State v Bradley Cooper 04/11/11

[CyberPro]

As I was completing reading the new posts after I retired for the evening.

I just wanted to point out something that came to mind. I once knew a married couple. They were a bit older, and I did not live in their area, but I saw them frequently when I was in that area. I saw them in church and other related social functions, and I visited their home on a couple of occasions.

I did not see anything at all amiss.


Later, the woman left him because he had been physically and mentally abusive to her for years!

Just because you don't observe it does not mean it does not happen.

 

[jmflu]

They finished up the last hour of the tapes this morning.

Thank you, Gracielee; it's hard to have a job, watch the cortroom proceedings AND read 38 pages of WS in a day! And I can't skip work OR anything on WS...

Now that the Cooper house is empty once again, wouldn't it be great if they would donate it to us during the trial? I can see all the different theories being acted out in parts of the house... The techy folks would be up in BC's office showing us how all the equipment would have been set up... There would be folks in the foyer acting out the struggle showing how the ducks and sticks would have been affected... Then we have the folks in the garage measuring the space needed to pull a car in and how quickly a marathon man could go from a packed garage to only packed on one side... Finally, we would have a couple of folks completely ignoring all of this, driving down Lochmere in a van up and down the path they think NC might have run on that day!

 

[cody100]

Thank you, Gracielee; it's hard to have a job, watch the cortroom proceedings AND read 38 pages of WS in a day! And I can't skip work OR anything on WS...

Now that the Cooper house is empty once again, wouldn't it be great if they would donate it to us during the trial? I can see all the different theories being acted out in parts of the house... The techy folks would be up in BC's office showing us how all the equipment would have been set up... There would be folks in the foyer acting out the struggle showing how the ducks and sticks would have been affected... Then we have the folks in the garage measuring the space needed to pull a car in and how quickly a marathon man could go from a packed garage to only packed on one side... Finally, we would have a couple of folks completely ignoring all of this, driving down Lochmere in a van up and down the path they think NC might have run on that day!

LOL. With some of the big differences of opinion, someone there could be a homicide on the spot.....either the first one or the second.

 

[cody100]

I saw this in the writ also, but then realized "if" BC is being honest about being upstairs with KC when NC left the house at 7:00, it is an impossibility. The writ "claims" that KC is reported to have told someone that NC had on black shorts and a white t-shirt.

However, IIRC, BC said he and KC were upstairs in his office when NC was leaving; NC calls up the stairs for a t-shirt; then, she says something like never mind and the front door closes. BC claims he did not see her leave the house or what she was finally wearing.

So, even according to his attorneys writ, BC was lying either about where he and KC were OR the information is merely a rumor.

In BC's scenario, NC would not have a t-shirt on when KC last saw her.

She could have possibly seen her mother from the window as she left the house if that room has a window facing the front. Or she could have run into the hallway and seem her mom put on the shirt. I wouldn't write it off completely until I had more facts. And as you say, it could be a rumor.

 

[cody100]

As I was completing reading the new posts after I retired for the evening.

I just wanted to point out something that came to mind. I once knew a married couple. They were a bit older, and I did not live in their area, but I saw them frequently when I was in that area. I saw them in church and other related social functions, and I visited their home on a couple of occasions.

I did not see anything at all amiss.


Later, the woman left him because he had been physically and mentally abusive to her for years!

Just because you don't observe it does not mean it does not happen.

I couldn't agree with you more. Both men and women can be the abuser or the recipient of abuse. You never know.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I saw this in the writ also, but then realized "if" BC is being honest about being upstairs with KC when NC left the house at 7:00, it is an impossibility. The writ "claims" that KC is reported to have told someone that NC had on black shorts and a white t-shirt.

However, IIRC, BC said he and KC were upstairs in his office when NC was leaving; NC calls up the stairs for a t-shirt; then, she says something like never mind and the front door closes. BC claims he did not see her leave the house or what she was finally wearing.

So, even according to his attorneys writ, BC was lying either about where he and KC were OR the information is merely a rumor.

In BC's scenario, NC would not have a t-shirt on when KC last saw her.

You have the children confused. Youngest was upstairs with BC, oldest was the one who made the comment.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think the VoIP order was supposed to be the smoking gun. It didn't resonate loudly here so wonder how it hit the jury. Not very compelling for me. It is interesting that they have the entire order which means it is possible to potentially locate the equipment if it is at Cisco or elsewhere other than trash.

 

[Tink56]

You have the children confused. Youngest was upstairs with BC, oldest was the one who made the comment.

The one who was sleeping????

 

[cody100]

I saw this in the writ also, but then realized "if" BC is being honest about being upstairs with KC when NC left the house at 7:00, it is an impossibility. The writ "claims" that KC is reported to have told someone that NC had on black shorts and a white t-shirt.

However, IIRC, BC said he and KC were upstairs in his office when NC was leaving; NC calls up the stairs for a t-shirt; then, she says something like never mind and the front door closes. BC claims he did not see her leave the house or what she was finally wearing.

So, even according to his attorneys writ, Child BC was lying either about where he and KC were OR the information is merely a rumor.

In BC's scenario, NC would not have a t-shirt on when KC last saw her.

Actually in rechecking this, it was BC not KC that was mentioned in the writ. So child BC could have been downstairs while KC was with BC. I could see that happening. Now I haven't gone back to check the depo to see what BC says there.

 

[Just the Fax]

I have done exactly what you just described: Called office while driving to prescreen messages, heard one that I needed to readdress, then called back when I had a pen and paper to retrieve the message and address the issues in further detail. So, I could not agree with you more that this makes perfectly good sense. Glad my wife didn't die lest I be accused of trying to set up a VOIP call. This guy is a workaholic and he obviously was doing work as usual for him. I can not imagine being able to make work related calls in the midst of having killed his wife. On another subject, I found reading the appelate document to be creepy that so many men were involved with NC in one way or another.

To say it was "obvious" he was doing work on his cell at 6'ish on Saturday AM because he was a workaholic? Unless it is shown checking his VM and sending VM tests was fairly typical behavior for him on an early Saturday AM, I think it is more obvious he used the flurry of VM calls as a diversion to his real phone call goal that morning.
Also, there was a poster that mentioned he must have been working since he didn't mention anything in the deposition. Not sure how that logic comes into play?

 

[SleuthinNC]

Actually in rechecking this, it was Bella not Katy that was mentioned in the writ. So Bella could have been downstairs while KC was with BC. I could see that happening. Now I haven't gone back to check the depo to see what BC says there.

Cody, just a friendly reminder, we are not allowed to post the names of the kids. You probably want to edit ASAP.

 

[Just the Fax]

Actually in rechecking this, it was Bella not Katy that was mentioned in the writ. So Bella could have been downstairs while KC was with BC. I could see that happening. Now I haven't gone back to check the depo to see what BC says there.

So now B was downstairs and saw what her mom was wearing before 7AM? Reckon she was sleepwalking :waitasec:

 

[SleuthinNC]

I agree BR. I think the apellate documets indicate discussion between cpd and the oldest. I believe there is some indication that she also might have told a neighbor that she saw mommy dressed to go running that morning. I offer these comments not as truth of the matter but as to bits and pieces I have read. Althought the appellate case does request the results of that interview with the 4 year old. I suspect they have it by now. Anyone have info regarding this.

If I am reading the appellate ruling correctly it says that the information about the interview was only discoverable during cross-examination. If I understand correctly this means the only way the defense can bring it before the jury is during cross-examination and for them to address something in cross-examination it has to be discussed during direct examination. If the prosecution does not offer it (which they have not) the defense has no ability to bring it in under cross.

I hope I've got that right.

 

[cody100]

To say it was "obvious" he was doing work on his cell at 6'ish on Saturday AM because he was a workaholic? Unless it is shown checking his VM and sending VM tests was fairly typical behavior for him on an early Saturday AM, I think it is more obvious he used the flurry of VM calls as a diversion to his real phone call goal that morning.
Also, there was a poster that mentioned he must have been working since he didn't mention anything in the deposition. Not sure how that logic comes into play?

I think my logic is no less logical than yours. Both are speculations and a matter of opinion. Hope you don't mind if I borrow this from one of your post:

:banghead:

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes, B seeing her mom shortly before 7 will not come up with the state because it never happened.

 

[cody100]

Cody, just a friendly reminder, we are not allowed to post the names of the kids. You probably want to edit ASAP.

My apologies. I corrected that. Thanks for telling me.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think my logic is no less logical than yours. Both are speculations and a matter of opinion. Hope you don't mind if I borrow this from one of your post:

I was referring to another poster that said - because he never mentioned it in the deposition, it was more likely it was legit work.
Did you say that too? All I did was question the logic, not dismiss the opinion.

 

[cody100]

Yes, B seeing her mom shortly before 7 will not come up with the state because it never happened.

Well, JTF, you may be right on not coming up by state, but how do you know it never happened, out of curiosity? BTW, I never said it happened, I am merely trying to have a nice discussion about what was in the writ.

 

[Just the Fax]

Well, JTF, you may be right on not coming up by state, but how do you know it never happened, out of curiosity? BTW, I never said it happened, I am merely trying to have a nice discussion about what was in the writ.

If it happened, Brad lied cause he said she was in bed asleep.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Well, JTF, you may be right on not coming up by state, but how do you know it never happened, out of curiosity? BTW, I never said it happened, I am merely trying to have a nice discussion about what was in the writ.

The child telling CM that she saw her mother wearing black shorts and a white t-shirt that morning may be true. The problem is that according to the timeline given by Brad, the oldest child B did not wake up until 8:30. Also according to Brad, Nancy dressed downstairs so she wasn't seen in her running clothes by anyone in the house. So now you are left with a number of possibilities as to how B got it in her head that she saw her mother that morning but according to everthing Brad said, it didn't happen.