State v. Bradley Cooper 4-12-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
Excellent! This post covers all the reasons why I think Brad killed Nancy. Brad Cooper must be the unluckiest man on earth IF someone else murdered Nancy.

Reports of seeing Brad being a "good dad" while out at the pool, etc. may mean nothing. I've know more than one dad (back in the day as my teenager likes to say) who doted on their small children while in public. Especially when there were bikini clad women in attendance to admire his behavior.

Here's an interesting link (at least to me) where you can pinpoint crime in Cary.
http://209.42.194.57/CaryCrime/ViewCrimeData.aspx?ItemID=31&PortalID=1

Add to the long list less0305 posted...so many, it's hard to keep them straight. But here are 2 that should be at the top of the list.

1- Her diamond necklace was recovered by CPD, tucked away in a drawer with her other jewelry. This same necklace was said by many close to her , including her immediate family, that she NEVER removed. She wore it 24/7 - running, bathing, swimming, sleeping. To think this was the first time she removed it, flunks the smell test.

2- The light colored shoes w/ distinct, large navy trim were never recovered. CPD identified the shoes from video after the home SW was completed. No problem, immediately after his arrest in October, they conducted another search, specifically looking for these shoes . Guess what? The shoes he wore to HT were never found. Must have thrown 'em away. Hmmm.
 
I brought this over from another thread. I'm posting and then I'm going to bed because I have to work tomorrow and believe me when I say, I need my beauty sleep. Y'all can have at it, chew up, spit it out - but this is how I see it - clear as day:
:seeya:

A man and woman are having a very rough spot in their marriage to the point where there are affairs,
money problems, seeking out attorneys for separation agreements/divorce advice, talk of "hate" to anyone who would
listen, and hiding passports, important papers, etc. Suddenly the woman goes missing the day after a fight over the
fact that the man did not give the woman the expected allowance. The man NEVER EVER withdrew the money from his
bank - not that Friday when it was expected, and neither on Saturday when his wife was just "on a run or out with her friends." Coincidental?

The man removes the woman from all money accounts, bank accounts, credit cards - and doesn't tell her himself. Coincidental?

The man is agreeable to a separation and the woman taking children back to Canada until he sees a copy of a draft
separation agreement that would have him paying out 75 % of his income in child support and expenses and has a provision
for alimony, at which time he cancels all plans for the woman to be able to leave. Coincidental?

The man mops, cleans, scours, launders the very day his wife becomes missing when it's not usually in his nature to
be THE main housekeeper. Coincidental?

The man can't find his wife and makes some attempt to ride around and look for her - and yet when his cell phone rings
he doesn't answer it, and when he realizes it is a call from a police officer, doesn't return the call immediately.
Coincidental?

The man makes two trips to a Harris Teeter which happens to capture his image on camera on the very morning his wife becomes
missing. Coincidental?

The man wears odd clothes for the weather and changes shoes between trips to the store within a 15 min. time frame. Coincidental?

The man tells officers his wife went jogging. No running shoes can be UNACCOUNTED for except two left shoes. Coincidental?

The woman is found wearing only a jogging bra - no SHOES, no pants, no undies, no socks. Coincidental?

The man happens to name the exact clothing item his wife was wearing when found dead after he told police officers he did not see her
leave the home. Coincidental?

The man has neck scratches and a bandaid on his finger. Coincidental?

The man informs police that he and his wife for the last couple months have been getting along fine and any marital
discord hasn't taken place. Coincidental?

The man tells police that he doesn't know how to access the call history on his cellular phone when he clearly is an expert
in his technological field dealing with phones, prototype phones, video phones. Coincidental?

The man is not truthful with police regarding his phone calls and movements in the day and hours leading up to his wife's
disappearance. Coincidental?

The man was the last person to have seen or spoke to the woman before she became missing. Coincidental?

The woman disappeared during an unplanned run alone, when her normal pattern was to run with one of a couple different running
partners. Coincidental?

The man does not notify the woman's family for assistance in locating his missing wife. Coincidental?

Items seen less than 24 hours before the woman became missing were removed from a foyer area of the home. Coincidental?

The man gave two to three descriptions of clothes the woman wore the night before. Coincidental?

The woman showed no signs of sexual assault, her missing clothing (for a run) were never found, expensive diamond earrings
remained on her body. Coincidental?

The woman died from strangulation (considered a soft kill where no blood evidence is left behind). Coincidental?

The man described his route to the grocery stores and yet his car was seen in video coming from a different direction.
Coincidental?

The man discloses he has cleaned the trunk of his car in the recent past. Coincidental?

The man shows no emotion that the mother of the children he adores is missing and then later found dead. Coincidental?

The man does not attend a memorial service for a woman he had been married to for years and was the mother of his
children. Coincidental?

The man has inconsistent stores relating to his actions between 8:00 p.m. on the night before his wife went missing and until
the early morning hours of the morning she went missing. Coincidental?

The man refused to speak with police officers after only a few days and never once contacts police to determine how the
investigation into the woman's disappearance/death is going. Coincidental?

The man and the woman have been seen screaming obscenities to each other on multiple occasions. Coincidental?

The man and the woman were seen to have a disagreement/argument on the night before her disappearance. Coincidental?

The man makes inquiries as to how to wipe hard drives. Coincidental?

The man purchases equipment that is related to the activity of re-routing phone calls and spoofing calls from one location
and to appear to be placed from another location? Coincidental?

The man sets up routing of calls through a foreign country, makes test calls, has the capibility, equipment, and knowledge
to spoof a call to himself. Coincidental?

The man accesses the woman's email accounts serendipidtously and forwards all e-mails to his own e-mail account for
over three months until her death. Coincidental?

The woman's time of death is estimated to be between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. Coincidental?

The man happens to be in possession of a diamond necklace that the woman did not take off for runs. Coincidental?

The man states under oath he was asleep between 8:30 p.m. and 4 a.m. and computer forensics prove he was logged into his
computer four times between 10 p.m. and 12 a.m. Coincidental?

The man spends the day and days after the woman disappears searching jobs in Canada, flights for Air Canada, power washing his house,
internet boards regarding the woman's disappearance and death. Coincidental?

The man told countless lies in a sworn deposition regarding the events surrounding his marriage and events of the woman's death.
Coincidental?

That is a lot of coincidences to happen all within a very very short amount of time. I can't EASILY explain ALLLLLLLLL that coincidence away. I think you really have to stretch to explain away all of the circumstantial evidence that has already been admitted into this court case.

Praying the prosecution will take this and run with it during their closing! Very well done!
 
Hi dramamama!

Nothing to forgive, certainly not on my part, that is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - to harp on about human rights alerts my ignore button because what about NC's rights? Somethings are so blatantly obvious to me and many others; the same things partially clear to other folk, clouded or smothered by a few more .... some just don't want BC to be the killer - while a few may genuinely believe he's innocent. Happens all the time.

Reading the "inconsistencies" thread - just reinforced my opinion, today.

Diff'rent Strokes, eh?

Indeed - lol, if he was reading here that may very well be another reason he stopped attending pressers and avoided the media/public. But that he tuned into W/S so early that very same July 08 weekend? Good grief!

Now that's scary...

Thank you for the hello!!:tyou:

I will definitely take a look at that thread this morning while we are "off."
(I almost feel like a juror myself, even though as I just said in a post, it is just the jury of public opinion.)

Justice is a very passionate topic, and I admire any and everyone who cares enough to be on here reading and posting. (And I enjoy your posts very much!)

Let's see what happens this afternoon!
 
I saw several from last night that refuse to believe Brad 'could have done this' because he seemed to be such a good father. ***Reminder*** This was between Brad and Nancy, not Brad and his children (one of which Kurtz insinuated is not even his).
 
That was sworn testimony from a friend of NC, which for most people (obviously not BC) means telling the truth under threat of perjury and being jailed. That's another charge I hope to see BC serve time for - lying under oath.

right, it means they are testifying as to what NC told them. Doesn't mean NC told the truth.
 
Add to the long list less0305 posted...so many, it's hard to keep them straight. But here are 2 that should be at the top of the list.

1- Her diamond necklace was recovered by CPD, tucked away in a drawer with her other jewelry. This same necklace was said by many close to her , including her immediate family, that she NEVER removed. She wore it 24/7 - running, bathing, swimming, sleeping. To think this was the first time she removed it, flunks the smell test.

2- The light colored shoes w/ distinct, large navy trim were never recovered. CPD identified the shoes from video after the home SW was completed. No problem, immediately after his arrest in October, they conducted another search, specifically looking for these shoes . Guess what? The shoes he wore to HT were never found. Must have thrown 'em away. Hmmm.

Darn, I don't have the option of editing my post now to add anything. I guess I'll just copy and paste again tonight and add anything new that comes out today to the list. The circumstantial evidence just keeps piling up - like Brad's nasty laundry!
 
She mentioned that she runs with her (big) dog and cell phone.

After I got caught up with the postings, I read that as well. However, if somebody is snatched quickly and unexpectedly a cell phone nor a dog would be very valuable.
Maybe it's because I watch too many true crime documentaries, or because I'm old and can't run or fight very well anymore, but I wouldn't dare put myself in a situation that may expose me to the slightest hint of danger.
 
For those in the court room yesterday, was the job search activity discussed in detail?

Did he actively search for and click on open job postings?

Or

Did he click on the job search site and open the page, but did not actively click around in the site?

I have favorites/bookmarks that I may accidently click on, but that does not mean that I was actually going to that site for browsing.
 
snipped ...
I have favorites/bookmarks that I may accidently click on, but that does not mean that I was actually going to that site for browsing.

Hi garner!

Personally can't answer that one as factual - however, I have clicked on a page by accident myself when not determining navigation. Think this may have happened to a few people. Tho I may definitely add BC didn't just "stumble upon" Websleuths before his wife was even found!

A crime site? Was he himself, errrrr, not "rushing to judgment"? For all he knew, NC had gone for a jog; he could care less about her.

Now for those (not you, I'm generalizing) not suspicious of this single action .... my., my, my.
 
Hi garner!

Personally can't answer that one as factual - however, I have clicked on a page by accident myself when not determining navigation. Think this may have happened to a few people. Tho I may definitely add BC didn't just "stumble upon" Websleuths before his wife was even found!

A crime site? Was he himself, errrrr, not "rushing to judgment"? For all he knew, NC had gone for a jog; he could care less about her.

Now for those (not you, I'm generalizing) not suspicious of this single action .... my., my, my.

My understanding is that he did a google search of her name and the websleuths site is one that came up in the list.
 
I hope the Rentz consider pursuing a civil case against BC when the criminal case is decided. Do you think a civil case would be more likely to end in guilt based upon evidence you've seen thus far?

Probably, because he would be compelled to testify and his lies in the deposition and to police would probably be the focus of the case (in my opinion) rather than the evidence of murder. And it doesn't have to be unanimous.
 
Hi garner!

Personally can't answer that one as factual - however, I have clicked on a page by accident myself when not determining navigation. Think this may have happened to a few people. Tho I may definitely add BC didn't just "stumble upon" Websleuths before his wife was even found!

A crime site? Was he himself, errrrr, not "rushing to judgment"? For all he knew, NC had gone for a jog; he could care less about her.

Now for those (not you, I'm generalizing) not suspicious of this single action .... my., my, my.

It was coupled with other pages she was posted on and appeared to be a part of the searches for "Nancy Cooper" on google.

I was wondering if he was setting up an alibi like she had googled for aircanada rates, etc. Maybe he tampered with the time/date stamp and was trying to provide further alibi?
 
Thanks...I was mainly asking about the job search bc that seems very odd that he would be searching for a job when his wife is missing.

If he only clicked on the job site, but did not actually navigate in the site, then that can be easily explained as an accidental click.

Show of hands...How many thought the Pros was gonna say he was looking at *advertiser censored* ?
 
My understanding is that he did a google search of her name and the websleuths site is one that came up in the list.

Hi Cheyenne130! Thanks! Then he clicked on the site, right? And there began his search? He visited W/S; long enough to warrant or peak LE's interest that W/S has been mentioned in court.

I felt he may have joined up here (later), maybe not, after another poster advised maybe a friend of his joined (which there may be little doubt - and ... so what ... the more the merrier).
 
I'm starting to assume this can't be true though. If NC went out frequently with her girlfriends, BC had to have been home. And I'm sure the stay at home moms didn't begin their nights out at midnight. They certainly could have been out still at midnight, but they wouldn't be starting at that time.

Is this just another exaggeration that he was gone 18 hours a day, every day?

Brad was the one who said it, in the depo. I recall hearing his voice. Along the lines of .... I went to work about 9:30, after helping nancy with the children, then after work, went to my MBA classes, after that, went to < insert name of gym > *because nancy and the children would have been in bed already anyway* bringing me home around midnight...... And then the 12 to 13 hour week-end workouts. Don't forget, he did 15 was it, competitions in the past 2 years. Somebody/Brad testified to that, because I remarked '15 competitions in two years', that's a lot. I think this 'nancy out with her friends rumor, began in early 2008 AFTER Brad had finished his MBA program, and AFTER, Nancy learned the truth about HM. AFter she had decided the marriage was over. And by that time Brad was done with SCHOOL. But the marriage was also OVER by then. MOO
 
Morning, I am sure she will eventually answer your question. I saw alot of her thread where she indicates that she runs with her dog. According to her, no one would mess with this dog.

I always walk with my dogs too. Two of them, around 90 lbs each, one a rottweiler/german shepherd mix. But I don't go into areas I consider sketchy because I know, even with two big dogs, I'm not invincible. What was the name of that guy in the Georgia mountains/rugged areas, recently, within the past couple years, convicted of serial killings of females? Hilton/Hinton keeps coming to mind? The last victim had her big dog with her when he abducted her? We live out in the country now, off a farmers gravel road. Other than the people I know along our road, the farmer in his fields, the most I see now are cows, horses, chickens, etc. Still thinking about getting a can of bear spray to carry on my fanny pack with my cell phone. Now days I carry the phone with me in case I fall 'and can't get up'. :banghead: Old SUCKS. :maddening:
 
Question of the day: Will this thread stay open long enough for them to actually begin court today?

Emotions are clearly running high, can we all just take a few deep breaths and try to carry on a little less personally?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
66
Guests online
3,302
Total visitors
3,368

Forum statistics

Threads
593,904
Messages
17,995,327
Members
229,276
Latest member
SeymourMann
Back
Top