State v Bradley Cooper 04/11/11

[LaLaw2000]

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....

:floorlaugh:

 

[borndem]

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??)

The only mention I saw of that was the the "BC supporters" were coming in & sitting on BC's side of the courtroom, and they mentioned WS folks also coming into the courtroom -- this was on wral's twitter early on after the blackout. But I have not read any newspaper articles yet. HTH.

 

[Palomine]

Nancy knew she had made a mistake marrying Brad from early on in their marriage...remember she met someone in Florida ..and met up with that person in Canada
She probably listened to her sister and went back to the States and settled with Brad
Brad probably never let her forget about her affair

 

[borndem]

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.

Very good synopsis, Lori59 -- brief, simple, easy to understand. Thanks!

 

[borndem]

Originally Posted by Albert
she skipped out without her wallet, her purse, her car, her phone and most importantly without her kids. I guess it is possible.

She also forgot to put her pants on.

And she left with either 2 left Asics shoes or 2 right Asics shoes...she didn't want to take her favorite Sauconys...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

why would brad email nancy...he knew at that time..she didn't have her phone...He had it

Oh, Palomine, well said. He also had her car, car-keys, money and clothes - so unless BC felt NC was Nostradamus, there was no way NC would have ever accessed that email. Big cover-up...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Just link to that and it will be settled.

Flying straight in from cyberspace to throw a big, fat HI JELLY!!! Wish you were posting - nice to see your hat again - members since way before the "big WS crash" in 2003.

:seeya:

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Yes, it's sicko, and purely evil. Nancy really had nothing left, did she? What a low, low thing to do. He had stolen nearly everything she had...the one thing left, I guess, was her breath and life....

Lori & borndem - you sure got that right! Vile little piece of work, BC is. Maja's lizard comes to mind! Imagine his self-jeering when reading them; thinking how clever he was? What a nasty bully.

Smug - is the word a few posters described earlier - that BC looked smug in court today and was smirking. Probably gloating over the courtroom public and media attention - with that same "I'm gonna beat ya'll" grimace back at them. My skin curls ...

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

she skipped out without her wallet, her purse, her car, her phone and most importantly without her kids. I guess it is possible.

There's a hole in his bucket, dear Albert, dear Albert ....

.... don't forget NC may have also "skipped the country" without her passport!

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

: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.

GREAT post, IMO, CyberPro!

By eliminating the possibilities - you determine the probabilities. Indeed!

 

[cody100]

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).

I have done exactly what you just described: Called office while driving to prescreen messages, heard one that I needed to readdress, then called back when I had a pen and paper to retrieve the message and address the issues in further detail. So, I could not agree with you more that this makes perfectly good sense. Glad my wife didn't die lest I be accused of trying to set up a VOIP call. This guy is a workaholic and he obviously was doing work as usual for him. I can not imagine being able to make work related calls in the midst of having killed his wife. On another subject, I found reading the appelate document to be creepy that so many men were involved with NC in one way or another.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

@fran

Hey fran - big warm hi to you, too! Thank you *so* much for typing out the "court-speak" earlier. I'm worlds away; my WRAL live streaming just does not work over here - and the WRAL twitter is soooo slow. Your minutes were brilliant and most valuable, for me anyways. Laughed Out Louder than Loud when you threw in the "I am not an expert in all of this" in between your clearly rapid typing - b/c neither am I, LOL!!!

Tku, tku, tku :seeya:

And hi to you too, jilly 'n raisin

@JTF FullDisclosure & Madeleine - appreciate the in-court report backs - you going again today?

See you all on the next thread.

 

[cody100]

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.

I love your post. Very well said and thought out. But you would definitely have tried to check out thoroughly the various ways, and you would never just zero in on one particular way as the only way.

 

[cody100]

I think the 9:30 email was supposed to one that he had copied from Nancy's email. That's why many were expecting it to be something very incriminating.

My kids are very sound sleepers. I honestly think they would sleep through a garage door opening repeatedly. They sleep through major thunderstorms. It always amazes me.

But I agree with you. NC was home that morning until 7.

Hey Sunshine. I agree with you and NJ in Cary, more so hers that the kids wouldn't sleep through garage door opening a number of times.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I have done exactly what you just described: Called office while driving to prescreen messages, heard one that I needed to readdress, then called back when I had a pen and paper to retrieve the message and address the issues in further detail. [snipped]....

:silenced: .Ah-hah! ... I'm tellin on ya, cody, s'gainst the law!

Seriously: do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that all of BC's multi-tasking, from the night before (emails) and then the wee hours on the morning NC goes missing, was genuine, innocent and feasible?

One incident, perhaps (IMO) may be unusually acceptable. But not all of that driving around, phone activity, kids unsettled, Nancy asking for more stuff - plus facing all the laundry when he was going to play tennis?

Then later is discovered lying about when he went to sleep - but was actually reading NC's forwarded emails (unbeknown to her).

All looks perfectly acceptable? Just askin

 

[cody100]

:silenced: .Ah-hah! ... I'm tellin on ya, cody, s'gainst the law!

Seriously: do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that all of BC's multi-tasking, from the night before (emails) and then the wee hours on the morning NC goes missing, was genuine, innocent and feasible?

One incident, perhaps (IMO) may be unusually acceptable. But not all of that driving around, phone activity, kids unsettled, Nancy asking for more stuff - plus facing all the laundry when he was going to play tennis?

Then later is discovered lying about when he went to sleep - but was actually reading NC's forwarded emails (unbeknown to her).

All looks perfectly acceptable? Just askin

Seriously, I don't necessarily have this same lifestyle, but I don't know that it is unusual for BC and NC. I have seen where she sent messages at 4am before and it is not unusual for IT people to work all overs of the day and night. Look at me, I have been working on stuff here at home since around 3am. I guess my point of rebuttal is that it is not unusual for certain people to do things at odd hours and for one spouse to have asked for additional items from another spouse. Secondly, we don't know exactly when NC went missing. It could have been around 7AM as BC said. The entymologist said it could be as late as 11am for TOD and that he was not confident in his time frame.

Secondly, kids wake up fussy many times early in the morning. Needing milk is not unusual, and I imagine he did go to bed early but probably read emails, including hers, from bed. Not honorable act but not by itself proof of his guilt. Nor is doing laundry and cleaning floors necessarily unacceptable behavior by itself. So no, I wouldn't say any of this would alarm me considering their lifestyle, his job, their set of problems. What I find alarming is the quick call and rush to judgement that NC was missing. That just doesn't seem right given the fact that everyone says NC was not afraid of BC.

 

[BrownRice]

How do you know they stayed asleep? According to Brad, his two year old was awake at 4 a.m. and cried for 15 minutes before he took her downstairs and the 4 year old never woke up. They could have both been awake and crying for all we know. MOO

It's really too bad the kids couldn't communicate (esp the 2 year old) back then. Since NC was the primary caregiver to the kids (which is normal in a stay at home mother scenario), I would think the child would have immediately wanted her mother if she was inconsolable when she woke up. Sure, the whole "awake at 4" could be a lie; but if it was true, I would think the kid could have been crying enough to wake up the older kid too (getting distraught because she wanted mommy and mommy was not there - dead already). Then the older kid could have said something later to friends/family - mommy was gone at night? Just a thought that would make me think NC was alive at 4.

 

[BrownRice]

Good comments, your posts are always thoughtful. Here's a counter argument.

He knows his marriage is in trouble, almost from the start. He knows he could be subject to a divorce proceeding where his conduct will be in issue. I think even someone who would never murder their spouse would be astute enough not to volunteer bad email evidence for a potential future divorce action.

Sure, that's what a person thinks when they are not in full argument/hate mode with their spouse. Sometimes it may be difficult to stay composed when you are arguing. And, we have heard testimony from NCs sister they argued heavily in her presence. Which I thought was typical for a couple headed for divorce.

I don't find his calm emails anything other than his responses - I can't imagine he's capable of controlling everything in his life like that.

 

[cody100]

It's really too bad the kids couldn't communicate (esp the 2 year old) back then. Since NC was the primary caregiver to the kids (which is normal in a stay at home mother scenario), I would think the child would have immediately wanted her mother if she was inconsolable when she woke up. Sure, the whole "awake at 4" could be a lie; but if it was true, I would think the kid could have been crying enough to wake up the older kid too (getting distraught because she wanted mommy and mommy was not there - dead already). Then the older kid could have said something later to friends/family - mommy was gone at night? Just a thought that would make me think NC was alive at 4.

I agree BR. I think the apellate documets indicate discussion between cpd and the oldest. I believe there is some indication that she also might have told a neighbor that she saw mommy dressed to go running that morning. I offer these comments not as truth of the matter but as to bits and pieces I have read. Althought the appellate case does request the results of that interview with the 4 year old. I suspect they have it by now. Anyone have info regarding this.

 

[Tink56]

I agree BR. I think the apellate documets indicate discussion between cpd and the oldest. I believe there is some indication that she also might have told a neighbor that she saw mommy dressed to go running that morning. I offer these comments not as truth of the matter but as to bits and pieces I have read. Althought the appellate case does request the results of that interview with the 4 year old. I suspect they have it by now. Anyone have info regarding this.

I saw this in the writ also, but then realized "if" BC is being honest about being upstairs with KC when NC left the house at 7:00, it is an impossibility. The writ "claims" that KC is reported to have told someone that NC had on black shorts and a white t-shirt.

However, IIRC, BC said he and KC were upstairs in his office when NC was leaving; NC calls up the stairs for a t-shirt; then, she says something like never mind and the front door closes. BC claims he did not see her leave the house or what she was finally wearing.

So, even according to his attorneys writ, BC was lying either about where he and KC were OR the information is merely a rumor.

In BC's scenario, NC would not have a t-shirt on when KC last saw her.