2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

[Cheyenne130]

Apologies, but I'm not following the importance of this whole debate. If the Windows event log of his laptop showed a duplicate address error and the MAC address reported was that of some/any 3825, that means that he had that 3825 in his house at the time of the event (assuming that the laptop was in the house).

So why does it really matter who ordered it or who borrowed it from whom? If the event occurred, it means that he had the router collocated with his laptop at the time of the event. Based on my understanding, the router was not there on 7/16 when photos were taken. So, again, if the error was in the event log and if it was the address of a 3825, then he for some reason felt the need to do something with the router either while his wife was missing or in the aftermath of her body being found. Curious sense of priorities.

But in any event, I don't see how/why it matters where the router is now.

You are correct. Whatever GM had at his house doesn't make any difference. The only thing that matters is that there is evidence that Brad had the 3825 router. There is no evidence it was returned and now it's missing. The evidence of the event log didn't make it in front of the jury so it's not being considered in terms of guilt/innocence in a court of law.

 

[sunshine05]

Not sure about the purchase of milk twice?? Speculation they wanted to check if Green Juice is often purchased. I also wondered if they could determine if some laundry detergent had been recently purchased.

First, as I said they were defense records. Second, why would it matter if they bought a lot of green juice or not? It means nothing. Both BC and the child drank it, so what?

At the time DE4 was discussed it was with JA on the stand and they were discussing Tide. They don't typically staple defense records with state records, do they? I don't think the HT records were requested since they specifically asked for DE4.

ETA: And now I know the DE170 was the trips in the middle of the night for milk and green juice. Thank you, WolfpackWoman!

 

[dramamama]

I edited my post as soon as I re-read what you wrote to correct that, go back and look.

Yes, sorry. Thank you. I think I was typing while you were sending...:waitasec:

 

[WolfpackWoman]

First, as I said they were defense records. Second, why would it matter if they bought a lot of green juice or not? It means nothing. Both BC and the child drank it, so what?

At the time DE4 was discussed it was with JA on the stand and they were discussing Tide. They don't typically staple defense records with state records, do they? I don't think the HT records were requested since they specifically asked for DE4.

Defense HT records were requested--I think #170. They came out through the last witness. Those were the ones he highlighted with the middle of the night purchases.

 

[Lori59]

Was she really? Because when you take a step back and really look at the situation it seems a lot more like she was just outside the circle (remember hearing that phrase?) trying to break her way in.

Yes, I think she really was a dear friend.

 

[NCEast]

I agree, you can see where BC has been repeatedly picking at his face. And those dark circles/bags under his eyes don't help either.

I noticed his face breaking out right before my eyes a few weeks ago. Each time the camera panned to him, he had a new zit. He really looks awful and I can't imagine how horrible being in a jail cell is. And that's why I want to make darn sure he deserves to be in one for the rest of his life. A lot of this case makes little sense but when the facts are laid out, I just can't see it being anybody else but him.

 

[sunshine05]

The milk in the middle of the night came out through the PI McGough's testimony. Once was just milk, the other was milk and green juice at like 2am.

I think they probably do want to take a peak back at the green juice. And I think it was brought out in trial that the last laundry detergent purchase was ~7 weeks prior--but that is a good point that they would want to verify that.

Thank you! I couldn't find that.

 

[3doglady]

Apologies, but I'm not following the importance of this whole debate. If the Windows event log of his laptop showed a duplicate address error and the MAC address reported was that of some/any 3825, that means that he had that 3825 in his house at the time of the event (assuming that the laptop was in the house).

So why does it really matter who ordered it or who borrowed it from whom? If the event occurred, it means that he had the router collocated with his laptop at the time of the event. Based on my understanding, the router was not there on 7/16 when photos were taken. So, again, if the error was in the event log and if it was the address of a 3825, then he for some reason felt the need to do something with the router either while his wife was missing or in the aftermath of her body being found. Curious sense of priorities.

But in any event, I don't see how/why it matters where the router is now.

Thank you, Thank you. I don't understand what the confusion is. Some posters keep pointing to the printout Kurtz questioned GM about that had a serial # of a different router as proof Brad didn't have the router. The router with the serial # on the printout is at Cisco. No one ever said that printout even belonged to Cisco. How does that prove anything?

 

[less0305]

There always comes a point every evening when it's just time to go to bed - I have hit that time. Good night - you kids can stay up and fight all night, just don't be too loud, I need my beauty sleep!

 

[Danielle59]

And it must be difficult for JA as well, because even though none of us know her personally, many have decided she is a deceitful liar, some possibly think murder, and she has to get on camera and describe what she did. And if she really just wanted to help her friend, and her actions have created an opposite perspective to some, than she must feel devastated and embarassed and under a lot of stress and scrutiny as well. Regardless of the painting plans, we do not know for sure JA saw NC on that Saturday morning, but we know BC did. And that is a fact, not an opinion.

I think this post says a lot about how she is looking now:

She knew EVERYTHING about that family, except that she didn't. I think she wanted to, but she didn't. In fact the majority of what she said she KNEW about the Coopers was incorrect.

She knew anytime NC had plans to run with CC. Wrong.

She knew NC only used ALL detergent. Wrong.

She knew there were sticks and ducks in the foyer. Wrong.

She knew Brad went to Europe and never called home. Wrong.

She knew NC never took her necklace off. Wrong.

She knew NC never stood anybody up. Wrong.

She knew BC never attended the childrens birthday parties. Wrong.

She knew NC never ran alone. Wrong.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

People get caught up on BC not saying "I didn't kill my wife" or that he told lies. Well one thing BC said was JA and HP lied and THAT was the truth.

 

[jrb0124]

if she really just wanted to help her friend, and her actions have created an opposite perspective to some, than she must feel devastated and embarassed and under a lot of stress and scrutiny as well.

She 'held court' in the Cooper yard, fingered BC without any info aside from the fact that NC was a no show for a sketchy paint job appointment.

She inserted herself right smack into the middle of the investigation.

She wanted certain witnesses to talk to her, not the police..she'd handle that detail if necessary.

She became angry and ceased contact with those who wouldn't provide negative info on BC to the police.

Influencing a police investigation to the point where its directed by gossip is not helping your friend.

 

[jilly]

I'm finally getting to the last part of the prosecution's closing.

For those of you who haven't, I think, at this stage, it is well worth repeating the the jury apparently (according to pros) took copious notes and that between them all have 50-100 notebooks!

 

[gbay]

The milk in the middle of the night came out through the PI McGough's testimony. Once was just milk, the other was milk and green juice at like 2am.

I think they probably do want to take a peak back at the green juice. And I think it was brought out in trial that the last laundry detergent purchase was ~7 weeks prior--but that is a good point that they would want to verify that.

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??

 

[Cheyenne130]

Defense HT records were requested--I think #170. They came out through the last witness. Those were the ones he highlighted with the middle of the night purchases.

As others have stated, that might be middle of the night for some. For Brad, it sounded like a stop off on the way home after working and then going to the gym. How many purchases do you think they will find between 6 a.m. and 7 a.m. on any given Saturday?

 

[SleuthSayer]

Thank you, Thank you. I don't understand what the confusion is. Some posters keep pointing to the printout Kurtz questioned GM about that had a serial # of a different router as proof Brad didn't have the router. The router with the serial # on the printout is at Cisco. No one ever said that printout even belonged to Cisco. How does that prove anything?

Yeah, it's really the same thing that the lawyers [both sides] do. When stubborn facts start getting in the way, they try to create a whole bunch of confusion over something that really is irrelevant hoping that folks forget the original point in the chaos.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

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??

It was months before. Not the night of the 12th. Sorry if there was confusion. This was to show a pattern of late night/early morning trips.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Thank you, Thank you. I don't understand what the confusion is. Some posters keep pointing to the printout Kurtz questioned GM about that had a serial # of a different router as proof Brad didn't have the router. The router with the serial # on the printout is at Cisco. No one ever said that printout even belonged to Cisco. How does that prove anything?

Did you miss the part where Boz handed him the stack of documents the prosecution provided and said it also includes the document the defense provided you? yes we know the document Kurtz had came from Cisco. We also know GM had no idea what any of the shipping and purchasing documents looked like, he didn't recognize any of them nor any of the dates that Boz presented to him in rapid fire. It was another prosecution witness fiasco where in the end it looked like a jumbled waste of time.

 

[sunshine05]

I never said i gave her the benefit of the doubt. I said she was under scrutiny for inconsistincies, like BC is and she must be under stress as well. But there is one thing we do know: she was trying to help find NC while someone else was trying to protect themselves. If JA was trying to protect herself, because she did something suspect, then she would have done as BC did and not call the police, not stand in NC's driveway, not search for her friend, or not make a lot of generalizations from emotion, understanding they would be used against her.

She believed what she believed. And whether or not you agree with her, you have to hold her to the same standard as BC.

I respectfully disagree. We talked about this last night, or the night before? But she called police to take the suspicion away from herself. It is chilling to me that she knew something had happened to NC at the time of the police call. I'm sorry. I can't get past it. There was no history of abuse in that marriage. She had no reason to think he did something to her before other possibilities, imo.

 

[dramamama]

How did he obstruct justice? I think he is innocent, I don't think he killed her. We know JA lead the police astray in the investigation.

You said JA lied, and therefore, that could be construed as obstruction of justice. Then, by the same logic, BC lied, and that can also be construed as obstruction of justice.

So now, they are equal, because they both lied.

So how do we determine who is more likely responsible? Probably the person who last saw her alive, and also lived with her and was the co-parent of her children.

If BC had said, she went to go paint, and JA said, she never made it here, then that would be an entirely different story.

But who called LE?

If BC suspected JA, he would have called LE first, especially after hearing she was supposed to be at her house. If he was innocent, he could think: she told me she was running when she really went to go paint and hide money from me! And then she never comes home! What did JA do?

But instead, he takes off in his car, and ignores the calls from LE.

And if JA's lies weigh heavier than BC's, then I would like to hear how you formulate that opinion.

 

[Tink56]

Apologies, but I'm not following the importance of this whole debate. If the Windows event log of his laptop showed a duplicate address error and the MAC address reported was that of some/any 3825, that means that he had that 3825 in his house at the time of the event (assuming that the laptop was in the house).

So why does it really matter who ordered it or who borrowed it from whom? If the event occurred, it means that he had the router collocated with his laptop at the time of the event. Based on my understanding, the router was not there on 7/16 when photos were taken. So, again, if the error was in the event log and if it was the address of a 3825, then he for some reason felt the need to do something with the router either while his wife was missing or in the aftermath of her body being found. Curious sense of priorities.

But in any event, I don't see how/why it matters where the router is now.

Thank you for making this basic for the likes of me. The router speaks volumes about the entire case. Brad, IMO, premeditated NC's death. If you watch his face at certain times, the arrogance and the hatred for NC, when her name is mentioned, is apparent. It is not his facial expression, but his eyes. Frankly, he is creepy, especially when he's trying to keep his face neutral.

There is evidence of faking the call, the means and the opportunity to take her life. It is my belief that he is GUILTY in the FIRST DEGREE,