State v Bradley Cooper 04/04/11

[jumpstreet]

Wow - is it really now true that on WS, we aren't allowed to discuss other possible suspects or theories, if they involve persons who haven't officially been named suspects, or persons of interest by LE? Say it ain't so mods!
Aren't we free to sleuth/speculate all we want to help get to the truth (short of naming minors)?

 

[chicoliving]

Wow - is it really now true that on WS, we aren't allowed to discuss other possible suspects or theories, if they involve persons who haven't officially been named suspects, or persons of interest by LE? Say it ain't so mods!
Aren't we free to sleuth/speculate all we want to help get to the truth (short of naming minors)?

It is true. Check out the rules.

 

[gracielee]

Who knows, perhaps BC simply thought, as many of us do, that NC did not wear the necklace 100% of the time and therefore it might not be uncommon for her to take it off when she went for a jog.

IMO, Brad neither knew Nancy well enough, nor cared enough to realize her friends knew she'd have her necklace on. To him, the necklace wasn't a big deal. Why would he throw away, discard, an expensive necklace? In his opinion, nobody knew she still had the necklace on. It was a non-issue. Just like JA calling so early to enquire about Nancy. He thought he'd have quite some time to finish all his laundry and cleaning. Who'd have thunk these interlopers would be missing Nancy so quickly? He was thinking he had at least 24 hours.

 

[lib's mom]

See, I remember the electrical wire discussion and I remember seeing a returned SW for the shirt then hearing about three wire holes on a stretched lightweight Nike polo. So, that intrigues me...but the spandex would do less damage than the hands, no?

I need to post a craigslist ad for people with strangulation experience I guess. (poor joke) Where would one find that on the web? Because now I am wondering what HE MIGHT have googled prior that could have lead to this....improv'd type of weapon.

I've been thinking about what he googled, too. What if it was something as simple as a cleaning question? Like, how to clean vomit off hardwood floors? Or how to clean urine off hardwood floors?

 

[johnfear]

Any Crohn's folks on here who have an idea of what it could do to the digestive process?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Don't know what is on his computer, but something makes the defense twitchy when mention of computers comes up. The fact that the defense is floating 2 scenarios: someone either hacked into or accessed his wireless network and got on his computer that way and did something to incriminate him (LOLOL) AND/OR someone at CPD somehow accessed his computer (and or phone) and put incriminating information on it.

Both scenarios are laughable and ridiculous. That they are trying out both is more of their spaghetti strategy, hoping one of those will stick.

 

[jumpstreet]

I'm really amazed that the attitude that came out of today's testimony is that the defense negated the testimony of the entomologist. He gave a time of 11 a.m. on Saturday which was either the laying of initial eggs or the laying of ANY eggs. (The defense did a poor job of defining that particular question.) But the first possible time is around midnight to 6 a.m. That was what the evidence showed. So possible (if that's even what he was answering since Trenkle confused that issue) negates the midnight to 6 a.m. probable?

No... possible doesn't negate the probable.
But, even if it's more likely (not established) that she died prior to 6am, there's reasonable doubt that she died after 6am.

That translates to 'done and done' for the defense (ie, a 'what else you got' to the prosection) [ Civil case (preponderance = different story) but for criminal case (rd, and it only takes 1 out of12)... done and done. ]

[ and yes, defense hasn't yet called their expert witness who may very well testify that it's more likely she died after 6am... but rest assured... they will ]

 

[SleuthyGal]

But, even if it's more likely (not established) that she died prior to 6am, there's reasonable doubt that she died after 6am.

The problem is when one only looks at one data point, like the bug info. You really have to combine all the evidence...the phone calls, the behaviors of the defendant, the bug info, the defendant cell phone pinging off the tower closest to the body dump site, the defendant knowing exactly the one item the body was found wearing (and he wasn't asked), combined with other evidence yet to be shown (computer evidence, cell phone evidence, the lies).

If you only take 1 item and expect that to make the entire case...well, it won't work. There isn't just one thing. Circumstantial cases are about the totality of the evidence.

At some point one must look at everything and reason if everything put together is just a huge coincidence, or if the evidence, when taken together, points to the defendant. You get a list of something like 30+ items of 'coinky-dink' and it doesn't seem plausible that ALL the things on the list just happened within a short amount of time, all to this one person.

Common sense.

 

[jumpstreet]

It is true. Check out the rules.

Thanks... [though I'm a little surprised, as ] I seemed to recall a number of posts on WS from 2008 (before he was even named a POI) asserting the defendant was nearly certainly guilty...

It's good to have reminders of the forum guidelines (thanks), and I'm sure they are there for good reason, but (at least for this case), it seems more than a little limiting (we an only talk about those that LE has charged??). [ especially in this particular case, (and several other cases in the same locale) where LE themselves (from aptitude & integrity perspective) has been called into serious question...

How about this: For the discussion of minors, since they were 'germane' to the case, we were encouraged to use 'code' or some creative means to mask their real names (recognizing they were germane to the case, and not wanting to limit the discussion). Can we use similar technique to inquisitively (and even critically) discuss those others involved who may be central/significant to the potential innocence of the accused?

 

[jilly]

I remember during the Scott Peterson trial feeling like the defense just tore the prosecution apart during the states presentation. Then the defense put on their case and the prosecution ripped them apart. It seems that people are more impressed with the minutea that diminishes a point than they are with everything else that makes the point legitimate.

I am personally looking forward to the prosecution finishing with the strongest of their evidence and then on to the defense presentation.

I've had this in the back of my mind all along here as well. I remember very well. I was even wondering if the Defense here would put on a case. Like Geragos, the Defense here is chipping away on cross and making a case. Geragos' biggest error was putting on a case and what a case it was, hey? lol I'm remembering his expert Dr March breaking down on the stand pleading for the prosecutor to cut him some slack! haha

Yes, it was a shakey start for the Pros on Peterson but they came out swinging in the end.

 

[jumpstreet]

(respectfully snipped)

The problem is when one only looks at one data point, like the bug info. You really have to combine all the evidence....

Yeah, I got that. If no 'one thing' stands alone, what choice does the prosectution have but to try and make a list of lots of "little things", and hope they make their case.
I was responding to the earlier poster who was essentially asking "wasn't the bug guy the nuke we've been waiting for...", and explaining why I didn't think it quite was.

You are right... if prosecution doesn't have a nuke, then they might as well try to see if they can find enough BB guns to make their case to 12 of 12.

It makes it a steeper hill when you do it this way, but if they find enough small things... then maybe it makes just as good of a case as when you have an nuke.
Or... maybe tomorrow they'll pull out the big guns... we'll see.

MO (and only guessing) I think prosecution probably has 3 Fs left... Frenchie... FBI, and Father... or at least 2 out of those 3, and they will rest within 1 week

 

[FullDisclosure]

fftobed: G'night, all!

 

[chicoliving]

Can we use similar technique to inquisitively (and even critically) discuss those others involved who may be central/significant to the potential innocence of the accused?

That'd probably be ok on its own thread. There may be a thread on that same subject somewhere already.

These trial threads are for discussion of the trial and the testimony.

The main thing we don't want to do is drag a bunch of people through the mud that have not been charged. Brad is charged. No one else has been charged.

If discussing someone's testimony whether it be depos or statements made to the media that would/could point to his non involvement that is always fine. Just try to keep that discussion on the proper thread. If it pops up during testimony then the trial thread is fine.

If you want to discuss alternate theories then a theory thread would be fine. Keeping in mind not to drag other folks into this and keeping to the subject of Brad's potential innocence using others that could bolster that theory.

It would not be appropriate to start naming others as the perp. We're not going to do that.

This is all about Brad being on trial and if the state can prove their case. It's not our first rodeo but it sure is moving slow.

 

[yosande]

I was wondering if it had been established or not if NC wore a sports bra under a white t shirt as night wear? tia
Some "sport" bras are light weight and comfortable, and aren't really sport bras as much as casual bras that some women wear around the house and/or to bed at night. moo

 

[SleuthyGal]

I responding to the earlier was essentially asking "wasn't the bug guy the nuke we've been waiting for..."

I'm surprised we got as much as we did from the bug guy's analysis and testimony; it was never my understanding that the bug guy would be a 'nuke.'
The defense made it sound in their opening as if there was *nothing,* and that wasn't true. The evidence and analysis is such that it is not inconsistent that NC's body was available for fly infestation starting at around 6am, which would coincide with all the activity with phone calls, visits to HT, pinging of cell phone off tower near body, etc, etc. It's one more piece in the puzzle.

 

[Albert]

I wonder if something like this could have been used to generate the call at 6:40am. This device will trigger a phone call, delayed up to 30 minutes, based upon power failure:

http://www.diycontrols.com/p-6175-r...alert-power-failure-freeze-flood-monitor.aspx

 

[jumpstreet]

I'm surprised we got as much as we did from the bug guy's analysis and testimony; it was never my understanding that the bug guy would be a 'nuke.'
The defense made it sound in their opening as if there was *nothing,* and that wasn't true. The evidence and analysis is such that it is not inconsistent that NC's body was available for fly infestation starting at around 6am, which would coincide with all the activity with phone calls, visits to HT, pinging of cell phone off tower near body, etc, etc. It's one more piece in the puzzle.

Yeah, my initial response wasn't to one of your posts, but to someone who was wondering (in so many words) why the bug guys's testimony wasn't being viewed as more significant than it was ("doesn't probable outweigh possible"). My response (in so many words) was 'I don't think so in a criminal case'.

I agree, no one probably had it on the radar that he would be the nuke anyway, so no big surprise. [ though, I think there was a degree of (ahem) 'excitement' from some here before the defense had their turn... ]

While he indicated it was possible (even probable) that infestation started before 6am, he also indicated it wasn't impossible that it started after. [It can certainly be added to the list of 'small probable things']

Now... the bigger question... how many 'small probable (but not 100% certain) things' does it take to convince a jury to convict a person of murder beyond a reasonable doubt... My guess is a pretty big number (more than have been shown thus far), especially given current climate.

Here's another way you can look at it: if you have 1000 'small things', each of which can be refuted with reasonable doubt... even when you take them in totality... you're probably still left with ... well.... a degree of reasonable doubt.

 

[jmflu]

That's worth risking life in prison or the death penalty? Hanging on to a $3000 necklace? And he could never get that for it. That is what they paid for it but everyone knows you never get that back when you try to sell jewelry. I think the fact that the necklace did not disappear proves he is innocent more than guilty because a guilty person would have gotten rid of it.

He risked life in prison just by murdering her.

I can't imagine he thought of every single way to cover himself... Especially if this wasn't pre-planned.

Plus, he thought he had more time. Poor guy didn't even get a nap before people who really cared about her were questioning her whereabouts.

 

[ncsu95]

He thought he'd have more time. He commented to police he thought a missing person couldn't be reported until 24 hrs had expired. His plans got interrupted when the police showed up on Sat afternoon.

I don't buy that. We're talking minutes here. Obviously if he killed her, he would have had to dump her body before her kids got up. So the whole 24 hours for a missing person thing plays no part in when he dumped the body.

 

[ncsu95]

No photos of our reenactment are available, folks!

Where's the dislike button?


I'm just kidding :innocent: