State v Bradley Cooper 04-15-2011

[sunshine05]

HP said she assumed Nancy's diamond earrings were screw backs. Why? Because she herself has diamond earrings and those earrings are screw backed posts. She made an assumption.

It is wrong to put a statement into an affidavit based on an assumption. She stated it as fact.

 

[Danielle59]

I still find it odd that he supposedly killed NC, made numerous trips to dump sites, used a shop vac, cleaned the house, etc and his 2 and 4 year old children slept through it all. As you stated, a shop vac is VERY loud.

Especially in the still of the night when it is so quiet.

 

[sunshine05]

Why was Brad sitting in his office at Cisco on Fri July 11 doing Google map searches and panning over and then focusing in on the Fielding Dr. area? What possible innocent reason can be manufactured for this? And isn't it a coincidence that where he focused his map is the same place his wife's body was dumped the very next morning?

What I find interesting more than anything is that you knew about that before it came up in this trial. How?

 

[Madeleine74]

Not at this point you couldn't.
Unless you could "come up" with some concrete evidence. But - wait - oh yeah - there is NONE:floorlaugh:

What do you consider concrete evidence? This has been asked but not answered. :waiting:

 

[Just the Fax]

So, a 7-11-08 google map search of Fielding drive ( w/ a zoom to the exact dump site) is not "concrete evidence" :waitasec:

Bumped for Cary-NJ

 

[Lori59]

Anybody know....Isn't there an actual jury instruction about circumstantial evidence. That they must consider it, about inference , and the difference of direct evidence etc. I swear I have heard an instruction to a jury like that in a trial. Guess it is a state to state thing??

 

[less0305]

Why do you think he is lying about this? A food stain was found on the dress by SBI. I don't think it's typical for a person to run around a party and show everyone the stain on their clothes. It seems that NC was worried about it and needed reassurance from BC that it wasn't noticeable. That reaffirms that she wouldn't draw attention to it to others.

The oil stain was so small the witness couldn't even find it upon examination of the dress on the stand. The small oil stain on a print dress may not have been noticeable to NC even - or anyone else. Or the small oil stain was a result of vomited food. What does a small minute oil stain have to do with wine? And are ya kiddin' me??!!! She needed reassurance from BC??!!! That truly is far-fetched. She's biotching him out at the party, but honey, please tell me this huge stain doesn't look bad on the front of my dress before the entire party notices it??!!! And again, HE LIES - he's a proven liar!! He had to make up the stain story to cover the washing of the dress. THAT is the only reasonable explanation.

 

[lib's mom]

BC had 12 hours to do this plus the time before to plan. He had from 12:30 AM to 12:30 PM on 7/12...that is when people started showing up etc. plus as you can see on Friday - 7/11 he was finishing planning the 'dump' locaiton. How much pre-planning time he had maybe months.

I had the same time line, but I had actually given him until 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, so I added 2 and 1/2 more hours. Remember, no one actually laid eyes on Brad until he came wheeling in around 3:00 after he had been out "searching" for Nancy.

 

[less0305]

Especially in the still of the night when it is so quiet.

A little cold medicine or benadryl would take care of that.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

So if you cannot convict on C.E., what evidence do you require in order to convict someone of murder?

Well, in this particular case, I would have liked for the prosecution to prove that BC spoofed that phone call when he received it at Harris Teeter. That would have swayed me a bit more than I am right now. Him doing a search on Fielding Drive was a turning point for me. I was leaning more towards the guilty side. But it is ONLY that 1 piece of information that pushed me towards guilty vs not guilty. There is too much else that is questionable that I truly could not put someone in jail for the rest of his life based on speculation. That is just my opinion, though.

 

[Danielle59]

HP said she assumed Nancy's diamond earrings were screw backs. Why? Because she herself has diamond earrings and those earrings are screw backed posts. She made an assumption.

But you shouldnt testify that something is truth when it is just an assumption, not in a murder trial especially.

 

[lib's mom]

Anybody know....Isn't there an actual jury instruction about circumstantial evidence. That they must consider it, about inference , and the difference of direct evidence etc. I swear I have heard an instruction to a jury like that in a trial. Guess it is a state to state thing??

I've heard what you're talking about. I know I've heard a judge telling a jury about direct vs. circum. evidence and giving them examples of each. I'm sure they'll hammer all that out when they have a jury charge conference (and I'm assuming they will for this case.) I certainly hope that's streamed. It should be a real good time.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

The problem is, I remember KL saying NC was planning to try to move to Canada after her child finished school. I sounded like a typical school calendar.

Triangle Academy is more of a 5 star daycare rather than preschool. There are quite a few of them in this area. They are open 12 months per year. They take kids anywhere from 3 months up until kindergarten.

Strange about "finishing school". My kids were in that type of daycare until they went to kindergarten but I could have pulled them out at any point in time.

 

[Just the Fax]

Well, in this particular case, I would have liked for the prosecution to prove that BC spoofed that phone call when he received it at Harris Teeter. That would have swayed me a bit more than I am right now. Him doing a search on Fielding Drive was a turning point for me. I was leaning more towards the guilty side. But it is ONLY that 1 piece of information that pushed me towards guilty vs not guilty. There is too much else that is questionable that I truly could not put someone in jail for the rest of his life based on speculation. That is just my opinion, though.

Like I said, I could easily sway you to 'guilty' if we were on the jury. I suspect something like this will be the case in deliberations. -- Maybe 10-2 guilty in the straw vote. In no time 12-0 guilty as charged

 

[Danielle59]

Why was Brad sitting in his office at Cisco on Fri July 11 doing Google map searches and panning over and then focusing in on the Fielding Dr. area? What possible innocent reason can be manufactured for this? And isn't it a coincidence that where he focused his map is the same place his wife's body was dumped the very next morning?

I wish we could have all seen that and that they would allow the MFT output to be given to the defense team. My understanding is that he did one goodle map search on 27518, which is his home zip, and supposedly moved the cursor to the right and zoomed in. He was on a total of 41 seconds. I am still questioning how the coordinates for Fielding Dr would ever be the center of 27518 when Fielding Drive was never in the 27518 zip code.

 

[calgary123]

I think Kurtz' argument about admitting into evidence the letter Kurtz wrote, to the CPD through Daniels, should have prevailed. He should have been allowed to ask Daniels if he had seen it at any point in the investigation.

I agree that the CPD should not jump to any request of some random lawyer, but part of their defense is that the CPD was not thorough. Also there is no "truth of contents" in Kurtz' letter, the only fact relevant is that he sent it. It is not heresay. The fact they were put on notice about the evidence Brad's lawyer requested preserved is one factor as to whether the CPD were thorough. This opens a can of worms for future cases but I think sending this letter was an astute move by Kurtz.

It also suggests that Kurtz believed in his own client's innocence at the time the letter was sent. It could suggest the Kurtz knew the CPD would screw up the investigation so put the letter out there as additional ammunition once his client went on trial. People have talked about the fact that Brad submitted to a civil deposition regarding custody of his kids as being wrong given the fact he was a murder suspect. Kurtz was sitting right there. Even if Brad were innocent, allowing Brad to participate in that deposition was the wrong call. I think Kurtz actually thought his client was innocent and since he's smart, let Brad tell his story. This is pretty much always the wrong choice when there is any criminal investigation and I think shows that Kurtz was naive. At this time Kurtz did not know about the google search on the body's location, and it is likely he did not know what the VOIP evidence would look like. Kurtz also knew he did not have discovery of most of the evidence. Big mistake.

I expect a guilty verdict at this point, but I also have no doubt there will be an appeal if that's what happens. The treating of heresay evidence in this case has not been consistent and starts to make me wonder if I understand what heresay is. The rules in the US are different than in Canada though, so maybe that's my own problem.

Again, I think he did it, I think its been proven, but now its up to the defence to raise reasonable doubt. If someone from Google shows up and says those searches were done only after the news reports about her body being found emerged, well the defence might have legs. Even without the google search evidence, I think its been proven he's the murderer. To adopt a convention I've learned following these boards, MOO.

 

[NCEast]

Oh my, I thought I was the only one with this problem. Ok Monday I put the laptop on top of the treadmill (you know where the book usually goes) and by Friday down 4 lbs) Anybody else in?:great:

I'm in!

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

So, a 7-11-08 google map search of Fielding drive ( w/ a zoom to the exact dump site) is not "concrete evidence" :waitasec:

Not if the defense can show that the computer may have been tampered with . We shall see what they question the detective about on Monday. Bet they can put some doubt in a few of those jurors minds.

 

[Lori59]

Triangle Academy is more of a 5 star daycare rather than preschool. There are quite a few of them in this area. They are open 12 months per year. They take kids anywhere from 3 months up until kindergarten.

Strange about "finishing school". My kids were in that type of daycare until they went to kindergarten but I could have pulled them out at any point in time.

True, you can take your children out of preschool at any time, but, I imagine NC was just wanting to have continuity for the girls and let them finish. Understandable to me...

 

[sunshine05]

The oil stain was so small the witness couldn't even find it upon examination of the dress on the stand. The small oil stain on a print dress may not have been noticeable to NC even - or anyone else. Or the small oil stain was a result of vomited food. What does a small minute oil stain have to do with wine? And are ya kiddin' me??!!! She needed reassurance from BC??!!! That truly is far-fetched. She's biotching him out at the party, but honey, please tell me this huge stain doesn't look bad on the front of my dress before the entire party notices it??!!! And again, HE LIES - he's a proven liar!! He had to make up the stain story to cover the washing of the dress. THAT is the only reasonable explanation.

I disagree, because a stain was found. I think in his custody interrogation, AS asked about the "wine" stain but she was mistaken. It was clearly a food stain. I don't think BC ever said he washed the dress. He said he "may have" because at that point he was unsure what she was even wearing that night. But clearly the dress was never washed and that is why the stain was still on it along with deodorant streaks.

You can make your point without yelling. You should try it.