State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[CuriousDad]

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.

Didn't he say he fell asleep with the girls around 9 pm? That doesn't mean he said he was asleep at 10:30 pm.

 

[Tipstaff]

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.

Perhaps Brad did a practice run!

 

[CuriousDad]

Perhaps Brad did a practice run!

Could be, but then that, and the ATM no go, kinda blows a hole in the got furious at the email at 10:30pm and decided to off her then theory we are being fed.

 

[LyndyLoo]

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.

:floorlaugh:Well he was in a hurry..going from his quik wanders noted on video..no doubt asked where THE item he wanted was....That sure doesnt indicate he was a seasoned shopper for the families needs tho :floorlaugh:

Course me being an old list maker, and try to conserve gas, and time in doing the essentials of life..His behavior doesnt indicate he was an experienced shopper ..It was just my take on it as an old experienced shopper for a household..and yes I tend to conserve energy>> physically, financially and timewise..Dont wish to waste none of these :floorlaugh:

 

[LyndyLoo]

Didn't he say he fell asleep with the girls around 9 pm? That doesn't mean he said he was asleep at 10:30 pm.

Of course that doesnt mean that..however he didnt say he was awake then either, nor even said he woke up when Nancy came home, nor alot of things...Errors by ommission when being asked about what he knew about his missing wife..which might have been helpful to things..:maddening:

 

[CuriousDad]

Of course that doesnt mean that..however he didnt say he was awake then either, nor even said he woke up when Nancy came home, nor alot of things...Errors by ommission when being asked about what he knew about his missing wife..which might have been helpful to things..:maddening:

Knowing you are the focus of the investigation, the ONLY focus, and just saying if he's innocent, you'd be pretty ticked about having to go through with all this BS, and may omit things because you've felt you've offered your story already 50 other times, or its none of their business if I woke up or not, or went to Lowe's on the way to work, or where I was; or you just forgot the details, kinda like the detective did during the cross. Or shall we say the detective was less than forthwright with some of his answers, kinda like you are accusing Brad of? Which is the greater sin? Get your stones ready, decide who to throw them at.

 

[gbay]

About the dropcloth...I am thinking he may have bought it for Nancy to use to paint on Saturday morning. After all they may not have been in hate mode Friday morning. However to make his story work, he could not admit he knew she was going to paint on Saturday as it meant she would never have gone running. What a tangled web he weaves!!

 

[Cheyenne130]

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:

Mike Hiller approached Brad at the party and asked about playing tennis. Nancy was there when this conversation took place. According to Brad they made a date but didn't finalize a time. Mike Hiller stated in the affidavit that he asked Nancy since Brad had been late the last time because Nancy didn't come home in time. If that was the case, why didn't the three of them discuss it while all three were at the party? I believe it's because Brad told Mike that he didn't think he would be able to because Nancy had plans. So Mike approached Nancy after Brad left in order to force the issue. Nancy just called Brad and handed the phone to Mike without saying anything. Based on everything in all the affidavits and testimony, that makes the most sense to me.

 

[CrimeAddict]

I want to watch re-direct again, they have not released it yet, I wonder what is taking so long, does someone have a life at wral or something. .no time for dinner, time to post the trial!!

 

[lib's mom]

Didn't he say he fell asleep with the girls around 9 pm? That doesn't mean he said he was asleep at 10:30 pm.

Brad testified under oath, in his deposition for custody of his children, that he fell asleep around 9:00 p.m., woke up around 12:30 a.m., when he heard Nancy come home and fell back asleep until Katie woke him up around 4:00 a.m. He testified that he never got out of bed for anything until he got up with Katie. And that is a lie.

 

[Maja]

One (very plausible) theory is that Nancy had a diet coke before she went to sleep. She may have gotten sick before and then had a diet coke afterwards. This of course goes with the theory that she was not murdered immediately upon arriving home, but was murdered after she fell asleep. Remember, she had quite a lot to drink that night. She would have fallen asleep easily and quickly.

You might be on to something. There was a question regarding the diet coke yesterday by Kurtz to Det JY. Kurtz inquired about the diet coke being consumed by someone in a photo during the time the Cooper home was considered a crime scene. Maybe the consumer got it from the fridge...

 

[jumpstreet]

Nothing specifically analogous to this trial. Just recent coverage of North Carolina's SBI lab errors and Greg Taylor's exoneration. I haven't followed that as closely, so maybe I am jumping to unwarranted conclusions. No, no negative experiences - just a casual observer. And as I said in my post, I hope he is guilty and that solid evidence is yet to be presented.

RTPEngineer brings up an interesting general point. It certainly seems there is a perception (and recent media searches support the perception) that in the North Carolina area there's definitely been a lot of recent focus related to the Taylor exoneration, as well as SBI and forensic bumblings that have come into serious question.

While no doubt the jury is supposed to consider only the evidence presented (no more and no less), and no one in this particular case has been involved in these other inquiries ... I still can't help but wonder if the timing here doesn't help support the strategy of the defense (ie call into general question the steps taken by LE/others during the investigation).

Almost certainly, everyone on the local jury (and it only takes one) is at least generally aware that that the local justice "system" has been brought under serious question as of late.

If the prosecution has a slam-dunk in waiting, then it's a non-issue. If the case becomes more of a 'pick-em', then this general 'perception' (the local 'system' has been demonstrated to be seriously tainted) could very well be among the key 'under the hood' factors.

Couple this with the average person's basic desire not to wrongly convict an innocent person.. and.... just sayin'..., I think the prosecution is especially gonna need a seriously non-refutable slam-dunk...

 

[LyndyLoo]

Knowing you are the focus of the investigation, the ONLY focus, and just saying if he's innocent, you'd be pretty ticked about having to go through with all this BS, and may omit things because you've felt you've offered your story already 50 other times, or its none of their business if I woke up or not, or went to Lowe's on the way to work, or where I was; or you just forgot the details, kinda like the detective did during the cross. Or shall we say the detective was less than forthwright with some of his answers, kinda like you are accusing Brad of? Which is the greater sin? Get your stones ready, decide who to throw them at.

ETA~~ Why would Brad believe he was a focus of anything that afternoon of the 12th..when he was first interviewed??

So, guess I am just being common sensical ..those that have nothing to hide often give too much info..and yes could be abit mixed up due to stress..but it was what he actually didnt say or admit to....his whys and wherefores... were just noted down ..and searches went on..

It wasnt until time went on that family discourse was shown ( allegations yes by friends) and proveable..and from there alibi's and activities> didnt add up ..and other than his words..not much of what he said was shown to be truthful....Evasive is the only way I can describe him..IT was his WIFE and MOTHER of his children that was missing.not some item missing from his house or office..

Just sayin :rocker:

 

[CuriousDad]

Brad testified under oath, in his deposition for custody of his children, that he fell asleep around 9:00 p.m., woke up around 12:30 a.m., when he heard Nancy come home and fell back asleep until Katie woke him up around 4:00 a.m. He testified that he never got out of bed for anything until he got up with Katie. And that is a lie.

Okay -- but it isn't a lie, yet. Haven't heard any email evidence. I still doubt, with all the time he had until the computers were seized, that he didn't cover his tracks.

 

[gbay]

Okay -- but it isn't a lie, yet. Haven't heard any email evidence. I still doubt, with all the time he had until the computers were seized, that he didn't cover his tracks.

I believe there is also a phone call that was referred to earlier that took place at 11:32p.m. that we should hear more about.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Okay -- but it isn't a lie, yet. Haven't heard any email evidence. I still doubt, with all the time he had until the computers were seized, that he didn't cover his tracks.

I don't think it would have been possible for him to cover his tracks short of wiping the entire hard drive which would have been evidence in itself. I'm one of those that doesn't think he planned this. It happened and he had to do his best after the fact to get away with it. So far it seems to be working. Once the FBI is done, we can revisit that thought.

 

[FullDisclosure]

I believe there is also a phone call that was referred to earlier that took place at 11:32p.m. that we should hear more about.

That call was made from Brad's cell. I'm the one who mentioned it, and I'm really curious about it, because:

a) it was not too long before Nancy came home from the party, and
b) the way it was discussed/handled in the questioning by Zellinger

It may turn out to be totally insignificant, but I'm curious.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I believe there is also a phone call that was referred to earlier that took place at 11:32p.m. that we should hear more about.

Yes indeed..and we have not heard this evidence yet!! (Cant wait!!)..and I am sure Brad thought he had covered his tracks..but got sideswiped when JA called the police..and he got interrupted from his busy day ( and night previous)..JMO

I admit it..Brad looks so guilty to me...so I am seeing things from that perspective..so please dont shoot me:truce:

 

[CuriousDad]

So, guess I am just being common sensical ..those that have nothing to hide often give too much info..and yes could be abit mixed up due to stress..but it was what he actually didnt say or admit to....his whys and wherefores... were just noted down ..and searches went on..

It wasnt until time went on that family discourse was shown ( allegations yes by friends) and proveable..and from there alibi's and activities> didnt add up ..and other than his words..not much of what he said was shown to be truthful....Evasive is the only way I can describe him..IT was his WIFE and MOTHER of his children that was missing.not some item missing from his house or office..

Just sayin :rocker:

Understood, but common sense to me means don't tell them more than I think they need to know, cause the LE, especially in NC, cannot be fully trusted. Remember, he was under survellience starting Sat. night. If I'm an innocent man, that right there would get under my skin to no end! I also think that some of this he said this or that is getting mixed up chronologically, whether it was initially at the house, or in his depositions, and that makes a huge difference in his mental state, confusion, frustration, rapid recall, etc.

 

[Cheyenne130]

That call was made from Nancy's cell. I'm the one who mentioned it, and I'm really curious about it, because:

a) it was not too long before she came home from the party, and
b) the way it was discussed/handled in the questioning by Zellinger

It may turn out to be totally insignificant, but I'm curious.

When was the call to/from Nancy's cell between her and JA while Nancy was at the party? (This is a question for anybody because I can't remember.)