State v Bradley Cooper 03-30-2011

[luckyme]

Here comes the caffeine part.

 

[gracielee]

and/or two missing left shoes.

I must have missed the testimony where the Coopers have a big ole' hound dog that chews up shoes......? :waitasec:

 

[lunarmodule]

IIRC, he originally hired them, then had no money to pay them and since they were already on the case they were allowed to stay on. (Or am I thinking of a different case?)

That's how I remember it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

According to interview with CC, NC liked coffee in the morning, she liked to drink coffee before a run.

 

[cityslick]

Of course Brad would be a subject of interest since he was the last person to see her alive, and the person who couldnt be ruled out as the investigation continued...LE with each turn just couldnt rule him out?

Just as an aside..ALL suspects who give alibi's have to have that alibi clearified..just words by whomever the suspect is is NOT enough to clear them..In domestic murder cases, the significant other is always the first subject to be looked at..As Investigations continued..Motives came up, suspicions by Nancy's friends, and unusual behaviors prior to Nancy going missing..just fueled the fire against Brad.

the old " Walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck" seems to fit..tho it must be the jury who decides..:twocents:

You're right, I think the defense started on this road of 'never considered anyone else' when the chief of police went in front of the media 1-2 days after she was found and said it wasn't a random crime when the investigation just started.

 

[luckyme]

I wonder if they checked coffee pot that day?

 

[johnfear]

I would expect them to make that claim. IMO, it's all they've GOT to claim. All this tedious testimony is backing up the FACT they pursued ALL theories. Defense is NOT proving their claim.

Wow! We are watching two different trials eh? Because the search warrants all basically start on the 15th and every single one has to do with Brad Cooper and Brad Cooper only and I would lay a large amount of dough on their being very little other investigation into anything but Brad. Again, I'm not convinced this is the wrong approach, but it is clearly the approach they took.

 

[ncsu95]

IIRC, he originally hired them, then had no money to pay them and since they were already on the case they were allowed to stay on. (Or am I thinking of a different case?)

That is correct.

 

[gracielee]

I've always thought Brad's choice of counsel matched his own arrogance. If you're charged with first degree murder, you get the best you can get. Someone like Joe Cheshire or Wade Smith. Smith was out since Alice Stubbs is in the same practice. Kurtz & Blum categorize themselves as drug defense attorneys first, before traffic violations, DUI, shoplifting, etc. Oh, then they say "serious felonies, including homicide." I would conclude that Brad thinks he is smarter than law enforcement and prosecution, and probably likes the belligerent approach that K&B has taken from the beginning of the case. Different strokes, I guess, but I would prefer a whole bunch of experience on my side if I was facing life in prison.

I didn't know Alice Stubbs was in with Wade Smith, thanks for the info.

 

[Maja]

I've always thought Brad's choice of counsel matched his own arrogance. If you're charged with first degree murder, you get the best you can get. Someone like Joe Cheshire or Wade Smith. Smith was out since Alice Stubbs is in the same practice. Kurtz & Blum categorize themselves as drug defense attorneys first, before traffic violations, DUI, shoplifting, etc. Oh, then they say "serious felonies, including homicide." I would conclude that Brad thinks he is smarter than law enforcement and prosecution, and probably likes the belligerent approach that K&B has taken from the beginning of the case. Different strokes, I guess, but I would prefer a whole bunch of experience on my side if I was facing life in prison.

Believe Kurtz was appointed as BC could not afford a defense attourney.

 

[ncsu95]

I would expect them to make that claim. IMO, it's all they've GOT to claim. All this tedious testimony is backing up the FACT they pursued ALL theories. Defense is NOT proving their claim.

I'm sorry...but following up with people that claimed to see her running several months after reporting it (and reporting it while it was actually a missing person case) is not pursuing all theories. You would think that you would want to get statements from potential eye witnesses as soon as possible.

 

[cityslick]

IIRC, he originally hired them, then had no money to pay them and since they were already on the case they were allowed to stay on. (Or am I thinking of a different case?)

Thank you, I stand corrected.

 

[snowshuze]

Wow! We are watching two different trials eh? Because the search warrants all basically start on the 15th and every single one has to do with Brad Cooper and Brad Cooper only and I would lay a large amount of dough on their being very little other investigation into anything but Brad. Again, I'm not convinced this is the wrong approach, but it is clearly the approach they took.

Brad Cooper began LYING to the police investigating his missing wife DAY ONE. Why is it so hard to believe the police want to know WHY he's lying? WHY he didn't seem to CARE his wife was missing?

 

[NCEast]

I saw on golo where people were saying he was a respectable lawyer.

I think he's probably a very nice man. He is very courteous--even when upset. Like I said about Judge Gessner, I would like to live next door to him.

 

[ncsu95]

Could that be because there were no other suspects?

There were people that reported seeing her that weren't interviewed by the police, or weren't interviewed for several months (or at least a couple). I keep going back to the woman that said she saw her, was less than 10 feet from her, and spoke to her in just about the exact spot she would be in if she left to go running at 7:00 am and followed her typical route. Again, she called police to report this on Sunday and then a few more times. It was at least a couple of months before someone even contacted her.

 

[johnfear]

Could that be because there were no other suspects?

There were two other very distinct suspects. I remember questions being asked about those folks as well. I keep thinking they must be solely on the defense side, but one of them did NOT have an alibi at all. The other had a loosey-goosy story.

I will dig and find the names. I know JP was the one with no alibi at all.

They were all from the same neighborhood over there and they were only "alluded" to in the defense opening.

I keep wondering if they will come up.

 

[lunarmodule]

Believe Kurtz was appointed as BC could not afford a defense attourney.

Brad retained them first, then once he was arrested he claimed he was indigent and the court appointed them to his defense, since they were already his lawyers. I wonder if Brad had been arrested earlier if he would have retained someone else? I recall K&B loving them some TV time once Brad lawyered up with them (before he was arrested). They were posting videos and soliciting witnesses to support Brad way before he was arrested.

 

[ncsu95]

You're right, I think the defense started on this road of 'never considered anyone else' when the chief of police went in front of the media 1-2 days after she was found and said it wasn't a random crime when the investigation just started.

Right. And how could they possibly know on that day that it wasn't a random crime? There obviously isn't a smoking gun at this point, with the exception of potentially phone and/or computer evidence. They had not even collected that evidence at that point in time, much less had it analyzed. So how could they possibly make that determination? So the defense has a valid point about this.

 

[cityslick]

Brad Cooper began LYING to the police investigating his missing wife DAY ONE. Why is it so hard to believe the police want to know WHY he's lying? WHY he didn't seem to CARE his wife was missing?

How did they know he was lying on day one? How could the determine if he was telling the truth? By going off what her friends had said?

 

[snowshuze]

I'm sorry...but following up with people that claimed to see her running several months after reporting it (and reporting it while it was actually a missing person case) is not pursuing all theories. You would think that you would want to get statements from potential eye witnesses as soon as possible.

If it were possible for ANY LE agency to conduct a full investigation the first week, we would have been to trial with this case two years ago, IMO. I believe if CPD had a RELIABLE tip concerning sightings they would have followed up immediatly. The fact is, they DID eventually interview all witnesses concerning sightings.