State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[Cheyenne130]

ummmmm - she could have went to one of her friends' house that Saturday night. She didn't have to be alone with Brad. She seemed to leave quite often to hang out with her friends when he came home from work. So - if she hated Brad so much at that point in time and told everyone and anyone how much she truly hated him, why in the world make plans with the man you hate and another couple.

From my perspective that makes no sense. She had two children that she adored! She couldn't stay away from her house every night.

 

[bloghooligan]

Donna Lopez, who didn't know Nancy before the evening of 7/11/08, had a gut feeling she could not ignore. She said she felt something bad was going to happen over in that house (Cooper residence). No one's pointing the finger of suspicion at her, and her gut feeling was 100% correct. Why the need to blame Nancy's friends when they developed the feeling that something was wrong on Sat 7/12?

DL's husband, who I feel sure knows her better than anyone here, testified that she wasn't speaking of murder when she said she felt something bad was going to happen....

 

[Cheyenne130]

I listen to both of the Lopez's testimony. It was heartbreaking and they genuinely seem to be caring people. So - please do not read this the wrong way.
But - if someone I had never met before came up to me at a party and started telling me how much she hated her husband and how bad her marriage was, etc, I would feel very uncomfortable and walk away. I would not want to get involved or hear this. It is one thing if NC wanted to vent with her friends, but to air your laundry on a complete stranger seems a bit odd and for that stranger to listen to the entire saga seems even odder.

That is from your singular point of view. I would probably listen as long as the person wanted to talk. But that's the counselor in me. MOO

 

[gracielee]

Well, the same can be said for NC and BC's plans with the Hillers the following night to get together. If she was in such a "hate mode" why make plans to get together with another couple and the husband you "hate".

It could have been a small red wine spill. Noone suggested it overtook the top half of her dress. She could have tried to clean it. Maybe it wasn't that big of a deal. Why are you BDI folk so convinced it was not red wine?

because the forensic examiner said it was 'grease based'. I've yet to open any bottle of wine with a 'greasy' taste/feel/smell/touch.

 

[kantoo]

I don't firmly hold any belief about the stain except the forensic specialist stated that in her professional opinion it was a grease-based (I don't remember the term she used, but it essentially meant the same) stain. That doesn't sound like wine, IMO...Sorry Cheyenne...don't mean to interrupt!

rib/juice/bbq sauce/whatever she dipped her onion in

 

[Cheyenne130]

because the forensic examiner said it was 'grease based'. I've yet to open any bottle of wine with a 'greasy' taste/feel/smell/touch.

(Not even Boones Farm!)

 

[Cheyenne130]

rib/juice/bbq sauce/whatever she dipped her onion in

Another option is a child (or husband) touching the dress with a greasy finger after it was washed.

 

[bloghooligan]

For one thing, Nancy was not someone who would just blow off plans and disappear. Her friends' experiences over time led them to understand how Nancy was, whether she was reliable or not, whether she was punctual or not. These friends were with Nancy a lot, talking to her if not every day, almost every day. That's the testimony.

Have you never gotten an intuitive feeling? I sure have a few times, and they've been downright spooky. One was the night I found out my brother had died--got a weird gut feeling something big and bad was happening, about 3 hrs before I got the call. And yes it was completely unexpected.

Donna Lopez got that feeling. Nancy's friends felt something was off that day. JA testimony is not that she was worried after 1 hr. She called the first time around 9:30 - 10am to see where Nancy was. By the time JA got really worried, Nancy had been gone for nearly 6 hrs and did not bother to call, leaving 2 young kids and not showing up for plans in the morning or the afternoon. Why do you think they checked hospitals in the area? In case NC had been injured during what they thought was a morning run. Brad told them Nancy left around 7am. JA call to NON emergency police number was after 1pm.

You can discount human intuition but it does exist and sometimes you simply can't ignore it.

DL's husband testified that his wife's gut feeling about things ending badly was in reference to the marriage ending, not NC's life.

 

[gracielee]

Wonder if there ever was a stain?

Nope, at least not while nancy was still mostly alive. MOO

 

[unc70]

Yes, beige carpet, successfully. Worried because it was haphazardly (sp?) cleaned the night before and left an obvious stain. Oxy carpet cleaner did the trick.

It is good too, particularly for things like rust and some types of pet stains.

For red wine, I still urge Wine Away. My first sight of it was an unperturbed homeowner dealing with a glass of red dumped on a nice white carpet. At first, I admired his gracious composure; in five minutes, amazed at the results.

 

[bloghooligan]

You'd forget someone you were engaged to? I'd find that hard to believe; it's not like the guy was 89 or had been engaged to 30 women - this was a woman he was involved with not long before NC. But of course, she wanted "revenge" for something we don't know about, like CPD wants to "get him" via conspiracy.

I don't argue you have to conclude he lies, but to me the tunnel vision of anything he says is inherently reasonable and anyone stating anything contradictory must be mistaken or untrustworthy or guilty of creating false evidence is giving him way too much credit.

I agree with the earlier post, it is very odd that the prosecution didn't call her as a witness or seek to have her affidavit entered into evidence. The things she swore to in that affidavit are serious and show prior behaviors critical to this trial... She was more than willing to complete an affidavit one would think she would appear as a witness for the pros if she were asked.

 

[Lori59]

DL's husband testified that his wife's gut feeling about things ending badly was in reference to the marriage ending, not NC's life.

Marriage ending was Nancy's life sadly. You don't hear that Nancy bad mouthed Brad to anyone, as so many want to say, years ago. No, I'm sure she kept it inside, then it was bad enough that she told her family, then bad enough that she told her close friends, then it gets bad enough that she will tell anyone that will listen.....I'm in misery. This was an escalating situation. As such, as it progressed, she told anyone she felt would listen. Sad to me.

 

[StJohn]

because the forensic examiner said it was 'grease based'. I've yet to open any bottle of wine with a 'greasy' taste/feel/smell/touch.

Maybe grease from the ribs Nancy had prepared ahead of time for grilling?

 

[gracielee]

No. No one else at the party could say that she had spilled anything on her dress. Many were asked and not one person said that they saw anything spilled on her dress. Brad is the only person that claimed she spilled anything on her dress.

LOL, no one but brad the liar. :floorlaugh:

 

[ncsu95]

(Not even Boones Farm!)

Strawberry hill....nothing better to get a cheap drunk on during college.

 

[unc70]

This is the exact kind of analysis of the evidence that I find so off base. It isn't the fact that he can't remember certain dates....it is that he is a disconnected person from those he should feel the most feelings. Yes, he is cold, callous etc. My kids and I tease my husband that he can be the nutty professor...but be assured, if anything ever happened to any of us, he would be busting down the LE doors, our friends, and family. How people do not see this man as a empty soul.........I just will never get. JMO

Notice how his mother described their response and their trip from HK to Canada and to RDU. She did not speak to BC until arriving down here. She barely has a telephone.

 

[gracielee]

I listen to both of the Lopez's testimony. It was heartbreaking and they genuinely seem to be caring people. So - please do not read this the wrong way.
But - if someone I had never met before came up to me at a party and started telling me how much she hated her husband and how bad her marriage was, etc, I would feel very uncomfortable and walk away. I would not want to get involved or hear this. It is one thing if NC wanted to vent with her friends, but to air your laundry on a complete stranger seems a bit odd and for that stranger to listen to the entire saga seems even odder.

And yet neither of the Lopez' felt that way. They were both caring, concerned, empathetic, kindly people. And they both displayed more grief over nancy's death than her husband. Hmmm. People are always telling me things, they always have. I guess I have that open nature about me. I don't find it odd at all.

 

[Tink56]

I agree with the earlier post, it is very odd that the prosecution didn't call her as a witness or seek to have her affidavit entered into evidence. The things she swore to in that affidavit are serious and show prior behaviors critical to this trial... She was more than willing to complete an affidavit one would think she would appear as a witness for the pros if she were asked.

I doubt the judge would have allowed her testimony during the trial phase. Obviously she had no connection with BC for more than 8 years. I believe that would be ruled more prejudicial than probative. However, it might be used in the sentencing phase, if such a thing exists in NC...

 

[Tink56]

Notice how his mother described their response and their trip from HK to Canada and to RDU. She did not speak to BC until arriving down here. She barely has a telephone.

Sorry, I haven't listened to all her testimony. From whom did the C's learn about NC's "disappearance"?

 

[jrb0124]

Ok, but we are having to rationalize all the lies away to suggest he's not a liar. However, I think you have said you can concede he's a liar without conceding that means he's guilty. I agree.

It's interesting to me that there are some BDI's who will simply see the case as black and white, and ANYTHING to the defense side is bogus and anything on the state side can be believed w/ or w/o evidence. On the other hand, there are obviously some BII's who feel BC must look lily white and a paragon of honesty, the 100% innocent victim of an LEO super-conspiracy. I find neither approach credible.

Just a few points - none directed at you or your post in particular.

Conspiratorial implies multiple people. Someone suggesting that Det. Y intentionally wiped the phone (as Levitan was prepared to conclude) is not in and of itself suggesting a conspiracy. You might then ask "why would he do that?". That answer may or may not suggest a conspiracy.

Its partly an issue as to whether or not you believe a police detective would never intentionally destroy evidence under any condition. If you believe that LE never would, in general, you would be wrong.

What motive would DY have to intentionally destroy this evidence? Do you truly have to have the answer to that question to accept that it is at least possible? not really. I could come up with reasons that some may characterize as outrageous, but then point to articles depicting police officers or detectives who did just that.

re: NC wiped phone, I don't find it "credible" that a police detective who was obviously not qualified to examine cell phones, with a lab at his disposal with professionals tasked specifically to do these examinations, would decide that he was the best person to perform the examination of that important piece of evidence deemed "crucial" by the defense.