State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

[RaleighNC]

johnfear better hope noone near him dies of strangulation anytime sooner than the cache in his laptop.....

(just kidding) but it is amazing what we've searched on to dig up info on this case, no?

 

[jmflu]

Which was a mistake for him to say, I would think, since no traces of gasoline were found in the trunk. Or maybe I'm assuming that. Someone correct me if we don't know that fir sure.

You know, I was also thinking that the trip to HT was a foil in case anyone saw him pulling out of the garage at such an odd hour.

 

[johnfear]

johnfear better hope noone near him dies of strangulation anytime sooner than the cache in his laptop.....

(just kidding) but it is amazing what we've searched on to dig up info on this case, no?

It is. My sister and I caught up on most of the case on Saturday. She had read a lot. I hadn't read anything since 09 really. Then we sat through parts of the trial coverage. (I sat through some in person, so we went back through the videos as well)

My google cache has multiple searches that seem scary.
Here's the last dozen or so:
definition of first degree and second degree murder,
descriptions of manual strangulation,
how the hyoid is broken,
caffeine in undetectable drugs (don't ask, I was thinking maybe something got missed out on)
caffeine in undetectable poisons,
do tarps cause bodies to decompose faster,
PVC Tarp
PP Tarp
how long does it take to strangle someone?
Manual strangulation versus suffocation with a pillow,
autopsy report suffocation,
autopsy report strangulation,
intoxication affect on suffocation,
intoxication affect strangulation

 

[johnfear]

Which was a mistake for him to say, I would think, since no traces of gasoline were found in the trunk. Or maybe I'm assuming that. Someone correct me if we don't know that fir sure.

You know, I was also thinking that the trip to HT was a foil in case anyone saw him pulling out of the garage at such an odd hour.

I keep wondering about the harris teeter trips too. Were they a cover up? Or were they to dump the body? That's not an awful early time in that neck of the woods. You would not be avoiding witnesses, etc. Not with either route.

Also, gasoline is one of the things that can be detected long after it's gone forensically, no? I was wondering if they really found NOTHING in the trunk, leading them to realize they had found something by finding nothing. (No gas)

We found a crazy blog online this weekend. I didn't favorite it on this computer, but will dig it up again that uses the Cooper case to compare as a crime a woman could have committed. It's not a very long mention, but it was an interesting read. Once I dig it up again, I will post a link.

 

[johnfear]

I have trouble seeing both of them getting up to take care of Katie. I see one or the other dealing with it while the one not dealing with it stays in bed. With the anger that Nancy seemed to have I just don't know that she would have been working together with Brad on anything.

Yeah. That is weird. I don't think of divorcing couples attending to moments like that together. However, maybe this is your moment of murder. He wakes up, hears the kid, realizes Nancy is home (finally) and it's really, really late or really, really early. She goes to take care of the kid. He pulls a jealous act: Where were you? When did you get home? Leading to an early morning killing.

Also, the only reason I could think they might have both attended to the kid is the whole "locked in separate bedrooms" thing. Like they both got up because neither realized the other was getting up.

 

[otto]

No.

Nancy was strangled. It takes up to 4 minutes to strangle a person to death. Premeditation is what is needed to prove Murder 1.

In that 4 minutes, Brad knew his actions would cause her death, he didn't stop, and that by itself is proof of premeditation. Intentionally killing another person and doing so with malice. There might also be some pre-planning, but evidence for that hasn't been presented (yet).

That is most definitely what we've heard on Nancy Grace ... that premeditation occurs in the seconds between the beginning of strangulation and the death. Crime of passion is more of a blind rage where actions occur, where it isn't until after the person is dead that the blind rage subsides, and there is a realization of what occurred. If such a blind rage did not happen from time to time, there would be no such thing as crime of passion, or psychological malfunction during murder of a spouse. I don't believe that rage causes someone to attack another, and then seconds after the attack begins, all common sense is restored.

 

[otto]

The DA knows the law and knows the evidence they have. They believe they can prove first degree murder and pretty much said as much the moment they indicted him.

One would have to conclude that all murder by strangulation is premeditated ... but I don't think that's true.

 

[jmflu]

I just don't think he had enough time to do all the things he did with an early morning killing. Plus he wouldn't do it with a child awake. The child would hear something. And all signs lead (IMO) to pre-med, and the most opportunity for non-detection would be when the neighborhood is dark and asleep.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Yeah. That is weird. I don't think of divorcing couples attending to moments like that together. However, maybe this is your moment of murder. He wakes up, hears the kid, realizes Nancy is home (finally) and it's really, really late or really, really early. She goes to take care of the kid. He pulls a jealous act: Where were you? When did you get home? Leading to an early morning killing.

Also, the only reason I could think they might have both attended to the kid is the whole "locked in separate bedrooms" thing. Like they both got up because neither realized the other was getting up.

He stated that he was in the room with the girls when Nancy came home. He said she cracked the door and looked in and he saw her silouette in the dim light. Husband and wife were sleeping in seperate rooms by that time but he was "sleeping" in the room with the daughters when Nancy got home from the BBQ. I know that we can't believe everything that he said but there were some glimpses of truth in what he said. I'm hoping that the detectives with the evidence collected will be able to piece it together and give at least a partial picture of what happened that night/morning.

 

[johnfear]

One would have to conclude that all murder by strangulation is premeditated ... but I don't think that's true.

The same DA went after that Cook guy for Second Degree murder when he killed the ballerina. They tend to overreach in the lower courts here, but this one (I think) was mostly propagated and walked through the motions by Cummings and if I recall correctly, he holds fast to CW's views on conservative use of county monies.

I still think crime-of-passion but maybe they will bring us some evidence. A lot of crimes of passion play out as Manslaughters through Second Degree Murders, BUT the prosecutors in those cases leave themselves the options.

These guys are banking on first degree, so I am hoping they can both preserve the system and get the conviction if he indeed killed her.

On a side note, I think my signature line here and at Golo is going to have to read: I wasn't there, I have no idea who killed them. Ask these folks. (not a reference to the cooper trial threads, but some of the other recent postings and how people run away with things)

 

[otto]

The same DA went after that Cook guy for Second Degree murder when he killed the ballerina. They tend to overreach in the lower courts here, but this one (I think) was mostly propagated and walked through the motions by Cummings and if I recall correctly, he holds fast to CW's views on conservative use of county monies.

I still think crime-of-passion but maybe they will bring us some evidence. A lot of crimes of passion play out as Manslaughters through Second Degree Murders, BUT the prosecutors in those cases leave themselves the options.

These guys are banking on first degree, so I am hoping they can both preserve the system and get the conviction if he indeed killed her.

On a side note, I think my signature line here and at Golo is going to have to read: I wasn't there, I have no idea who killed them. Ask these folks. (not a reference to the cooper trial threads, but some of the other recent postings and how people run away with things)

Snooping in Nancy's email, moving some toys around the garage and buying a tarp that wasn't used in the murder don't suggest pre-meditation. I'm wondering if all the complaints from the defense were because they too don't see any justification for pre-meditation. They seemed awfully desperate for the prosecution to tip their hand even a couple of days before trial. On the other hand, there has to be full disclosure to defense of all evidence, so they should know what's coming.

If there's proof that Brad rigged the phones to send a call from the house to his cell phone, there would have to be proof that the rigging occurred before the murder - that testimony will be interesting (the conclusion, not the step by step details).

 

[SleuthyGal]

According to testimony, Nancy wasn't out all night. She didn't get home at 3am or 4am. She left DD's house a bit after midnight and went right home, across the street in a very quiet cul-de-sac.

Brad was up at 4am and he said so in his depositions. He claims Katie was crying and awake. Maybe she was and maybe she wasn't. Lights were on in his house and he preemptively came up with this excuse in case one of the neighbors witnessed those lights being on. No neighbors did, but he didn't know that.

I personally believe he had already killed Nancy by this point and was trying to clean, do laundry, and remove any evidence. The reason he knew they were out of laundry detergent is because he used it up trying to do umpteen loads of laundry. He wasn't trying to be the helpful hubby--he was cleaning up after a murder! (IMHO)

The trip to HT was likely for several reasons:

- to establish an 'alibi' of sorts
- to be away from the house so he could 'receive' a phone call from the phone at the house and claim Nancy was still alive
- to cover the fact that he was out driving in case anyone noticed his car (to dispose of his wife's body 3 mi away)
- to make it look like he was just a dad doing (super)daddy things
- to actually get more laundry detergent so he could continue the cleanup

 

[johnfear]

According to testimony, Nancy wasn't out all night. She didn't get home at 3am or 4am. She left DD's house a bit after midnight and went right home, across the street in a very quiet cul-de-sac.

Brad was up at 4am and he said so in his depositions. He claims Katie was crying and awake. Maybe she was and maybe she wasn't. Lights were on in his house and he preemptively came up with this excuse in case one of the neighbors witnessed those lights being on. No neighbors did, but he didn't know that.

I personally believe he had already killed Nancy by this point and was trying to clean, do laundry, and remove any evidence. The reason he knew they were out of laundry detergent is because he used it up trying to do umpteen loads of laundry. He wasn't trying to be the helpful hubby--he was cleaning up after a murder! (IMHO)

The trip to HT was likely for several reasons:

- to establish an 'alibi' of sorts
- to be away from the house so he could 'receive' a phone call from the phone at the house and claim Nancy was still alive
- to cover the fact that he was out driving in case anyone noticed his car (to dispose of his wife's body 3 mi away)
- to make it look like he was just a dad doing (super)daddy things
- to actually get more laundry detergent so he could continue the cleanup

But he could have been asleep when she got there. Even just after midnight could make for the same scenario above.

Here's another question (brought up by your first paragraph above) it is a VERY quiet cul-de-sac. Don't you think someone would have heard? If it were just after midnight on a Friday night in my neck of the woods, I get it. My nearest neighbors are 1 mile away. But, there...they are right on top of each other. Even a single scream should have been heard. Which would also explain why he chose strangulation.

And those are not super-daddy things he is doing...those are dad trying to act participatory.

 

[SleuthyGal]

But he could have been asleep when she got there.

According to Kurtz, Brad saw Nancy peek into the girls' room because he went to great lengths to explain that Brad saw her silhouette. That would have been around 12:30am. BTW, we know Brad was reading Nancy's emails (her private emails) around 10:30pm because that came out from one of the search warrants!

Don't you think someone would have heard?

Heard what?

Even a single scream should have been heard.

You're assuming Nancy was awake when she was murdered or that they were having a fight. That is one scenario, but it might not be the correct one. If Nancy was asleep and Brad snuck into her room and strangled her there would be no sound for anyone to hear. No one would hear him cleaning the house, doing laundry or playing with the kids. No one would hear what he was doing in his garage.

He covered the part where he was out driving at the early morning hour (hey I had to go to HT!) in case he was spotted.

He covered the part where he did have lights on at 4am in case someone in the 'hood saw those lights (Katie was crying and I ...errrr.... we were up with her).

 

[SleuthyGal]

those are dad trying to act participatory.

BBM. You got that right. He was acting. Trying to look like a helpful guy.

 

[johnfear]

According to Kurtz, Brad saw Nancy peek into the girls' room because he went to great lengths to explain that Brad saw her silhouette. That would have been around 12:30am. BTW, we know Brad was reading Nancy's emails (her private emails) around 10:30pm because that came out from one of the search warrants!



Heard what?



You're assuming Nancy was awake when she was murdered or that they were having a fight. That is one scenario, but it might not be the correct one. If Nancy was asleep and Brad snuck into her room and strangled her there would be no sound for anyone to hear. No one would hear him cleaning the house, doing laundry or playing with the kids. No one would hear what he was doing in his garage.

He covered the part where he was out driving at the early morning hour (hey I had to go to HT!) in case he was spotted.

He covered the part where he did have lights on at 4am in case someone in the 'hood saw those lights (Katie was crying and I ...errrr.... we were up with her).

I keep thinking it wasn't a quiet murder for some reason, but that makes sense. Enough alcohol to come home and not bar the door. She checks in on him. He's with the kids.

I just picture strangulation as an act that requires leverage. Not something you just walk into a room and strangle someone on a bed, etc. Too many movies and re-enactments I suppose.

However, the walk from the girl's room to her room, being they had not been sleeping in the same bed justifies and solidifies the idea of not only pre-mediation, but possibly could be used to call out "lying in wait". However, that would make it enough for capital murder, no?

 

[borndem]

1st degree only...unless there is a later motion to include 2nd degree in the jury instructions.
At that point, the judge would make that final decision.

I think the prosecution needs to toss 2nd degree in the ring asap. If one jury got so buffaloed on "malice" and "mischief" as it is used in everday parlance and not the legal definition (Raymond Cook case -- 2 jurors were holding out and would not be swayed to convict on 2nd), then I certainly think this jury could get hung-up on pre-meditation or cold blood. This worries me... :twocents:

 

[johnfear]

I totally agree on that.

Although, I may tick everyone off here, what Raymond Cook did was idiotic, but arguing it as second degree murder will end up getting "driving drunk" on the list for temporary insanity. It's circular logic. (Not condoning the driving drunk thing, AT ALL.) You are legally not allowed to drive drunk because your judgement is impaired. You had no malice aforethought. You had moron aforethought down. Legally, I am glad that jury did what they did. It quashes the need to appeal. Again, not arguing what he did was right. Arguing what the limit of the law is. Now, make multiple DUIs a felony and call it felony murder and I am with you all day long.

This jury is going to need to have the choice between second degree and first degree homicide (JMO) simply due to the reasonable doubt issue. (If they present an extremely solid case, but lose on the premeditation front, why let him walk) Now, I am hoping that there are several coffin nails/nukes waiting to spring out...but let's see. This is going to be a looooonnnnggg trial.

 

[otto]

I keep thinking it wasn't a quiet murder for some reason, but that makes sense. Enough alcohol to come home and not bar the door. She checks in on him. He's with the kids.

I just picture strangulation as an act that requires leverage. Not something you just walk into a room and strangle someone on a bed, etc. Too many movies and re-enactments I suppose.

However, the walk from the girl's room to her room, being they had not been sleeping in the same bed justifies and solidifies the idea of not only pre-mediation, but possibly could be used to call out "lying in wait". However, that would make it enough for capital murder, no?

Hard to say. If it was premeditated, he probably sneaked up on her. If it was an altercation that got out of hand, there's a good chance the whole family was woken up.

Was there any explanation why he would sleep in the children's room? There were 4-5 rooms upstairs ... wouldn't there be a guest room?

 

[otto]

Should we make the next thread for the week, rather than a short thread each day?