State v Bradley Cooper 04/11/11

[Cheyenne130]

Here is my issue with that. If these were done as part of the cover up, why wouldn't he have mentioned these during all of the investigations? Never once did he mention these during the investigation or deposition in the custody case. And my belief is that he didn't mention them because he simply forgot about them. He forgot about them because it was a few minutes of work that morning that didn't amount to much. But it's when he was doing them that makes the least sense. He started this during his second trip to HT. So if he did them to make it look like a normal morning activity, he would have said so to the detectives. Or, he didn't kill her and actually did this as part of his activities that morning. My vote (which means nothing) is on the 2nd. The first option makes less sense than most of the testimony in this trial.

On the other hand, if he did make those calls to simulate normal early morning work activity he wouldn't want to draw attention to that. He would have been waiting for someone to ask him about those calls and casually say, "Oh yeah. I did make some work calls that morning." My question would be, was there a pattern of early morning work calls on any other weekends? If so, the defense should highlight that.

 

[ncsu95]

If she was, then it was done without trauma..as no bug colonization..and the decomp disabled any possibility of DNA evidence..No presense of seman could not have been found due to that..however..IF she was sexually assaulted it wasnt done forceably or traumatically to cause skin tearing or open woundings..Those bugs would have found it most certainly..Yikes, I even hate to think about that..:sick:

Sexual assault do occur without genital injury. Add in 2.5 days of decomposition and the ability for the ME to tell is ever more reduced. As it is, only 5% of sexual assaults show genital injury based on a visual examination:

http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ortner/docs/sommers_doc2.pdf

It's greater with other examination techniques. But honestly, we have no way of knowing if there was a sexual assault of NC.

 

[raisincharlie]

I believe these calls were quick and easy and his way of attempting to make the morning look 'normal'. i.e. foloe through with typical work tasks he normally would. Besides, work was important to him...definitely more important than NC.

I haven't heard anything in testimony, at least as of yet, but it would be interesting to see an actual analysis of his phone records to see if this was actually normal or not. In another case in Raleigh, the man accused of his wife's murder was found to have called his Mum 28 times the morning his wife was found brutally blugeoned to death. WCSO did an analysis and showed that 28 calls to mommy was far from his normal calling pattern to her. As I said, I haven't heard anything about this type of analysis done on Brad's calls, but it would be very interesting I think. It is possible LE did look at his call patterns and found this to be abnormal, would explain why the calls drew their attention to begin with.

 

[ncsu95]

Call me crazy, but I think it shows he is not only guilty of being an *advertiser censored**hole, but also shows MOTIVE. His behavior goes beyond the expected "behavior" of a person going through a rough divorce. There is no evidence Nancy was behaving the same way by stealing his passport, intercepting his emails, listening to his phone calls etc. He was.....JMO.

Actually, I think his behavior is far more prevalent in a divorce situation than you are indicating. Divorce is a nasty thing.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Sexual assault do occur without genital injury. Add in 2.5 days of decomposition and the ability for the ME to tell is ever more reduced. As it is, only 5% of sexual assaults show genital injury based on a visual examination:

http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ortner/docs/sommers_doc2.pdf

It's greater with other examination techniques. But honestly, we have no way of knowing if there was a sexual assault of NC.

Lack of evidence is still lack of evidence. You can't assume that a sexual assault occured because she was undressed.

 

[Albert]

Here is my issue with that. If these were done as part of the cover up, why wouldn't he have mentioned these during all of the investigations? Never once did he mention these during the investigation or deposition in the custody case. And my belief is that he didn't mention them because he simply forgot about them. He forgot about them because it was a few minutes of work that morning that didn't amount to much. But it's when he was doing them that makes the least sense. He started this during his second trip to HT. So if he did them to make it look like a normal morning activity, he would have said so to the detectives. Or, he didn't kill her and actually did this as part of his activities that morning. My vote (which means nothing) is on the 2nd. The first option makes less sense than most of the testimony in this trial.

On 7/12 it has been proven that between 6-7am there were just 2 calls made on the alpha cluster, both of those calls were from BC. Both calls were 2 VM. Why would the 2nd call be made to VM that morning? BC could have verified on his VoIP phone in his house if he had any missed calls and he would have known the timestamps of these missed calls. A lot of possibilities probably exist but this activity does seem unusual at that time of the day. Perhaps BC was assuming that the detailed call trace logs would have been overwritten before they were obtained.

The call to conferencing system, if this was done to verify the conferencing system was working then why would he not first schedule a meeting and then attempt to join that meeting. Simply calling the system, hearing the opening greeting then pressing 0 and disconnecting really proves nothing. If he wanted to verify that system was answering the call then that was done without pressing a 0.

Did the Cisco expert actually indicate that BC logged into Ireland VM system and forwarded an email? Was this vm forwarded to BC vm on Alpha? I recall testimony that BC entered the incorrect pw when connected to Alpha system and this was actually the vm for the Ireland system. Was their testimony that an vm was actually forwarded from Ireland to RTP alpha system?

 

[Maja]

Another point today that was quite clear..in an e-mail Brad requested the BlackJack 2 from Cisco. There was a list of improvements over his previous version, with many tech enhancements he desired.
The notion he didn't know how to retrieve a call log is total BS.

What do you suppose BC's motive was in asking for instructions on his call log?

 

[ncsu95]

On the other hand, if he did make those calls to simulate normal early morning work activity he wouldn't want to draw attention to that. He would have been waiting for someone to ask him about those calls and casually say, "Oh yeah. I did make some work calls that morning." My question would be, was there a pattern of early morning work calls on any other weekends? If so, the defense should highlight that.

So he would wait until 4 weeks into his trial? If that was the strategy, the deposition would have been a much more reasonable place to do that. Or, he didn't murder her and the work calls were legit.

 

[Just the Fax]

On the other hand, if he did make those calls to simulate normal early morning work activity he wouldn't want to draw attention to that. He would have been waiting for someone to ask him about those calls and casually say, "Oh yeah. I did make some work calls that morning." My question would be, was there a pattern of early morning work calls on any other weekends? If so, the defense should highlight that.

Kurtz would have mentioned it in his opening is it were true.
He left no stone unturned otherwise, right.

I totally agree with the flurry of VM to Cisco and At&T within the 10 minutes of the 6:25 data and 6:40 call. To me it was obvious it was for appearances only.

 

[SleuthSayer]

On the other hand, if he did make those calls to simulate normal early morning work activity he wouldn't want to draw attention to that. He would have been waiting for someone to ask him about those calls and casually say, "Oh yeah. I did make some work calls that morning." My question would be, was there a pattern of early morning work calls on any other weekends? If so, the defense should highlight that.

It sounded like the defense was going to claim that the system in Ireland was upgraded the night before. So, they will likely say that it wasn't a typical pattern, but it was a "special occasion" .

The interesting thing about all of those calls to me is that my suspicion of them went down after the expert testimony. When the prosecution first started asking in slow, painstaking detail about those calls and Paul started going through it key-by-key, I was thinking "Here it comes! The smoking gun." I was expecting to hear that the key sequence that he did was not consistent with checking/deleting voicemail.

But then in the end, it turned out that he just doing voicemail.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Sexual assault do occur without genital injury. Add in 2.5 days of decomposition and the ability for the ME to tell is ever more reduced. As it is, only 5% of sexual assaults show genital injury based on a visual examination:

http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ortner/docs/sommers_doc2.pdf

It's greater with other examination techniques. But honestly, we have no way of knowing if there was a sexual assault of NC.

BUT, I hate to remind you that BUGs dont need a visual...do they..They go were the scent is..THEY know where open tissues are..It is stuff like this..Science.. that trumps what many think about..Why did the bugs colonize that broken area of back of skull?? cause it had broken skin..AS for sexual assault and trauma..I will only say as a SA (sexual assault) nurse who gathered forensics in a live person understand just what sort of injuries occur..It always haunted me BTW :sick:

 

[gracielee]

Sexual assault do occur without genital injury. Add in 2.5 days of decomposition and the ability for the ME to tell is ever more reduced. As it is, only 5% of sexual assaults show genital injury based on a visual examination:

http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/ortner/docs/sommers_doc2.pdf

It's greater with other examination techniques. But honestly, we have no way of knowing if there was a sexual assault of NC.

Let's see, first, Nancy was a strong woman, and a fighter. She would have fought off an attacker had she the chance. As for genital injury based on visual exam. This ME's opinion wasn't based on a visual exam, it was based on lack of bug colonization in the area. The bugs wouldn't be *looking* for points of injury to invade. They would be physically drawn to those injurious places to invade. The ME stated that he doubted sexual assault *because* of the lack of bug infestations.

 

[Lori59]

Actually, I think his behavior is far more prevalent in a divorce situation than you are indicating. Divorce is a nasty thing.

His behavior is cutting off his wife AND CHILDREN financially, committing infidelity, emotional abuse, stalking her online AND murdering her....that is not prevalent in most divorces. He is a bad person. They did not have a "nasty" situation.....it was a deadly one. JMO

 

[Cheyenne130]

So he would wait until 4 weeks into his trial? If that was the strategy, the deposition would have been a much more reasonable place to do that. Or, he didn't murder her and the work calls were legit.

In which case we should be able to see a pattern of these work calls in the early morning hours on Saturday. If not and if this is an anomaly, that adds to the suspicious behavior.

 

[Palomine]

Lack of evidence is still lack of evidence. You can't assume that a sexual assault occurred because she was undressed.

really, what would be the point of undressing a victim??

 

[ncsu95]

On 7/12 it has been proven that between 6-7am there were just 2 calls made on the alpha cluster, both of those calls were from BC. Both calls were 2 VM. Why would the 2nd call be made to VM that morning? BC could have verified on his VoIP phone in his house if he had any missed calls and he would have known the timestamps of these missed calls. A lot of possibilities probably exist but this activity does seem unusual at that time of the day. Perhaps BC was assuming that the detailed call trace logs would have been overwritten before they were obtained.

The call to conferencing system, if this was done to verify the conferencing system was working then why would he not first schedule a meeting and then attempt to join that meeting. Simply calling the system, hearing the opening greeting then pressing 0 and disconnecting really proves nothing. If he wanted to verify that system was answering the call then that was done without pressing a 0.

Did the Cisco expert actually indicate that BC logged into Ireland VM system and forwarded an email? Was this vm forwarded to BC vm on Alpha? I recall testimony that BC entered the incorrect pw when connected to Alpha system and this was actually the vm for the Ireland system. Was their testimony that an vm was actually forwarded from Ireland to RTP alpha system?

As for the last part, they indicated he left the "Test 1 2 3" voicemail. So thanks for your insight into this. My thoughts on the 2nd voicemail is that he dialed back in to re-listen to the message. The first one was in his vehicle while driving. The 2nd was on his Cisco phone at home (if I remember correctly) and he pressed 1 1. I believe that replays the messages. So, if he was driving and heard a message about an issue, when he got home, it would make sense for him to re-listen to the message to make sure of the details. If that was indicating a problem with conferencing and/or voicemail, the details would be important.

Other than that, and this is a completely serious question, what on earth would he accomplish by making those calls into the Alpha system? To me, the scenario I described is the only thing that makes sense. If you have some other scenario that makes sense with this order of calls, when he called, and the buttons he pushed, please put it out here. This is why I'm no longer on the fence. It just doesn't make sense for it to be anything else (that and the fact that the prosecution has no real evidence...at least so far).

 

[ncsu95]

Lack of evidence is still lack of evidence. You can't assume that a sexual assault occured because she was undressed.

I'm not assuming one occurred. I'm saying we have no idea if one occurred or not.

 

[Tink56]

Yea, after I finished reading it I commented that we had already heard a lot of testimony pertaining to some of the requests. There were many little issues though that caught my eye that have not been approached yet--and maybe they never will. Some of it was difficult to read....about the people involved.

As I read the writ, I was struck by the "throw it and see if it sticks to the wall" approach used by Kurtz et.al. I was also struck by the timing. Wasn't this during jury selection?

I've changed coasts since college, so I don't know what type of coverage the filing of this writ received, but it may be another reason the judge was a tad disgruntled with the defense initially. Beats me...

I always need to remind myself that our justice system is adversarial. The defense's responsibility is to make the prosecution "prove" its assertions. The defense is seldom limited in the lengths they can go to try to establish reasonable doubt. Kurtz IS a seasoned defense attorney, obviously.

The assertions in the petition were just that assertions. The defense did not need to provide proof for any of the allegations the writ contained. I was sad for NC's family and pictured her daughters some day researching the case. What a tangled web we weave or something like that!

 

[Just the Fax]

In which case we should be able to see a pattern of these work calls in the early morning hours on Saturday. If not and if this is an anomaly, that adds to the suspicious behavior.

If he was off Friday the 11th, I could see he may be tempted to check in to Cisco VM to see what he may have missed.
Nope, he had every opportunity all day Friday and Friday night.
And....we know he was reading e-mail when he said he was asleep.

 

[ncsu95]

It sounded like the defense was going to claim that the system in Ireland was upgraded the night before. So, they will likely say that it wasn't a typical pattern, but it was a "special occasion" .

The interesting thing about all of those calls to me is that my suspicion of them went down after the expert testimony. When the prosecution first started asking in slow, painstaking detail about those calls and Paul started going through it key-by-key, I was thinking "Here it comes! The smoking gun." I was expecting to hear that the key sequence that he did was not consistent with checking/deleting voicemail.

But then in the end, it turned out that he just doing voicemail.

Exactly. I stopped what I was doing work wise to watch that testimony. I was on the edge of my seat ready to hear exactly what he did with those calls. And it was listening to work voicemails. Honestly, that isn't something someone does right after murdering their wife while still trying to cover it up. The first call was made a few minutes before the call from Nancy. It had to be legitimate work calls. And I simply can't believe he would mix the 2 at the same time.