State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

[otto]

Thanks for the exterminator info. I was wondering if this was another point that Nancy might have been over-dramatizing.

It's truly a sad situation where the two should have split long before this happened. I can, to some degree, understand that Nancy felt trapped, but I also have some question about why she remained in the marriage long after it was over. It appears that she remained for financial gain - a very bad reason. If Brad took away the passports, she should have been able to get a court order - if necessary - to get the passports based on the claim that she wanted to take the children to visit her sister. She could have made the trip, returned to NC, and kept the passports safe ... to be used later when she would move to Canada. It seems to me that Nancy was caught up in wanting to present Brad as being a bad guy, while at the same time wanting to secure as much money from him as possible. It's like she lost sight of the goal of moving on and starting a new life - almost creating her own obstacles.

 

[CyberPro]

I just got a lecture on the variables in the half-life of caffeine as well, and apparently some OTC painkillers have caffeine in them. So, nevermind...I had always been under the impression it had one of the shortest half lifes and left the body after just a few hours.

It seems to me that MOST OTC Painkillers have a fair amount of Caffene in them. This is a vasiodialator and increases the size of the blood vessels to allow more bloodflow to the painful area, more oxygen and more White Blood Cells, if the area is inflamed. The autopsy report made reference to a "reddish fluid" or something like this in her stomach. It is completely unclear if this is normal bodily fluids, decomposition product or WINE? She was seen drinking wine at the party, but I have not heard if it was red, white or rose. It could be completely unrelated. Red Bull, Gatorade, Kool-aid, etc. But it seems to me that if it IS wine, it should have passed out of the stomach very quickly. Take that thought where it naturally leads you.

 

[Just the Fax]

It seems to me that MOST OTC Painkillers have a fair amount of Caffene in them. This is a vasiodialator and increases the size of the blood vessels to allow more bloodflow to the painful area, more oxygen and more White Blood Cells, if the area is inflamed. The autopsy report made reference to a "reddish fluid" or something like this in her stomach. It is completely unclear if this is normal bodily fluids, decomposition product or WINE? She was seen drinking wine at the party, but I have not heard if it was red, white or rose. It could be completely unrelated. Red Bull, Gatorade, Kool-aid, etc. But it seems to me that if it IS wine, it should have passed out of the stomach very quickly. Take that thought where it naturally leads you.

.....If it tests as alcohol, it leads me to believe she was killed shortly after coming home at 12:30AM.

"The stomach contains a small amount of reddish
fluid and one fragment of what may be onion
Toxicological screens on fluid obtained at autopsy revealed an ethanol concentration of
60 mg/dL which could be the result of decomposition. No opiates, cocaine, oxymorphone or organic bases were found
except caffeine"

 

[panthera]

.....If it tests as alcohol, it leads me to believe she was killed shortly after coming home at 12:30AM.

"The stomach contains a small amount of reddish
fluid and one fragment of what may be onion
Toxicological screens on fluid obtained at autopsy revealed an ethanol concentration of
60 mg/dL which could be the result of decomposition. No opiates, cocaine, oxymorphone or organic bases were found
except caffeine"

Do we know what time she ate at the party? Just curious since it seems most food is digested. I'm also curious about the alcohol absorption if she was killed shortly after returning home, since I'd think there would still be a high content; or would it dissipate with decomposition? :waitasec:

 

[raisincharlie]

I was thinking that it is still a possibility that she had coffee or some other caffeinated beverage after she got home from the BBQ. Four glasses of wine and two beers (the minimum estimate of her consumption) would have me concerned about a possible morning hangover. I might do a little preventative intervention if I was her.

I think it is possible that there is a bit of truth to Brad's story that Katie woke them up somewhere near 4 am and during the course of whatever that was about, a pot of coffee was made. I see this as being possible and it would explain the caffine just as being alive at 7 am would...

 

[Just the Fax]

Did Kurtz mention caffeine in his opening?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yes Kurtz mentioned caffeine.

 

[jmflu]

I keep thinking he would be more likely to have killed her that night when she came home. After she had embarrassed him in front of her friends, after the kids were asleep...maybe there's a reason their child was woken at 4 am. He could have been madly cleaning out the garage by then, making noise...He had a lot to do between the time he killed her and the time the first call came in from her friend. Cleaning the house, the garage, the car, disposal of the body, trip to HT...and eventually taking care of the girls.

 

[BrownRice]

I keep thinking he would be more likely to have killed her that night when she came home. After she had embarrassed him in front of her friends, after the kids were asleep...maybe there's a reason their child was woken at 4 am. He could have been madly cleaning out the garage by then, making noise...He had a lot to do between the time he killed her and the time the first call came in from her friend. Cleaning the house, the garage, the car, disposal of the body, trip to HT...and eventually taking care of the girls.

I agree. I think it was spur of the moment - in a moment of rage - that evening. By morning, even if they were annoyed with each other, I can't see the fight escalating to murder.

 

[johnfear]

And something that appeared to be onion. (per the autopsy report)

I am thinking middle of the night now. Killed her when she came in. Fit of rage.

Could the 1st degree be charged based on post-murder efforts?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Could the 1st degree be charged based on post-murder efforts?

No.

Nancy was strangled. It takes up to 4 minutes to strangle a person to death. Premeditation is what is needed to prove Murder 1.

In that 4 minutes, Brad knew his actions would cause her death, he didn't stop, and that by itself is proof of premeditation. Intentionally killing another person and doing so with malice. There might also be some pre-planning, but evidence for that hasn't been presented (yet).

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think it is possible that there is a bit of truth to Brad's story that Katie woke them up somewhere near 4 am and during the course of whatever that was about, a pot of coffee was made. I see this as being possible and it would explain the caffine just as being alive at 7 am would...

I have trouble seeing both of them getting up to take care of Katie. I see one or the other dealing with it while the one not dealing with it stays in bed. With the anger that Nancy seemed to have I just don't know that she would have been working together with Brad on anything.

 

[jmflu]

And...the way he dumped her body, so unceremoniously, so without any respect...really seems that he had no regret, either.

 

[johnfear]

No.

Nancy was strangled. It takes up to 4 minutes to strangle a person to death. Premeditation is what is needed to prove Murder 1.

In that 4 minutes, Brad knew his actions would cause her death, he didn't stop, and that by itself is proof of premeditation. Intentionally killing another person and doing so with malice. There might also be some pre-planning, but evidence for that hasn't been presented (yet).

I don't know who told you 4 minutes, but that is seemingly a random number. Pulse and/or breathing cessation is a wildly variable thing. It could be less than sixty seconds (if a person is drunk, or if there is other injury/trauma present) and as long as 10 minutes.

I think one of the articles I was reading (I know, thanks to this case for brightening up my often boring google searches with "What are the variables in a manual strangulation" and "How long would it take someone to die from strangulation". Sweet crickets.) said that excitation involving vocalization coupled with intoxication can result in a quick, passionate death. (Meaning, before the person realized it)

Which is in line with what you are saying (up to) 4 minutes. That is not premeditation. Not in line with all of the other things here. Could they be attempting to say it's ALL (meaning the divorce drama, etc) is in-line with premeditation? That would make more sense. Otherwise, it's all (although the defense has gone a COMPLETELY different route) up to a jury. And I think the defense could easily argue that what the prosecutors are alleging is not 1st degree. (They still stick with the "he-didn't-do-it" routine and they might toast his chances)

 

[SleuthyGal]

Up to 4 minutes is the amount of time it can take for brain death to occur once oxygen is cut off. This doesn't only apply to strangulation, but also applies to any form of the O2 not reaching the brain (drowning, for example). It doesn't mean it takes exactly 4 minutes, but generally speaking, life saving efforts need to occur within the first 4 minutes to avoid brain death.

From Wikipedia

"Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.[1] State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder."

 

[SleuthyGal]

Specifically in North Carolina:

"Under North Carolina law, first-degree murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice and with premeditation and deliberation."

"Premeditation means the defendant formed the specific intent to kill the victim for some period of time, however short, before the actual killing. Deliberation means that the intent to kill was formed while defendant was in a cool state of blood and not under the influence of a violent passion suddenly aroused by sufficient provocation. Significantly, however, cool state of blood does not mean an absence of passion and emotion. Rather, under state law, a defendant may deliberate, may premeditate although prompted and to a large extent controlled by passion at the time. Indeed, if the design to kill was formed with deliberation and premeditation, it is immaterial that defendant was in a passion or excited when the design was carried into effect. Thus a killing committed during the course of a quarrel or scuffle may yet constitute first degree murder provided the defendant formed the intent to kill in a cool state of blood before the quarrel or scuffle began and the killing during the quarrel was the product of this earlier formed intent. Additionally, it is sufficient that the processes of premeditation and deliberation occur prior to, and not simultaneously with, the killing."

 

[johnfear]

Specifically in North Carolina:

"Under North Carolina law, first-degree murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice and with premeditation and deliberation."

"Premeditation means the defendant formed the specific intent to kill the victim for some period of time, however short, before the actual killing. Deliberation means that the intent to kill was formed while defendant was in a cool state of blood and not under the influence of a violent passion suddenly aroused by sufficient provocation. Significantly, however, cool state of blood does not mean an absence of passion and emotion. Rather, under state law, a defendant may deliberate, may premeditate although prompted and to a large extent controlled by passion at the time. Indeed, if the design to kill was formed with deliberation and premeditation, it is immaterial that defendant was in a passion or excited when the design was carried into effect. Thus a killing committed during the course of a quarrel or scuffle may yet constitute first degree murder provided the defendant formed the intent to kill in a cool state of blood before the quarrel or scuffle began and the killing during the quarrel was the product of this earlier formed intent. Additionally, it is sufficient that the processes of premeditation and deliberation occur prior to, and not simultaneously with, the killing."

Now, that makes things interesting, don't it?

 

[SleuthyGal]

The DA knows the law and knows the evidence they have. They believe they can prove first degree murder and pretty much said as much the moment they indicted him.

 

[jmflu]

I'm thinking there's got to be something in that trunk. Blood...hair...technology is too sophisticated to be foiled by a vacuum cleaner...

 

[Cheyenne130]

I'm thinking there's got to be something in that trunk. Blood...hair...technology is too sophisticated to be foiled by a vacuum cleaner...

He also scrubbed it. He said that he spilled gasoline in the trunk.