State v Bradley Cooper 04/01/11

[jmflu]

Maybe so, but the police ignored this. Why post fliers at all then? It is not really helpful to compare the cases, they are so different.

They talked to her, and that was enough. They posted fliers and they talked to people who responded. They talked to her. She wanted a home visit, but they had all they needed from just speaking with her.. Maybe she contacts the police every time someone disappears. Maybe she stated facts that were inconsistent. Maybe she is a lunatic. We don't know! But

 

[jmflu]

They talked to her, and that was enough. They posted fliers and they talked to people who responded. They talked to her. She wanted a home visit, but they had all they needed from just speaking with her.. Maybe she contacts the police every time someone disappears. Maybe she stated facts that were inconsistent. Maybe she is a lunatic. We don't know! But in due time...

We will.

 

[Just the Fax]

Spoke or just made a statement? Did they ask her any questions?

She left her statement.....CPD could have asked questions, but not revealed.

Remember, this was an affidavit prepared by kurtz, so it is worded with careful slant.

 

[Amster]

You're saying that since I think he is innocent, I am against the victim??? That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I think they have the wrong guy. If anything I am even more in support of the victim because the police did not continue investigating all avenues in this investigation.

So, let's hear it. What is your proof he is guilty?

Oh dear...I need no proof! I can have an opinion! Not on a jury here, ya know?:innocent:

 

[Shadow722]

:waitasec: Maybe this is just a silly notion :waitasec: I would think that if I had a credible sighting or observation to offer in a missing person case or violent whatevers..I would think or believe that what your saw, descriptions and details would be most important..NO?? I would think it important you be succinct & direct with your details..thus raise importance level IF it FITS!! Good lesson for those who wish to report on such things!!
I am sure 1000's of call came in and LE and others would have to weed out crank calls or calls that did NOT fit description..IF anyone expects a task force to interview each and every caller face to face..seems just rediculous..But Defense has no other complaint.....:banghead:

Suffice to say..Nancy appears to have gone missing and found in 2 days and followups ensued for those peeps who may have or could have seem her..

Is Defense really saying that this witness could have saved Nancy?? Was she that important in heinsight to locating Nancy in the grand scheme of things??
Im sorry..jumping up and down because a caller didnt get a face to face interview just isnt IMPORTANT...Nancy was long DOA at the time this women THOUGHT she saw someone resembling Nancy..Plain and simple:twocents:

I think my point is "Much ado about Nuttin" where this person claims to have seen Nancy...:banghead:

I certainly don't know if the witness actually saw Nancy Cooper jogging or not, but to dismiss it as "much ado about nuttin" is a bit short sighted.

Certainly Nancy being seen alive later than 6:45 AM of July 12th completely destroys the prosecutions narrative of events that morning. It also means, if true, that somebody other than Brad Cooper committed the murder, because it creates reasonable doubt.

If justice for Nancy is to be truly served, then a full and through investigation of the witness sighting should have been important to both the CPD and to discerning websleuther's.

If on the other hand, if one gives full weight to all evidence that points to the guilt, and dismisses as irrelevant all evidence that points to innocence, that is not thoughtful analysis, it's called bias.

And bias does not help in finding justice for Nancy Cooper, it just creates more victims.....

 

[NCEast]

I realize lots of people will see someone and think they saw that person - and praise the Lord, when someone actually does see a missing child or has really encountered that person and is able to help. I'm just of the opinion that if I had to give weight to the testimony of a woman who swears she saw her, but didn't really know her personally, then truly her stating she saw nancy could just as easily swing the other way - she saw someone who looked like nancy.

I have to laugh at myself when the topic of eye witness testimony comes up. I've just got to tell this story on myself!! I followed a pick up truck about 8 to 10 miles one morning on the way to work. In the bed was a full grown german shepherd dog and a puppy german shepherd. The puppy kept standing up at the side of the bed and I kept thinking, "please don't let him jump out, please don't let him jump out." It was a VERY busy two lane road and lo and behold, the puppy jumped out. I slammed on brakes, praying the guy behind me didn't hit me in the rear and praying I didn't hit the puppy. Well, I missed the puppy - he slid down the highway right down the yellow no passing lines in the middle. I pulled off the road, as did the guy behind me. I get out in traffic and pick this little fellow up - he was hurt, but alive. The people in the truck had no idea the puppy had jumped out and was hitting it 55 miles an hour on down the road. The guy who also pulled off said he would wait right there for a little bit to see if anyone came back - and I said that I would take the puppy on to a veterinarian's office on my way to work. I'm buzzing on down the road and I see THE pick up headed in the opposite direction - with the full grown dog still on the back - so I find a place to make a U-turn and attempt to catch up to this GREEN pick up truck that the puppy jumped from. I'm trying to catch up, blinking my lights blowing my horn, etc. I'm trying to drive, hold the puppy up and point to him, and these people just kept going. So finally we get back to town to the first stop light and I finally get right behind them - it wasn't a dog in the back, it was a tree stump. I know these people thought I was nuts. When I realize it can't be THE GREEN pick up with the other german shepherd I turn around again and head back towards the vet. I see a deputy sheriff. I pull over and tell him about the Green pick up with the dog and they didn't know this puppy jumped out - but if he saw someone in a green truck looking for a lost puppy tell them that I took the puppy to which vet. I continue on my way and get to the vet's office. There is THE pick up truck with the grown "german shepherd" - it was an Alaskan Malamute and the truck was WHITE!!!!! It wasn't a green pick up! I'm chasing green pick up trucks down the road with tree stumps that I think is a dog!!!!! They were going to the vet anyway to have shots for the puppy!! They get there and the puppy is gone. They didn't know what to do, but it was hilarious to me that the only thing I had right about the whole situation was that the puppy was a german shepherd.

I hope NOBODY has to count on me for eye witness testimony in anything serious!!! I would fail miserably.
Sorry for the long post. I just always think of it when eye witnesses are brought up.

You have a huge heart. Great story--thanks for sharing, and thanks for doing the right thing by trying to save the puppy!

 

[jmflu]

I realize lots of people will see someone and think they saw that person - and praise the Lord, when someone actually does see a missing child or has really encountered that person and is able to help. I'm just of the opinion that if I had to give weight to the testimony of a woman who swears she saw her, but didn't really know her personally, then truly her stating she saw nancy could just as easily swing the other way - she saw someone who looked like nancy.

I have to laugh at myself when the topic of eye witness testimony comes up. I've just got to tell this story on myself!! I followed a pick up truck about 8 to 10 miles one morning on the way to work. In the bed was a full grown german shepherd dog and a puppy german shepherd. The puppy kept standing up at the side of the bed and I kept thinking, "please don't let him jump out, please don't let him jump out." It was a VERY busy two lane road and lo and behold, the puppy jumped out. I slammed on brakes, praying the guy behind me didn't hit me in the rear and praying I didn't hit the puppy. Well, I missed the puppy - he slid down the highway right down the yellow no passing lines in the middle. I pulled off the road, as did the guy behind me. I get out in traffic and pick this little fellow up - he was hurt, but alive. The people in the truck had no idea the puppy had jumped out and was hitting it 55 miles an hour on down the road. The guy who also pulled off said he would wait right there for a little bit to see if anyone came back - and I said that I would take the puppy on to a veterinarian's office on my way to work. I'm buzzing on down the road and I see THE pick up headed in the opposite direction - with the full grown dog still on the back - so I find a place to make a U-turn and attempt to catch up to this GREEN pick up truck that the puppy jumped from. I'm trying to catch up, blinking my lights blowing my horn, etc. I'm trying to drive, hold the puppy up and point to him, and these people just kept going. So finally we get back to town to the first stop light and I finally get right behind them - it wasn't a dog in the back, it was a tree stump. I know these people thought I was nuts. When I realize it can't be THE GREEN pick up with the other german shepherd I turn around again and head back towards the vet. I see a deputy sheriff. I pull over and tell him about the Green pick up with the dog and they didn't know this puppy jumped out - but if he saw someone in a green truck looking for a lost puppy tell them that I took the puppy to which vet. I continue on my way and get to the vet's office. There is THE pick up truck with the grown "german shepherd" - it was an Alaskan Malamute and the truck was WHITE!!!!! It wasn't a green pick up! I'm chasing green pick up trucks down the road with tree stumps that I think is a dog!!!!! They were going to the vet anyway to have shots for the puppy!! They get there and the puppy is gone. They didn't know what to do, but it was hilarious to me that the only thing I had right about the whole situation was that the puppy was a german shepherd.

I hope NOBODY has to count on me for eye witness testimony in anything serious!!! I would fail miserably.
Sorry for the long post. I just always think of it when eye witnesses are brought up.

I love your story, but I'm sorry such irresponsible people got to keep the puppy.

 

[Just the Fax]

Its not bias.
The state obviously does not believe this woman saw Nancy. Just because she said she did, does not mean it is true, or even reasonable. The jury can weigh her credibility against the state's evidence that Brad was the killer.

 

[gritguy]

Watching the clip a bit ago, I saw the defense attorney making an argument before the jury came in, if I understood it, basically saying an ADA purposefully misled the jury during statements he made. The judge shut it down.

I wondered why the judge seemed so short with the defense during even the opening. But I also heard the defense back then basically go on the attack in the vein that not only did the CPD miss the boat, it was inept and I think he said dishonest.

You know, these guys work in the same county all the time. That kind of scorched earth tactic gets around and isn't appreciated and you should really be serious before doing that. This shouldn't be the first or last case for any of them (attorneys, leo's, judge) and though juries come and go they all keep showing up in the same courthouse. Calling the PD and ADA liars won't be forgotten by them I'd think.

Perhaps they've laid in these kind of attacks before and that's why the judge seemed to have low tolerance from the get go.

 

[LyndyLoo]

She said she saw her face. She said this because the face at least somewhat resembled what was on the fliers.

What is the harm in a detective going over to her house in those early days and just asking questions? They questioned a boatload of other people during those days with no issue.

This has nothing to do with Brad Cooper. This is about LE doing their job during a missing person investigation. She came forth while Nancy was still missing.

Sorry...but man power when trying to locate a missing person is precious..and for some reason you assume this sighting was completely ignored as to looking in THAT VICINITY?? Perhaps Not..but interview face to face would not help in locating her...AFTER they found Nancy they did interview her to plot this possibel sighting in the GRAND SCHEME....

I AM sorry..hurry up and talking to this this women face to face would not have helped.....But hey..at least they did eventually meet with her even tho Nancy was found totally off that beaten path...Again I really dont believe rushing over to talk to this lady face to face would have SAVED NANCY..JMO

So what?..Nancy was found less than 2 dayz later NOT resembling Nancy's appearances in the least..yet they still followed up.. Nancy was half nude, no shoes..hair NOT tied back...humm???

I am amazed they even took the time to talk to her face to face..since her description didnt match initially..IF it did match..then yes they would be at fault.... But facial ID by a passerby is never perfect..by observer..BTW when did this persons call to report this..after TV exposure?..Sorry but Nancy does not have extraordinary features that would make someone say..POSITIVE..and of course she (witness) couldnt..when later interviewed..Enough said on this...,Defense is doing what defense does...:crazy:

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am looking forward to the cross of the most recent witness come Monday. I think it got glossed over that Brad was saying goodbye to his 4 year old when he was notified that a search warrant was being served. That's not evidence of anything except it did show a tender side to Brad that we've not seen yet. It also says that he was expecting to be arrested on July 16th. But I am much more looking forward to Det. Daniels getting on the stand. I think the recent witnesses are leading up to that.

 

[gritguy]

Its not bias.
The state obviously does not believe this woman saw Nancy. Just because she said she did, does not mean it is true, or even reasonable. The jury can weigh her credibility against the state's evidence that Brad was the killer.

That's the thing. She may have said something on the phone that to her was meaningless but to the PD indicated it couldn't have been Nancy she saw. As far as I know, the PD's notes about any discussion with her have not been released or discussed.

As it stands, it is potentially powerful evidence. But, that is before it is seen in any context other than a defense drafted affidavit.

Is it a tempest or a tempest in a teapot? To be seen...

 

[Cheyenne130]

Watching the clip a bit ago, I saw the defense attorney making an argument before the jury came in, if I understood it, basically saying an ADA purposefully misled the jury during statements he made. The judge shut it down.

I wondered why the judge seemed so short with the defense during even the opening. But I also heard the defense back then basically go on the attack in the vein that not only did the CPD miss the boat, it was inept and I think he said dishonest.

You know, these guys work in the same county all the time. That kind of scorched earth tactic gets around and isn't appreciated and you should really be serious before doing that. This shouldn't be the first or last case for any of them (attorneys, leo's, judge) and though juries come and go they all keep showing up in the same courthouse. Calling the PD and ADA liars won't be forgotten by them I'd think.

Perhaps they've laid in these kind of attacks before and that's why the judge seemed to have low tolerance from the get go.

The prosecution team requested a transcipt of the defense opening statements the other day. I believe they intend to throw some of this back in their faces. Today's argument this morning was a carry over from an argument late in the day yesterday where the prosecution made an inference that the defense had possibly mishandled a piece of evidence. The defense came in this morning pretty much defending themselves and the judge didn't want to hear it because it had nothing to do with anything before the jury. That was my take on it.

 

[cityslick]

Sorry...but man power when trying to lcoate a missing person is precious..and for some reason you assume this sighting was completely ignored as to looking in THAT VICINITY?? Perhaps Not..but interview face to face would not help in locating her...AFTER they found Nancy they did interview her to plot this possibel sighting in the GRAND SCHEME....

I AM sorry..hurry up and talking this this women face to face would not have helped.....But hey..at least they did eventually meet with her even tho Nancy was found totally off that beaten path...Again I really dont believe rushing over to talk to this lady face to face would have SAVED NANCY..JMO

So what..Nancy was found less than 2 dayz later NOT resembling Nancy's appearances in the least..yet they still followed up.. Nancy was half nude, no shoes..hair NOT tied back...humm???


I am amazed they even took the time to talk to her face to face..since her description didnt match initially..IF it did match..then yes they would be at fault.... But facial ID by a passerby is never perfect..by observer..BTW when was this persons call to report this..after TV exposure..Sorry but Nancy does not have extraordinary features that would make someone say..POSITIVE..and of course she couldnt..when later interviewed..Enough said on this...,Defense is doing what defense does...:crazy:

She reported she saw her the day after she went missing. She still believed she saw Nancy months after the fact. You're dismissing it because you 100% believe she couldn't possible had seen her, so who cares if they followed up with her or not.

 

[gritguy]

The prosecution team requested a transcipt of the defense opening statements the other day. I believe they intend to throw some of this back in their faces. Today's argument this morning was a carry over from an argument late in the day yesterday where the prosecution made an inference that the defense had possibly mishandled a piece of evidence. The defense came in this morning pretty much defending themselves and the judge didn't want to hear it because it had nothing to do with anything before the jury. That was my take on it.

Thanks for the context. There are certainly some fireworks to come.

 

[cityslick]

I am looking forward to the cross of the most recent witness come Monday. I think it got glossed over that Brad was saying goodbye to his 4 year old when he was notified that a search warrant was being served. That's not evidence of anything except it did show a tender side to Brad that we've not seen yet. It also says that he was expecting to be arrested on July 16th. But I am much more looking forward to Det. Daniels getting on the stand. I think the recent witnesses are leading up to that.

I think I remember some testimony (Dismukes I think) that BC made a comment like 'you guys probably already suspect me' or something to that effect.

 

[Just the Fax]

She reported she saw her the day after she went missing. She still believed she saw Nancy months after the fact. You're dismissing it because you 100% believe she couldn't possible had seen her, so who cares if they followed up with her or not.

The cops and DA dismissed her too.
Wonder why?
Sounds like their case against Brad makes that impossible.
Long way to go yet....we shall see what they really have.

 

[SleuthinNC]

The prosecution team requested a transcipt of the defense opening statements the other day. I believe they intend to throw some of this back in their faces. Today's argument this morning was a carry over from an argument late in the day yesterday where the prosecution made an inference that the defense had possibly mishandled a piece of evidence. The defense came in this morning pretty much defending themselves and the judge didn't want to hear it because it had nothing to do with anything before the jury. That was my take on it.

True none of it took place in front of the jury, the initial comments/discussion and today's discussion. My opinion of the situation this morning was actually for the "TV Audience" who did see/hear the initial exchange.

I think because there is so much information available and the testimony is available online tat the defense team was carefully conducting damage control in the event that the jury, although they have been instructed not to do so, inadvertently or otherwise, gets wind of the discussion that happened.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think I remember some testimony (Dismukes I think) that BC made a comment like 'you guys probably already suspect me' or something to that effect.

I have no doubt they did. The spouse is always on the top of the list especially when the spouse is the last known person to have seen the victim. I would expect to be a suspect if my husband died under suspicious conditions. There is no doubt that this is a homicide. Someone killed her. He was never able to be eliminated as a suspect. That doesn't make him guilty but it certainly doesn't make him innocent either.

 

[cityslick]

The cops and DA dismissed her too.
Wonder why?
Sounds like their case against Brad makes that impossible.
Long way to go yet....we shall see what they really have.

I agree there (long way to go). Tell you what though, if it does turn out by some miracle that she did see her (I don't think she did either btw), I can't imagine the heat that would come down on CPD.