line of events, IMOO, of course.

We really are watching different trials. The state hasn't proven anything except he was a bad husband that had affairs.

 

[ncsu95]

Blimey! So *this* is how BC searched for Nancy, eh? Everyone else tracking her usual running path outdoors - and BC searches murder, missing persons and criminal investigation sites? What was he hoping to find here? A confession by some random attacker?

And if he was already onto W/S back then - it's more than feasible to consider he revisited on many more occasions! Ditto his defense team - big time. Especially as this salient little search-snippet is included in trial discovery.

No wonder many posts appear to slay CPD - inept investigation; bad policing. Can just imagine his team thinking... "May not get him off on the murder charges - but the investigation may be faulty. Ahhh, that's it: technical hitches and glitches by sloppy police work! After all, that's how OJ got off. It may be our only chance cause as sure as hellfire burns ... BCs obvious involvement seems rather tantamount"

And so ... they're bringing it on. Ha ha .... "state hasn't proved a thing...". Bolly Hocks to that: state has more than demonstrated his mindset, goals, character, deception, abuse ... and all but destroyed his time-line of events, IMOO, of course.

By the way....you don't think any of the other players in this case (Nancy's friends) were on the web or were on websleuths those days?

 

[kellyroll]

The man accesses the woman's email accounts serendipidtously and forwards all e-mails to his own e-mail account for
over three months until her death. Coincidental?

BBM - Lol, did you mean surreptitiously? Or was it serendipity that Brad was able to crack Nancy's e-mail?

 

[johnfear]

I am very interested in the motion to stay that is in our links here.

Anyone know anything about item #22 under section DD? I would love to know what those two emails are and why they were the only things denied by CPD with regards to emails (between the husband and wife)

 

[grommet]

Yeah. But, I also found it kind of bizarre the way he Googled it (assuming the WRAL tweet was correct, word for word). Who in the world would google "book air canada.com"? Why wouldn't you go to Expedia, Travelocity, Kayak, Priceline, etc? Or if you really wanted to go Air Canada, why not just put aircanada.com as the URL? Just kind of weird.

Great point. An Internet-savvy techno geek like myself would never search like that. Especially since I care about money and like getting the best deal.

 

[dramamama]

I haven't followed the testimony today except very briefly and do not know why there is so much thread activity, but I can assure you she was no "jilted lover". I would describe her as level headed, relieved to have figured him out and her only regret being she had spent the time with him she did. My personal memory fades on this point, but I'm farily certain she moved out of the building before Nancy moved in. The reason she moved out of the building was because Brad had been caught breaking into her apartment to snoop after they broke up. This is why Brad lied about her name in the depositions. At one point I lived in the same building.

Thanks for sharing that! It helps to know this was not just NC, but a pattern of stalking and control in his life.

 

[NCEast]

Morning, I am sure she will eventually answer your question. I saw alot of her thread where she indicates that she runs with her dog. According to her, no one would mess with this dog.

Thank you. I am only worried for her safety.

 

[NCEast]

Since you believe it was most likely a "sketchy" random act of violence and the real killer wasn't arrested, you still run/walk by yourself at odd hours and be the only person on the path? And with all that crime in Cary and inept police you are really taking your chances. Not picking an argument, but shouldn't you be more careful.

I'm way behind--fell asleep on the sofa last night at 8:30 so I'm trying to get caught up this morning.

I just questioned the same thing. If I were thinking about Nancy's murder being a random act of violence I would be hesitant to run alone--even with a trusted dog. There are too many 'weapons' easily available such as pepper spray, mace, stun guns, etc. that would incapacitate a dog....and a runner.

 

[Danielle59]

No, I don't think you are way off for feeling this way. What disturbs me in reading many of these posts is that so many feel that everyone must believe the same thing. No one should feel badly about their own opinion in this case. I guess it is called a respectfully agree to disagree policy without judgement on an individual for having their individual opinions. With emotions high, it is easy to cause folks to become emotional because they are very passionate in their opinions. Thank you again for your ideas and thoughts.

I agree with you. But I do think that sometimes bashing of the defendant and stating that they are murderers or killers, not only on this case, but in general, when there is no actual evidence, posting lists of maybes as fact, when in truth they are not fact, or have not been shown to true, before all the evidence has even been presented that may dispell certain intitial thoughts about his/her guilt is a perversion of what justice is and should be in the USA. I also don't think it is helpful to the victims families.

I think we should all be able to have our own opinions, but I think that when we start saying someone is a murderer as if you saw the person comitting the crime, and saying that publically with bias that leaves out many other factors or contrary evidence it is just downright wrong.

I live in the USA and love it, I thank our LEO's for their jobs, but I do not idolize them nor do I think they are some special people that are able to discern with special powers and insight just because they are LEO's. They are just people that make mistakes, have egos, and most importantly are given recognition on their "success" or "close" rate. I think that is a bit of a perversion in that it opens the wrong personality type to be incenticized to make decisions during cases that may not be the best for justice, but for personal gain. Even some police commit crime. Remember, "Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." The same thing goes with Prosecutors.

Since both have the right to lie, I am not always sure they know when it is ok to stop lying. I also have to question why our Prosecutors should not be looking for the truth, which is my understanding of their job, and not just what will make them win their case. For example, the Pros will say on the day of the crime defendant did 1. 2. 3., and we find that odd, but even if they know that defendant did 1. 2. 3. every other day also, they are not required to say that. If you knew that though you would have to conclude that doing 1. 2. 3. on the day of the crime was not odd or out of place. I don't think the Pros should be allowed to do that. I think that if they are going to use something as evidence, they should have to examine it to also see if they could exclude it, not use it just because they think it looks good. If I recall correctly there was or is even a Supreme Court case on Prosecutors being more motivated to put notches in their resume than to really make sure they have the right defendant.

All I can say is Thank You "Innocence Project." I wish more of our Justice System used logic and fair practices than we have seen of late, nationwide.

 

[dramamama]

ACE, Madeleine! Better return service than Sharapova!

It's a *joke* BC was searching web for clues to NC, IMHO! Wouldn't be surprised if he even signed up to some websites or blogs undercover as being some "close friend" of NC - and instead ... steered his comments away from the "husband did it" commentary, back then, begging all to keep an "open mind". Can just see it in his character! As I recall, this was hot on the heels of Jason Young's gone-into-hiding-mode and I was reading here A LOT!

What utter tripe that perhaps BC felt he'd get more clues online. Errm, an entire police investigation was underway at that time, media coverage went viral - which musta completely thrown BC off his perch back then - and local town searchers going out - fliers distributed, Java Jive meetings ...

WHERE was BC? Tucked well outta sight and operating his %$#@! sophisticated IT gadgets. Duh-uh? No, no ... IMO BC was wondering what the world was really thinking. What a perfect way to re-visit the scene of the crime. Thru the eyes of the web.

To pooh-pooh his web activity as .... completely normal and understandable, under the circumstances .... is utterly ludicrous. But then, that's only my HO.

I agree! And after finding this out, I went back and looked briefly at some of the original threads, just to see what he might have been reading. And one thing I thought was funny...and perhaps this is a bit cynical on my part, so forgive me....but the posters were not complimentary of neither his first press conference, or the Fox News interview by phone. And then my wheels started turning, and I thought, some of us think he didn't show up to later press conferences because he felt too guilty, or didn't care, perhaps. Would it not be funny if the real reason were people didn't think he came off well, and this bothered him. JMO.