2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

[SleuthinNC]

They hide on you, you put them right where you are sure you will be able to find them, go to get them and they are gone. I find them i the oddest places. I think my pets play with them also when I am not looking.

Hair bands, shoes, I think your pets put on fashion shows when you aren't looking. :woohoo:

 

[SleuthinNC]

I thought he looked white as a ghost in court today.

He looked ghostly pale the day I was there too. But so did Boz.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

He looked ghostly pale the day I was there too. But so did Boz.

Both legal teams look like they haven't seen the light of day in months. Which they probably haven't. I can't imagine they've had much free time since before Christmas.

 

[Danielle59]

Yes, but my point is opinions formed with experience and/or research hold more value than anything else. So if neither if those things can back your opinion, then why comment? Can you respect an opinion different from your own that is based on experience and still come to the conclusion that BC is innocent? And if some posters can, then why do they find it necessary to continually comment on the abuse issue?

If this wasn't an abusive situation in any way, then why didn't the defense put on an expert in DV to testify that this was simply a murder and there were no signs of DV? Perhaps because they couldn't.

No, I don't agree with you, I think they have a tendency to hold more bias. That's ok, you can think your way, and I can think mine. I also think we all have a right to speak on DV whether we have experienced it or not. It's not an exclusive club. I am sorry anyone experienced DV, if they truly did, but I don't think people should go thorugh life being victims, it doesn't allow them to grow. I also think they need to be able to accept that not all will always agree with them so they can grow.

The Defense had no reason to bring on an expert in DV. That would make no sense.

 

[Danielle59]

Lying and/or changing stories leads an investigation astray. Sorry, I thought you were following the trial. BC did that. And if he didn't, then there wouldn't be a trial right now.

My point has been since this started, that some will call out any witness in any inconsistency and say, "LIAR!!!!"

And yet the biggest one is on trial.

Note, i have never said I didn't think JA had things she said that didn't line up or make sense. But I didn't feel threatened to admit that. In fact, looking at that helped me be even more sure that BC did it.
However, when have you ever admitted BC or the defense has said or done something that you questioned? When?

What did he lie about that lead the investigation astray? I really don't see where he did that. He has been bashed for not even talking to the police once they found her body so I really don't think he was leading them too much. He gave them access to his house the day she went missing, even let them take pictures. I need to hear specifics. If he feel asleep at 11, but was in bed at 9, and said he went to bed at 9 inferring sleep, I don't really take that as a lie. What were these big lies he told to lead it astray?

BBM, you are saying her lies convinced you he did it? Is that what you are saying?

 

[ncsu95]

I only know about his trips to HT after 6:00 am...first time he bought milk and the next time he bought tide and green juice. Never heard of the 2 am trip...anyone else??

They are referring to trips earlier in the year. 2 in particular were talked about by the PI. Both occurred between 1-2 am and included milk. Not talking about 7/12.

 

[Danielle59]

Hair bands, shoes, I think your pets put on fashion shows when you aren't looking. :woohoo:

They do, they are so hillarious. You have to look always in the toilet before you sit down, you never know what might be in there - one of them loves to carry things to it and drop things in it. They make me laugh all the time. This morning I got up and found a slipper in the middle of the livingroom. The other one is missing. They are cats, and cats are not supposed to act like that.

 

[bloghooligan]

They didn't even discuss the serial number of the router Brad had in January. I think the State was just trying to confuse things, they don't even know that he had an FXO capable router for certain, they just want people to think he did on that night.

GM testified that he purchased/recieved (2) 3825 routers in January 2008 both were logged in his inventory database by serial number. He found a chat from 1/22/08 between he and BC where BC tells him that he took one of the 3825s home and will return it when the 28xx router he ordered comes in. GM has the serial number for both of the routers he received and last Monday he went looking for them. He found one but not the other. So, it must be the one BC took home and BC never brought it back (so says the prosecution). The problem with this is GM didn't update his inventory to indicate which one BC took home or when he brought it back. AND, there has been testimony (by CISCO employees) about how equipment is free to be taken home by employees, not logged/inventoried, basically no controls.

I totally agree that the prosecution & PD can't place an FXO capable router at the Cooper house on 7/10, 7/11, 7/12. CF was supposed to testify about a log file that showed for certain an attempt to access that router from the Cooper network occurred on 7/11 at 10something. But... mysteriously, the prosecution decided not to present this critical evidence. THE ONLY EVIDENCE that proved that router was there? And some will say it was because CF couldn't testify on Monday. I say BS.... if that evidence was what they say it was CF would have been there or the prosecution would not have rested without him.

 

[otto]

I found the discussion of Defense Exhibit 170.

Harris Teeter purchases:

3/18/08, milk purchased at 1:29AM

4/27/08 Milk, bananas and green juice purchased 1:10AM

So that is what the jury was obviously verifying, the Cooper's used Tide and they also did middle of the night purchases of milk and green juice.

ETA: Listen beginning around 7:20.
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9516020/#/vid9516020

So they're verifying that it was normal for Brad to be shopping for food extras at odd hours even in March?

 

[Danielle59]

GM testified that he purchased/recieved (2) 3825 routers in January 2008 both were logged in his inventory database by serial number. He found a chat from 1/22/08 between he and BC where BC tells him that he took one of the 3825s home and will return it when the 28xx router he ordered comes in. GM has the serial number for both of the routers he received and last Monday he went looking for them. He found one but not the other. So, it must be the one BC took home and BC never brought it back (so says the prosecution). The problem with this is GM didn't update his inventory to indicate which one BC took home or when he brought it back. AND, there has been testimony (by CISCO employees) about how equipment is free to be taken home by employees, not logged/inventoried, basically no controls.

I totally agree that the prosecution & PD can't place an FXO capable router at the Cooper house on 7/10, 7/11, 7/12. CF was supposed to testify about a log file that showed for certain an attempt to access that router from the Cooper network occurred on 7/11 at 10something. But... mysteriously, the prosecution decided not to present this critical evidence. THE ONLY EVIDENCE that proved that router was there? And some will say it was because CF couldn't testify on Monday. I say BS.... if that evidence was what they say it was CF would have been there or the prosecution would not have rested without him.

I absolutely agree, especially that last sentence.

 

[otto]

Was that the only hair tie she owned?

She would have had loads of hair ties for her and her daughters.

 

[bloghooligan]

Inventory was done Sept 2008 per testimony.

If they did an inventory 9/2008 why did GM just find out last Monday that one of the routers was missing?

 

[unc70]

That is all assumption as there is no official notation anywhere as to which router Brad borrowed and if/when it was returned. GM has no clue where those routers have been in the past 3 years. He was trying to be Mr. Hero and do a CYA job, basically it was a flop.

I have felt strange vibes from the beginning about GM. I watched his first testimony on video stream, no idea where it was going, noted that the timing of when they were at lunch must be important, and that his having to call NC back and tell her (now everyone) that he had failed the exam. I attributed vibes to his having his exam results made public.

After rewatching this and his other testimony, I believe GM was irritated at BC, resented BC's achievements and upset by his recent lack thereof, and saw behavior by BC as deliberate slights to belittle GM. Remember how he described BC answering NC call and going outside. I think this was building over a long time, becoming intense after the murder.

Being the hero, tinged with a bit of payback.

IMO Another person wanting to help protect the prosecution's case, frustrated when challenged by defense.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I have felt strange vibes from the beginning about GM. I watched his first testimony on video stream, no idea where it was going, noted that the timing of when they were at lunch must be important, and that his having to call NC back and tell her (now everyone) that he had failed the exam. I attributed vibes to his having his exam results made public.

After rewatching this and his other testimony, I believe GM was irritated at BC, resented BC's achievements and upset by his recent lack thereof, and saw behavior by BC as deliberate slights to belittle GM. Remember how he described BC answering NC call and going outside. I think this was building over a long time, becoming intense after the murder.

Being the hero, tinged with a bit of payback.

IMO Another person wanting to help protect the prosecution's case, frustrated when challenged by defense.

I agree.

 

[Danielle59]

If they did an inventory 9/2008 why did GM just find out last Monday that one of the routers was missing?

I was wondering that same thing.

 

[otto]

I believe they had enough equity in the house to sell it and pay off all of the debts.

I agree. I realized that too late.

 

[otto]

He looked ghostly pale the day I was there too. But so did Boz.

I can understand that Brad isn't getting enough sun, but he looked like he hasn't been outdoors in months. I hope his mom is bringing him some vit D.

 

[otto]

No, I don't agree with you, I think they have a tendency to hold more bias. That's ok, you can think your way, and I can think mine. I also think we all have a right to speak on DV whether we have experienced it or not. It's not an exclusive club. I am sorry anyone experienced DV, if they truly did, but I don't think people should go thorugh life being victims, it doesn't allow them to grow. I also think they need to be able to accept that not all will always agree with them so they can grow.

The Defense had no reason to bring on an expert in DV. That would make no sense.

Comments about Nancy being in a "controlling" marriage don't hold water for me. Anyone that has been in a controlling relationship knows that they cannot spend freely, they cannot come and go as they please, they are slowly and gradually isolated from family and then friends, they become a shell of their former selves and they are eventually completely unsure of everything they think and do. In my opinion, that was not Nancy. Nancy was put on a budget and prevented from taking the children and leaving the country. There are laws preventing one parent from taking the children and leaving the country because it's not okay. Having a strict budget is normal in families that have healthy finances.

I think the biggest clue that Nancy was not in a controlling relationship is that she was free to talk about her marital frustrations. Women in controlling relationships typically put up a good front in public (someone mentioned the word "ashamed") because they are being controlled. They are not out sociallizing because their husbands want to know exactly what they're doing all the time. Their husbands are insecure, territorial and jealous but act aloof.

Verbally abusive relationships involve a stream of put-downs to the point where a woman's self-esteem is destroyed. Again, I don't see this in Nancy. She was buying interview suits, in contact with a former boyfriend, arranging interviews, going on vacations and enjoying herself. She did not seem to be suffering self-esteem problems.

 

[unc70]

Did you note on the screen the actual chat log and what was actually said in that chat? That's what I focused on.

It seems to me GM misrepresented and deflected in most of his explanations of what the chat meant. It is more obvious reading it.

 

[RR0004]

No, I don't agree with you, I think they have a tendency to hold more bias. That's ok, you can think your way, and I can think mine. I also think we all have a right to speak on DV whether we have experienced it or not. It's not an exclusive club. I am sorry anyone experienced DV, if they truly did, but I don't think people should go thorugh life being victims, it doesn't allow them to grow. I also think they need to be able to accept that not all will always agree with them so they can grow.

The Defense had no reason to bring on an expert in DV. That would make no sense.

I can't see the defense doing that either...but just as an fyi...DV is a club that no one wants to belong to...but the ability to speak about it most certainly shows positive growth. Those that have suffered from it whether it's physical or emotional abuse are often unable to bring themselves to talk about it...so bravo to those that can come and give their 2 cents!! I appreciate those that bring any knowledge to understanding a case...everyone comes from a place of experince. Look at all the marvelous techies here...I've learned so much.