State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

[Just the Fax]

The big however here is that I believe the Cisco VoIP expert testified that for the prior installation of Cisco VoIP technology, the FXO port would have been required.

That establishes the existence of the correct networking hardware in the Cooper home at least through April.

If it was no longer in his office at work and not recovered from the home - where is it?

The Wake County landfill?

 

[Just the Fax]

What time did he say he went out searching (I know he returned by 3PM)?

He was out at 1PM and returned at 3PM (alone with just the kids.
His route was very vague in the deposition. He said he was "driving around like a mad man"

 

[momof7]

The big however here is that I believe the Cisco VoIP expert testified that for the prior installation of Cisco VoIP technology, the FXO port would have been required.

That establishes the existence of the correct networking hardware in the Cooper home at least through April.

If it was no longer in his office at work and not recovered from the home - where is it?

Exactly...where is it? It is one of the bigger sticking points for me.

 

[macd]

Assuming he had a router configured with CallManager Express in his house then those trace files are confined to the router in his house. Again, I am aware of where the burden of proof lies. But we do know that BC had both knowledge and untraceable access to this type of gear.

Yes. And we have the earlier 22 second call, consistent with the csim start command. This was the "dry run".
1) configure router and ports at home
2) test the setup using csim start
3) go to store
4) initiate the fake call
5) get rid of router and port from home

While he's at it, unrelated to the fake call, run some voicemail tests on the alpha network at work as a smoke screen.

 

[momof7]

The Wake County landfill?

The scenario's have to be endless. He was out driving to HT at 6 am. We have no idea if he dropped in someone's trashcan along the way, in the dumpster at HT, etc etc.

For all we know its hidden so well in the house even the new owners have not come acrossed it.

Kelly

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

She stated in her affidavit that she saw searchers on Sunday and told her husband about seeing a runner the previous morning. He told her to call police. She called and left a message. She said that they called her back and left a message. (I'm guessing this was Monday and possibly she was at work.) She called them back after she got the message and spoke with someone. She gave her statement at that time over the phone.

Actually, what she states is that on Sunday she contacted the police. Left a voicemail. The CPD called her back and left a voicemail. She spoke with a police officer and left a statement. Noone from the CDP ever came out to speak with her in person. Upon seeing a police officer stationed in the Lochmere area, she told them about seeing Nancy at 7:10am on July 12th and informed them to review the statement she had already made. The officer gave her a business card but never called her back to follow up with her. After approximately 3 months with NO contact from the CDP, she left a message with Kurtz and Blum. After a few days she spoke in person with a detective from the defendant's team. Brad Cooper's investigator was the FIRST person to ask her detailed questions about seeing Nancy alive.

I only bring this up, because it shows that the CPD only focused on Brad Cooper from the begining. They neglected to follow through with any other avenues that may have been / or may not have been associated with this crime.
"

 

[Cheyenne130]

One other subtle point that came out yesterday when her attorney was on the stand: it wasn't an email from her to Nancy that Brad would have been reading that night.

 

[less0305]

He was out at 1PM and returned at 3PM (alone with just the kids.
His route was very vague in the deposition. He said he was "driving around like a mad man"

And the only known place we know him to be in that two hours was LTF for all of about 5 minutes. Plenty of time to be getting rid of something or somethings.

 

[Just the Fax]

The scenario's have to be endless. He was out driving to HT at 6 am. We have no idea if he dropped in someone's trashcan along the way, in the dumpster at HT, etc etc.

For all we know its hidden so well in the house even the new owners have not come acrossed it.

Kelly

Remember, the hardware was in use at 6:40 AM right before he walked into the HT for the 2nd time.

The removal and disposal had to be after he returned from the 2nd trip to HT.

 

[gbay]

And the only known place we know him to be in that two hours was LTF for all of about 5 minutes. Plenty of time to be getting rid of something or somethings.

We also know that at 13:51 he was north of his house getting gas...as per the receipt.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Actually, what she states is that on Sunday she contacted the police. Left a voicemail. The CPD called her back and left a voicemail. She spoke with a police officer and left a statement. Noone from the CDP ever came out to speak with her in person. Upon seeing a police officer stationed in the Lochmere area, she told them about seeing Nancy at 7:10am on July 12th and informed them to review the statement she had already made. The officer gave her a business card but never called her back to follow up with her. After approximately 3 months with NO contact from the CDP, she left a message with Kurtz and Blum. After a few days she spoke in person with a detective from the defendant's team. Brad Cooper's investigator was the FIRST person to ask her detailed questions about seeing Nancy alive.

I only bring this up, because it shows that the CPD only focused on Brad Cooper from the begining. They neglected to follow through with any other avenues that may have been / or may not have been associated with this crime.
"

I guess I just don't understand how calling her back and leaving a message and her calling them back and giving her statement is considered not following up. What other information did they need to get in a personal interview that she couldn't give on the phone?

 

[macd]

Exactly...where is it? It is one of the bigger sticking points for me.

Isn't it common, among murder trials, to find someone guilty even if the murder weapon is not found?

 

[Just the Fax]

Isn't it common, among murder trials, to find someone guilty even if the murder weapon is not found?

Disposing of any 'evidence' linking the suspect to the crime is extremely common.

 

[RaleighNC]

I too still want MORE evidence -and am guessing the computer guys from the FBI lab will be the ones to listen to (and hopefully whoever questions them - please God - not Cummings - paints by numbers so that the picture us clear - not some sort of abstract "cats who paint" deal that is open to interpretation.

One thing I find odd is the lack of denial out of Brad, or the lack of anyone really coming to his aid publicly. I know he's "awkward" socially, but there would have to be someone fighting for him - vehemently - if he was innocent. I'd want ALL my loudmouth friends standing up for me. And like others have pointed out - he's never really denied killing her to Nancy's mother or sister.

Also - at least OJ went on TV trying to find Nicole's killer and stayed with that story for a long time.

I think that in order to be acquitted - the defense is going to have to show someone else had the motive, means and opportunity to kill her and it can't be the roving band of white van driving Mexican Jehovah's Witnesses - someone named - as this murder is too "personal" to be random, and have to remove robbery as a motive - or sexual assault..........

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I guess I just don't understand how calling her back and leaving a message and her calling them back and giving her statement is considered not following up. What other information did they need to get in a personal interview that she couldn't give on the phone?

In my person opinion, I would think that if someone is 100% sure they saw Nancy running that morning and can give precise details as to the time, what she was wearing, etc, the police would be VERY interested in speaking with her in person. Afterall, they had no problem speaking with all of Nancy's friends in person to listen to their concerns. I don't think voicemail and phone conversations was enough at this point in time to gather all of the details that this person had to state. The defendant's attorneys met her at her house, walked with her to the location in which she claimed to see Nancy to verify precisely how credible this person was in stating the time of 7:10am. Shouldn't the CDP have been just as interested....that is if they did not have their eyes solely set on Brad

 

[sunshine05]

In my person opinion, I would think that if someone is 100% sure they saw Nancy running that morning and can give precise details as to the time, what she was wearing, etc, the police would be VERY interested in speaking with her in person. Afterall, they had no problem speaking with all of Nancy's friends in person to listen to their concerns. I don't think voicemail and phone conversations was enough at this point in time to gather all of the details that this person had to state. The defendant's attorneys met her at her house, walked with her to the location in which she claimed to see Nancy to verify precisely how credible this person was in stating the time of 7:10am. Shouldn't the CDP have been just as interested....that is if they did not have their eyes solely set on Brad

This has come up several times here and I think it's best at this point to just wait and see if the defense calls her as a witness (I think they will). That will put an end to this discussion here.

 

[jmflu]

This has come up several times here and I think it's best at this point to just wait and see if the defense calls her as a witness (I think they will). That will put an end to this discussion here.

Thank you thank you thank you...post of the day already...

 

[momof7]

Isn't it common, among murder trials, to find someone guilty even if the murder weapon is not found?

I guess I am not looking at the FXO card as the murder weapon but something used in covering the crime itself.

I do honestly believe Brad killed her. But, innocent until proven guilty and I am having a hard time connecting the dots and finding no reasonable doubt whatsoever. I still keep thinking it IS possible she went running that morning and something happened to her. Regardless of what I believe personally with all the circumstanial evidence, I am having a hard time believing there is not one single juror that isn't thinking the same thing. I feel like the prosecution really really needs to be able to tie all this into something tangible. Otherwise, this will be another OJ case, the reasonable doubt is still there to me, regardless of all the hate and discontent, he was the last to see her etc.

Do I think OJ killed people in cold blood? Sure. Do I think Brad Cooper took Nancy's life that am? Sure. But there was/is reasonable doubt for me to believe he may not get convicted of the crime with what we have so far.

Kelly

 

[CyberPro]

The router found in his house was an 871W it does not even have a slot to insert an FXO card

NC's body was not found in the house either.... but I suspect she was there at some point.

Just because the proper router was not there when the SW was executed does not mean that the proper router was not available to BC, and not taken back to Cisco or discarded. It is not like the router is forever in the house once it has been placed there. Connecting and disconnecting the device is complete child's play, a few minutes and most. The configuration could take a while in the beginning, but it is very likely that most of the configuration had already taken place when it was used before, and to BC the final tweaks on the config would have taken mere moments.

 

[CyberPro]

In my person opinion, I would think that if someone is 100% sure they saw Nancy running that morning and can give precise details as to the time, what she was wearing, etc, the police would be VERY interested in speaking with her in person. Afterall, they had no problem speaking with all of Nancy's friends in person to listen to their concerns. I don't think voicemail and phone conversations was enough at this point in time to gather all of the details that this person had to state. The defendant's attorneys met her at her house, walked with her to the location in which she claimed to see Nancy to verify precisely how credible this person was in stating the time of 7:10am. Shouldn't the CDP have been just as interested....that is if they did not have their eyes solely set on Brad

BBM,

People have claimed to have seen Elvis working at Burger King and a doughnut shop. I have my doubts.