State v Bradley Cooper 04/11/11

[jmflu]

We were expecting more deposition tapes today, weren't we?

 

[ncsu95]

But they proved that he had access to equipment that could.

In the hypothetical: Let's say a defendant is shown to have had access to a .22, and the victim was shown to have been killed by a .22, and no one can produce the .22 that the defendant had access to. Does the prosecution say, well he did a good job hiding the evidence, so I guess we have to drop the case?

Okay, let's say that defendant worked in a gun shop where his job was to test guns. And lets say that he ordered a bunch of guns and gun equipment 7 or 8 months before the murder including a 22. And lets say that 22 also required that it be connected to a flat screen monitor connected to it to work (it's a hypothetical here) but neither the 22 or the flat screen monitor were found in the house. And lets say that the police never checked his work to see if the 22 that was purchased 8 months before was actually at the work facility since that is what it was purchased for. And lets say that they have no actual evidence connecting him to the crime. Then you would just about have what we have here.

 

[jmflu]

I am interested in the posts about the local paper saying BC supporters showed up in the courtroom today. Which local paper? How do they know they were BC supporters? (Are they sure it wasn't us Websleuthers who can't stand to be blacked out??)

 

[jmflu]

Okay, let's say that defendant worked in a gun shop where his job was to test guns. And lets say that he ordered a bunch of guns and gun equipment 7 or 8 months before the murder including a 22. And lets say that 22 also required that it be connected to a flat screen monitor connected to it to work (it's a hypothetical here) but neither the 22 or the flat screen monitor were found in the house. And lets say that the police never checked his work to see if the 22 that was purchased 8 months before was actually at the work facility since that is what it was purchased for. And lets say that they have no actual evidence connecting him to the crime. Then you would just about have what we have here.

Wow. I almost have to draw a diagram to follow this here analogy!

 

[gracielee]

Hmmmmmm....No I do NOT think he was a bad father for working his butt off to provide for his family; for working full time and getting his MBA to give a better life to his family. For paying all of the bills, expensive daycares, exclusive gym membership, mortgage, etc and giving his wife $300 per week for "spending" money.

So, he forgot to pay a water bill. It was not turned off intentionally. You seem to think BC was a bad father because he was training for iron man competitions and spending his free time doing this. But, NC had her kids in daycare while she was a "stay at home mom"; did plenty of runnign herself; apparently did not even attempt to keep their house clean or sanitary; and only seemed to focus on her clique of friends. The screaming went both ways. I don't think BC yelled at NC and she just took it and turned the other cheek. She embellished stories (as stated by her own friends). She told of their dirty laundry to anyone with an ear.

So - while BC was not the ideal husband, NO I do not think he was a bad father. In fact, it was BC that I saw playing with his children at the Lifetime pool, not NC.

I, by all means, do not mean to bash NC at all. I apologize if it coming off as so. But, it is so annoying that he is perceived as the bad parent and she has become a saint.

The children were NOT in daycare. The eldest child went to preschool, three mornings a week. I was a stay at home mom too, and all three of my children went to preschool.

Fifteen Ironman competitions in 2 years. Imagine all the time he could have spent with his wife, helping her to not feel so lonely all alone in a foreign coun try. And all the time he could have spent with his children, apart from his affairs, competitions, training, etc.

 

[borndem]

Gotta think the FBI will finish tomorrow and then Det Daniels for the rest of the week, then the state rests.

Do you think Det. Daniels will have to have a bag over his head and sock in his mouth, too?? I surely hope will get to see & hear him....

 

[sunshine05]

Another thing about this case is that so many things about their lives seemed normal up until and including the time that NC learned the truth about his affair w/HM. NC planned a party for BC after getting his MBA in late 07, BC was invited to and attended BA's birthday party that JA organized in 2/08, they both attended a party at Memorial day and appeared to be happy. Then comes the separation agreement in April. It seems like all the complaining about BC began after that point. None of the affidavits tear him apart before that time frame, aside from being busy with school and work and training.

Just imagine receiving a separation draft that showed that approximately 75% of your income would be allocated. What would you do? He started a budget. A reasonable one, IMO. I could easily purchase food and gas for $300/week. And taking her off the accounts. Wouldn't most people in a divorce situation do that? He asked her to open one in her name. Everything sounds reasonable so far, right?

During this time, CC testified that one night BC picked her and NC up from the bar because they drank too much. She said he was pleasant. Does that sound like a controlling husband? When NC went on vacation with her family, she spoke to him by phone every day. Why would she bother if she hated him so much? The bulk of her complaining about him was after the budget. I know they were going through a divorce and I have no doubt they argued but it sounds like they were still leading a fairly normal life, all things considered, especially in regard to their regular communication with each other. It wasn't until April that BC was called "controlling" and NC started telling her friends he was telling her when to come home, where to meet for dinner, things like that. Why would she describe him that way and yet, be able to go to the bar with friends and he even drives them home afterward?

I guess I'm just puzzled that NC told lots of stories about how bad things were, but at the same time, they were still talking on the phone daily. It seems that if things were as bad as she described she would not even be speaking to him. She could have moved in with any number of friends. She certainly wouldn't have told him to come to DD's party if things were that awful, would she?

I guess what I'm getting at is, all the negative things that came out about BC were from NC's comments to friends after the affair surfaced and even more so, after April. Nothing indicates that she was complaining about him before that.

I hope this is clear. I'm saying that the controlling husband story doesn't mesh with what was actually going on between them. He even had no problem with her going on trips without him, including other men. Does that sound controlling? She went away with MM and CD too at one point, right?

So, what I really don't understand is - why did JA think immediately that BC did something to NC when there was no history of abuse? Fighting over money is different than someone showing up with bruises. I have to say that if it was my friend I would first think - maybe she got her days mixed up, maybe she fell or something. The last thing I would think would be - maybe her spouse killed her, especially since there was no history of him ever hurting her. NC was not afraid of him. JA knew that. So why was this the first thing JA thought? Murder? I can't get past how odd that is.....and suspicious. Why doesn't anyone else think this is VERY odd?

One last thing - the copying of emails - I don't like it but it would be interesting to find out when that started. I still think it was wrong but I wonder if it started after April.

 

[Lori59]

:goodpost:

I think this was an awesome post Albert. Spot-on in my book.

While BC does not have to prove his innocence, and the state does have to prove him guilty there is no stronger evidence than the phone calls while he was known to be at HT that would prove his innocence.

Since those calls are so convenient about showing her still alive while he is obviously elsewhere, they do bear very close scrutny. I am leaning towards the calls being spoofed, and NC being on Fielding Drive long before the calls took place. I am still not 100% convinced, and I would love to find that he had not completed erased all of the tracks, but there are quite a few things about his movements and actions of the weekend that do not quite tally for me.

I have not heard a lot of support for him being all that great of a guy, so I can lay that aside for a bit, although it could, along with the Sep Agreement form something of a motive.

Now that I think about it, if NC were not deceased by 6:30 - 7:00, he might well have been better off leaving her at home and selling the story that someone entered the house while he was away, but he was pretty busy that morning and creative storytelling might not be his strong suit. Personally, I think TOD was long before 6:00, more like 1:00 to 4:00.

Hearing some argue that the calls could not have been spoofed because there was no equipment in the house when the warrant was issued is a pretty high bar to clear for evidence. It is like saying if the gun found in the house is not still smoking, there is no basis for charges. It defies logic if you surmise that all the cleaning done that morning was to cover evidence, that he would not also dispose of something that could tie him into a method for covering the calls that were supposedly made by NC that morning.

I recently took a statistics course. When you are calculating probabilities you add up all of the parts of whatever you are trying to determine.

So, it becomes very statistically unlikely that any one person is killed in a given day, and goes further down the list as you go through the alibi.

:highfive: :goodpost::goodpost: Such good, clear thinking on your part.

 

[Palomine]

Do you think that the defense will call these other 2 to testify? Would this be an attempt to discredit the 2 witnesses called by the prosecution?

we can only hope the defense calls its 277 witnesses

 

[FullDisclosure]

Another thing about this case is that so many things about their lives seemed normal up until and including the time that NC learned the truth about his affair w/HM. NC planned a party for BC after getting his MBA in late 07, BC was invited to and attended BA's birthday party that JA organized in 2/08, they both attended a party at Memorial day and appeared to be happy. Then comes the separation agreement in April. It seems like all the complaining about BC began after that point. None of the affidavits tear him apart before that time frame, aside from being busy with school and work and training.

Just imagine receiving a separation draft that showed that approximately 75% of your income would be allocated. What would you do? He started a budget. A reasonable one, IMO. I could easily purchase food and gas for $300/week. And taking her off the accounts. Wouldn't most people in a divorce situation do that? He asked her to open one in her name. Everything sounds reasonable so far, right?

During this time, CC testified that one night BC picked her and NC up from the bar because they drank too much. She said he was pleasant. Does that sound like a controlling husband? When NC went on vacation with her family, she spoke to him by phone every day. Why would she bother if she hated him so much? The bulk of her complaining about him was after the budget. I know they were going through a divorce and I have no doubt they argued but it sounds like they were still leading a fairly normal life, all things considered, especially in regard to their regular communication with each other. It wasn't until April that BC was called "controlling" and NC started telling her friends he was telling her when to come home, where to meet for dinner, things like that. Why would she describe him that way and yet, be able to go to the bar with friends and he even drives them home afterward?

I guess I'm just puzzled that NC told lots of stories about how bad things were, but at the same time, they were still talking on the phone daily. It seems that if things were as bad as she described she would not even be speaking to him. She could have moved in with any number of friends. She certainly wouldn't have told him to come to DD's party if things were that awful, would she?

I guess what I'm getting at is, all the negative things that came out about BC were from NC's comments to friends after the affair surfaced and even more so, after April. Nothing indicates that she was complaining about him before that.

I hope this is clear. I'm saying that the controlling husband story doesn't mesh with what was actually going on between them. He even had no problem with her going on trips without him, including other men. Does that sound controlling? She went away with MM and CD too at one point, right?

So, what I really don't understand is - why did JA think immediately that BC did something to NC when there was no history of abuse? Fighting over money is different than someone showing up with bruises. I have to say that if it was my friend I would first think - maybe she got her days mixed up, maybe she fell or something. The last thing I would think would be - maybe her spouse killed her, especially since there was no history of him ever hurting her. NC was not afraid of him. JA knew that. So why was this the first thing JA thought? Murder? I can't get past how odd that is.....and suspicious. Why doesn't anyone else think this is VERY odd?

One last thing - the copying of emails - I don't like it but it would be interesting to find out when that started. I still think it was wrong but I wonder if it started after April.

I agree, Sunshine. I'm having trouble with the disconnect between some events/habits we know about and the testimony.

From the testimony today, It looks like BC began intercepting NC's incoming emails 4/07/08. (I find it interesting he only intercepted incoming emails and not also outgoing messages.)

 

[Lori59]

Sunshine...didn't quote you so as not to take up a lot of space. I see what you are saying...how did it go from their troubles to murder? I think for me, the things that seemed to matter to Brad was his image and money. He didn't like Nancy....you don't treat someone the way he did if you like them. The threat that Nancy had to him was taking his money and making him out to be a bad guy...which I think he was. So he cheated on her, worked a lot, didn't really spend time with his children...but when it went bad was when she found out about HM and was DONE with the marriage. From that point, he stalked her and controlled his money. I just think it was destine for disaster from that point. Nancy was a strong enough woman to get a good attorney...she was going to fight him for the children and support. He was not having any of that...JMO but I do see how it is bewildering to imagine.

 

[CrimeAddict]

The children were NOT in daycare. The eldest child went to preschool, three mornings a week. I was a stay at home mom too, and all three of my children went to preschool.

Fifteen Ironman competitions in 2 years. Imagine all the time he could have spent with his wife, helping her to not feel so lonely all alone in a foreign coun try. And all the time he could have spent with his children, apart from his affairs, competitions, training, etc.

Thank you gracie

 

[FullDisclosure]

I better call it a night if I'm going to try to get to the courthouse in the morning! If I'm not here tomorrow, it means I'm there--and tomorrow I'll take a notebook if I go. Today I scribbled furiously on an envelope I found in my purse--I had to write REALLY small, and I filled up both sides!

G'night, all!

 

[gracielee]

We were expecting more deposition tapes today, weren't we?

They finished up the last hour of the tapes this morning.

 

[SleuthSayer]

OK, if we are having fun with analogies, I'll give my analogy for the potential spoofed call and the expert testimony.

Say you've got a homeless, pennyless man and you want to prove that he traveled from New York to D.C. last week in less than a day.

You put an expert up on the stand and he describes a lot of different ways to get from NY to DC:

• You could take a plane
• You could take a bus
• You could take a train
• You could take a taxi
• You could rent and drive a car
• You could ride a bike
• You could ride a horse
• You could walk

So now he's told you a lot of possibilities. Problem is some of them wouldn't get him there in a day (walking, bike, horse).

The others get him there in a day, but they require money and he has no money. Well, he has no money now, but you know he has had money in the past. Maybe he had some money last week (beg, borrow, steal, whatever). But, you also cannot say for sure that he had money last week.

And, by the way, there are other ways that the expert didn't mention that get you there in less than a day and don't require money:

• Hitchhike
• Hop a boxcar

But at the end of the day, you still can't prove that he made the trip and you can't prove that he didn't.

 

[Tink56]

Sunshine...didn't quote you so as not to take up a lot of space. I see what you are saying...how did it go from their troubles to murder? I think for me, the things that seemed to matter to Brad was his image and money. He didn't like Nancy....you don't treat someone the way he did if you like them. The threat that Nancy had to him was taking his money and making him out to be a bad guy...which I think he was. So he cheated on her, worked a lot, didn't really spend time with his children...but when it went bad was when she found out about HM and was DONE with the marriage. From that point, he stalked her and controlled his money. I just think it was destine for disaster from that point. Nancy was a strong enough woman to get a good attorney...she was going to fight him for the children and support. He was not having any of that...JMO but I do see how it is bewildering to imagine.

And, I think the marriage had "soured" from the time HM told Nancy about the affair. I think that was in May of 2007 or there about. From that time on, the trust in the marriage was shattered. Obviously it had been fragile before, as neighbors knew that when Brad was in Ireland he didn't contact Nancy. There were other references to Nancy being "alone" a good deal of the time long before May 2007.

So, I don't think the neighbors and NC suddenly "turned against" Brad. He was afforded the courtesy of being included in many things because he was Nancy's husband, not because most of the neighbors knew him, liked him, or even interacted with him long enough to have an opinion about him. The exception were those couples in which one of the spouses knew him from the work environment.

I agree these two people--BC and NC seemed to be a "bad fit." Their personalities were so different and their goals hardly seemed to intersect....bad karma, IMO.

 

[Just the Fax]

I agree, Sunshine. I'm having trouble with the disconnect between some events/habits we know about and the testimony.

From the testimony today, It looks like BC began intercepting NC's incoming emails 4/07/08. (I find it interesting he only intercepted incoming emails and not also outgoing messages.)

He would if he could, i'm sure.
The RR server is smtp-server.nc.rr.com....he would have no access to it.

Anyone that thinks Brad was not capable of murder is kidding themselves.
Even the best, loving husband and family man could snap and do the unthinkable. Add in a nasty divorce that was pushing him to the ledge.....well, he did it.

 

[gracielee]

He would if he could, i'm sure.
The RR server is smtp-server.nc.rr.com....he would have no access to it.

Anyone that thinks Brad was not capable of murder is kidding themselves.
Even the best, loving husband and family man could snap and do the unthinkable. Add in a nasty divorce that was pushing him to the ledge.....well, he did it.

Exactly. And IMO, Brad did not feel any sort of attachment to his family. Much like his lack of attachement to his family of origin. Too bad Nancy didn't just not seek any legal counsel until she returned to Canada. I think he would have kept up with the agreement to let her and the children leave, but for the separation agreement. If he thought Nancy and the girls would just disappear, and he could put in for a cisco job in France, be a free man without any financial responsibilities, she'd have been home free.

 

[Albert]

What if we already have our smoking gun and it was presented by the AT*T guy. Remember how he explained seizure time as the total ringing time. That is, the time from locating the cell phone within the network till the time the cell phone was answered. I know we have heard different opinions on the meaning of seizure time on this forum but let's imagine the AT&T guy is correct. During his testimony he identified seizure times from 0-21 seconds in the detailed records. We heard on cross examination that there was nothing unusual about these seizure times. We did not, however, hear during cross exam that the defense team doubted the AT&T's definition of seizure time. So unless the defense is waiting till they call their expert and offer a different definition then perhaps the AT&T guy is correct. It would seem more effective to discredit the AT&T guy during this testimony but I am not a lawyer and therefore what do I know.

Anyway, BC mentioned that he placed a call from the home phone to his cell phone in order to locate the cell phone. We know he had his cell phone on the first trip to HT. So we therefore have 2 possibilities of which time that call from home was made to locate the phone. Either 6:05am or 6:34am. If this call occurred at 6:34am then we are to believe that BC misplaced his phone after returning from HT on his 1st trip. If this is the case then the 6:05am call has not been explained. Therefore I must assume the call to locate the phone occurred at 6:05am.

If the call at 6:05am was for the purpose of locating the phone we know that this call terminated at voicemail if the phone was truly misplaced. The duration of this call was 23 seconds with a seizure time of 1 second. I have a problem with this 1 second duration as this implies 1 of 2 things to me. Either BC had this phone in his hand and answered the call immediately when it stated to ring which would imply the phone is not misplaced. Or, the phone was powered off and the call went immediately to voicemail or the phone was set to call forward all to voicemail. If the call was forwarded immediately to voicemail then the cell phone did not ring and therefore the phone would still be misplaced.

I only think these questions will be answered when and if BC takes the stand. The defense team indicated the call was to locate the phone and now we will need to understand if the call indeed helped locate the phone.

 

[borndem]

There has been conflicting testimony--by Brad--that the child was not even awake at 7am when NC left the house to go jogging. So that's an area we have not focused on because it's gray. Brad himself has told so many variations of this and that he tripped himself up on many issues beginning on July 11 and continuing through the child custody depositions 3 months later.
The judge is admonishing the jury that the hearsay testimony goes only to the mindset or state of mind. Some he has allowed, some he has not allowed.

Exactly.
More on hearsay, since there seems to be some confusion about what the Judge will/won't allow: Early on in this trial, hearsay was discussed in court by the principals. The Judge will allow NC to be quoted for obvious reasons. If the person is dead, hearsay being allowed is not unusual at all. At certain times in the trial, especially of late, since we have heard so much testimony, the Judge will allow it if it has already been given as testimony. For instance, a witness could refer to something J. Young said on the stand since it has previously been sworn as truth. Seems to me he is going very much by the book -- just SOP. JMO