State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[cityslick]

I don't know what the drop-cloth was for, but I don't think Brad stopped to pick it up for Nancy's painting on Saturday. If Brad was all up on the painting day Saturday, why would he have made tennis plans for Sat. morn then? I don't see Brad as being that thoughtful either. After all, he never did run by the ATM to pick up her allowance. I don't know the significance of that drop cloth, but I don't think it was for Jessica Adam's dining room. Just don't buy that one. :waitasec:

Perhaps he was buying it for his own house? (weren't they painting one of the closets in the MB?)

Because it was never opened, we'll probably never know what the true intention of it. You could do the reasons any number of ways.

 

[filesman]

I disagree. He went directly to his supervisor/manager to report what had happened. I know in the times I have ever just fubarred a big one -- that's exactly what I did, and then my boss would decide what to do next. It's what you do. JMHO

It happened -- he owned up to it -- let's move on...

really, that is not what I heard he did not go immediately. he stated he did some other work and at the end of the day on his way out of the office, he stopped by and told supervisor then,,

 

[water_dancing]

But wouldn't it be nice if we knew instead of guessing? The police could have contacted FB for the records but didn't think it was important.

Just like it would be nice to know what was on the phone.

Absolutely. I was sharing my experience with FB and the BB. I think the FB records should definitely have been investigated. The loss of the data on NC phone is definitely annoying. I'm not impressed with the investigation so far.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Perhaps he was buying it for his own house? (weren't they painting one of the closets in the MB?)

Because it was never opened, we'll probably never know what the true intention of it. You could do the reasons any number of ways.

I agree as we will never know..but it has become quite evident that Brad was NOT the usual shopper..No one who shops makes 3 different trips to make three different purchases within 24 hours...I just cant see Brad being the domesticated, brow beaten person he tried to portray in his depo...He was the breadwinner of the family, and he took that role very seriously..held all the strings to money's..I venture to say he KNEW about ALL expenditures..as he seemed to keep (tho thrown on car floors, or left randomly somewhere) all receipts and lists and letters and mail and notes dating back years.. Dont get any sense of him doing anything to really help out the women who was trying to divorce him and seeking custody of his kids.....Sorry folks, Brad simply does not involk any warm and fuzzies for me :truce:

 

[NCEast]

really, that is not what I heard he did not go immediately. he stated he did some other work and at the end of the day on his way out of the office, he stopped by and told supervisor then,,

I may be totally wrong here because my reception has been off more than on today but I think I recall his saying after he wiped the phone and realized what he did, he turned if off and then handed it to Det. Daniels. That's when Kurtz asked him why he didn't pull the battery out to stop it more quickly.

 

[Tipstaff]

Hmmm -- This has been nagging at me from the get-go -- he had no reason to go home -- I think he dumped the body before the first HT trip, then dumped trash (shoes; sheet for the body, maybe; hard-drive??; towels used in whatever clean-up there was (I still wonder about bladder/bowel release -- else why would he wash the floors, if he did wash 'em), and then made the 2nd trip for detergent to wash whatever he thought needed it. Pretty tidy.

Would love to know and ask again....is there any witness that Brad did return home between trips. Many question his coming and going in the middle of the night because he might be noticed....but are there any neighbors or witnesses or DID see him come and go from their home in regard to HT trips?

 

[NCEast]

Would love to know and ask again....is there any witness that Brad did return home between trips. Many question his coming and going in the middle of the night because he might be noticed....but are there any neighbors or witnesses or DID see him come and go from their home in regard to HT trips?

No. No testimony to that as of yet.

 

[TigerBalm]

When did Nancy become aware that Brad was reading her email?

She never did!



Respectfully quoting ADA Fitzhugh 26:07
"And then you will also hear that computers were seized
And sent to the FBI for forensic examination.
Specifically, the defendants laptop.
You will hear that it was examined
And among other things that you will learn
Is something that Nancy never knew.

Nancy never knew that from April of 2008
Until she was murdered
The defendant was secretly interrupting all of her emails.
All of them.
From April until she was murdered.
All the emails from her friends.
All the emails from her lawyer.
And that separation agreement I told you about.
All of them.
From April of 2008 until she was murdered."

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9245834/#/vid9245834

 

[cityslick]

I agree as we will never know..but it has become quite evident that Brad was NOT the usual shopper..No one who shops makes 3 different trips to make three different purchases within 24 hours...I just cant see Brad being the domesticated, brow beaten person he tried to portray in his depo...He was the breadwinner of the family, and he took that role very seriously..held all the strings to money's..I venture to say he KNEW about ALL expenditures..as he seemed to keep (tho thrown on car floors, or left randomly somewhere) all receipts and lists and letters and mail and notes dating back years.. Dont get any sense of him doing anything to really help out the women who was trying to divorce him and seeking custody of his kids.....Sorry folks, Brad simply does not involk any warm and fuzzies for me :truce:

While you may be right, I don't see how you can come up with conclusions as to what their buying habits were, who bought this and that, how often they went to the store, how often did he buy home improvement stuff, etc. It's not like LE investigated a comprehensive history of every single purchase they made that year and even then probably wouldn't reveal much of anything. We haven't even heard the defense present their case and I got to believe there are going to be a few people of that 118 on the defense witness list that will testify on BC's character.

 

[lib's mom]

She never did!



Respectfully quoting ADA Fitzhugh 26:07


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9245834/#/vid9245834

Exactly. Thank you very much.

 

[cityslick]

She never did!



Respectfully quoting ADA Fitzhugh 26:07


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9245834/#/vid9245834

Wait a second, I thought opening statements wasn't testimony.

 

[lib's mom]

Wait a second, I thought opening statements wasn't testimony.

You're correct, they're not testimony. But I do think we'll see this evidence presented.

Brad was awake on July 11, 2008 around 10:30 p.m. accessing Nancy's email. A time, he said, in his depostion he was sleeping. Kurtz knows it, too.

 

[gracielee]

Perhaps he was buying it for his own house? (weren't they painting one of the closets in the MB?)

Because it was never opened, we'll probably never know what the true intention of it. You could do the reasons any number of ways.

That's true, we won't ever know, because we can't believe anything Brad might say about it, unfortunately. I do most of the painting around here. My husband has always hated painting. If I don't use a drop cloth in rooms, JMO, but I wouldn't use one in a closet. It's too confined a space. I hate drop cloths period. I can't recall, wasn't most of the cooper house hardwoods anyway?

 

[TigerBalm]

Wait a second, I thought opening statements wasn't testimony.

True, what the attorneys say is not testimony.
You also have to remember that the state has the burden of proof.
Therefore, I do believe I will hear the testimony of an FBI forensic examiner testifying to this matter.


Now before you ask about the defense ...
The defense can say anything they want in opening, their only job is to cause doubt... so I doubt anything they say.

 

[filesman]

I may be totally wrong here because my reception has been off more than on today but I think I recall his saying after he wiped the phone and realized what he did, he turned if off and then handed it to Det. Daniels. That's when Kurtz asked him why he didn't pull the battery out to stop it more quickly.

will listen again, but I swore I heard him state "that on his way out of the office he stopped by Det. Daniels office and informed him of the inability to retrieve data from the phone"

I will relisten, I almost dropped my drink when he said that, because my first thought was that he should have immediately let someone know.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Wait a second, I thought opening statements wasn't testimony.

True true true..However in their short openings they outlined the basics only, and they will have to makesure that statement is actually testified to under oath infront of the jury with their Computer forensic Expert...IF they dont..well Okay then///Dont make promises ya cant keep ( either side)...So I am looking foreward to this puter specialist...I like many wish to hear the meat of the case..tho get enondated with menusia ..:crazy:

 

[SleuthSayer]

I'd buy the argument that he doesn't know what a sim card was if he didn't follow that up with saying his current (personal) phone was a Blackberry that he's had for 18 months - 2 yrs.

These are actually two unrelated issues. If you are suggesting that because he has a Blackberry, he has a SIM card so he should know what one is, that's not necessarily true.

Whether or not you have a SIM card is not a property of the device manufacturer (Blackberry, Apple, Motorola, Nokia, etc). It is a property of the wireless carrier, specifically of the underlying cellular technology used by that carrier.

AT&T's cellular technology is called GSM and GSM phones have SIM cards. Verizon's cellular technology is called CDMA and CDMA phones do not have SIM cards (at least not in the U.S.).

So, if he got his BB from AT&T it does have a SIM card. If he got his BB from Verizon, it does not have a SIM card.

As far as what a SIM card is, it provides a GSM phone with all the information it needs to make and receive calls and/or send and receive data. E.g. the identification number for the phone so that the cell network knows who/where you phone is, the phone number, etc. A GSM phone will not work without a SIM card. It typically does not have personal information on it (address book, e-mails, photos, etc). It's just the technical stuff that the phone needs to work on the cellular network. The SIM card is a tiny little rectangular card with a little notch on one corner. It is often underneath the battery in a phone.

If you and your spouse both have GSM phones and for whatever reason you want to swap phones but don't want to have to tell all your friends that your phone number changed, you and the spouse can swap phones and as long as you put the SIM card from your phone in the spouse's phone and vice-versa, you can make and receive calls with the same number as before. But, if you have a lot of "stuff" on the phone (e-mails, photos, address book, etc) it is going to stay with your original phone unless it is on removable storage.

Now, if you are thinking that your phone has a little tiny card that you put in a slot on the side, that is not a SIM card. That is a Micro SD card. That is used to store personal stuff on (e-mails, photos, etc). It is unrelated to the operation of the phone and the phone will work fine without it, you may just not have any space to store anything.

So, you can debate whether the detective should have known what a SIM card is because he is a detective, but the fact that he has a BB does not tell you anything about his SIM card knowledge.

 

[NCEast]

You're correct, they're not testimony. But I do think we'll see this evidence presented.

Brad was awake on July 11, 2008 around 10:30 p.m. accessing Nancy's email. A time, he said, in his depostion he was sleeping. Kurtz knows it, too.

Thank you all so much for keeping these things straight for me!

 

[NCEast]

will listen again, but I swore I heard him state "that on his way out of the office he stopped by Det. Daniels office and informed him of the inability to retrieve data from the phone"

I will relisten, I almost dropped my drink when he said that, because my first thought was that he should have immediately let someone know.

You may very well be right about this. My internet was coming on and going off every 5 minutes all day so I missed major plugs of testimony.

 

[CuriousDad]

I agree as we will never know..but it has become quite evident that Brad was NOT the usual shopper..No one who shops makes 3 different trips to make three different purchases within 24 hours...I just cant see Brad being the domesticated, brow beaten person he tried to portray in his depo...He was the breadwinner of the family, and he took that role very seriously..held all the strings to money's..I venture to say he KNEW about ALL expenditures..as he seemed to keep (tho thrown on car floors, or left randomly somewhere) all receipts and lists and letters and mail and notes dating back years.. Dont get any sense of him doing anything to really help out the women who was trying to divorce him and seeking custody of his kids.....Sorry folks, Brad simply does not involk any warm and fuzzies for me :truce:

Anyone who can make it in and out of that HT with the item they came for in 3 mins has definately done some shopping there.