State v. Bradley Cooper - 3-15-2011 (after Lunch) - 3.?

[rwesafe]

RWESAFE, yes, Nancy went on vacation with her neighbor friends. AND, Brad was supposed to come down and stay part of that vacation. He would say he was coming, then never showed up.

It's in the legal docs. You don't seem to have read all of them. I have. You seem a tad...snitty, to tell you the truth.

I'll let it ride. Maybe you had a bad day or whatever. But you need to back up your statements that seem accusatory, with facts like are in the legal docs.

You'll let it ride? Why do I need to back up my opinions? This is a forum, not a court of law. Or are you saying that I must agree with you or present you with evidence to enable me to have an opinion? Sounds like thought policing. I sound snitty? Self-awareness...helloooo...

I did have a crap day...

I read the legal doc's and that is not relavent to my point. I see absolutely no evidence that she was controlled or are you saying that him not showing up was somehow controlling? I have stated more than a few times that it appears to me that he was controlling the spending...not her.

 

[Cheyenne130]

It was very much mutual. The behavior from both of them was childish and horrible. I've said it many times...I wouldn't have been friends with either one of them. But she has been made out to be a saint and him a complete villian (and I'm talking about the months leading up to the murder here). But it was very much mutual. Both cheated on each other.

I don't know that her cheating is definite but it has been inferred. His cheating has been verified and admitted.

 

[rwesafe]

Who exactly is painting Nancy as a saint?

You do realize that exactly ONE person called the non-emergency police number on 7/12/08 to report N.C. missing, right?

And that the police arrived and conducted interviews with people at their (the police) request over the next several weeks. You know this, right?

And that the police obtained search warrants and conducted searches and gathered items of evidence, right?

You continue to post as if it was rumors and dislike that put Brad Cooper in jail and not evidence that was gathered (I mean evidence beyond the friends' statements).

Do you realize that Brad made statements that are not consistent? Do you realize that Brad was videotaped and made statements that don't match his written accounts? That some of his statements will not match the evidence? That there is evidence that will be proffered in court?

Or is it more important to believe that a bunch of friends and neighborhood folks (and malleable cops and a malleable DA, natch) just decided to 'go git him' and all of this is just one unfortunate mistake, based on nothing but people's personal agendas?

NC friends have made statements that are inconsistent and/or have decided 2.5 years later that important information that was asked by the police at the time of murder was not important to now. I'm saying that each and everyone of them are human and capable of being inconsistent...and that it is not fair to say it is ok for them to be inconsistent, but his inconsistency must mean he is lying. He is damned because of his inconsistencies, which I looked at the deps again today and did not see anything that was an OMG he did it moment, but the NC friends are granted absolution for their inconsistencies.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I spelled it out yesterday. They both conveniently forgot to tell the police that BC hit on DD? Ummm, yeah. Right. I don't find them believable and that is my right as an individual to form that opinion. First off, DD is of the whole bunch, the most unattractive woman in the hood. In fact if CD had brown hair, I would swear they were brother and sister. That is JMHO. I don't see anyone trying to hit that and I seriously doubt someone that THEY THEMSELVES said did not like them would just oh, happen to hit on her. Who the hell acts all incredulous at the suggestion that maybe he did not care for them because their kid broke their daughters nose...I'll tell ya who...CD. Sorry...I have no respect for them. It is not as if I'm on they jury so I don't know why my opinions are so bothersometo you.

I think you said it best:

"Such hatred...curious. Geez jenn."

"I'm not tearing them down because I see them as HUMANS"



Clearly you are interested in vetting an emotional hurt and are holding a grudge. You sound very hurt and angry. I don't think that has any bearing on this murder case though. At some point you'll either let go of this painful episode and move on or you'll continue to carry it along year after year and let it fester.

 

[otto]

Clearly you are interested in vetting an emotional hurt and are holding a grudge. You sound very hurt and angry. I don't think that has any bearing on this murder case though. At some point you'll either let go of this painful episode and move on or you'll continue to carry it along year after year and let it fester.

There's no need for personal remarks.

 

[SleuthyGal]

NC friends have made statements that are inconsistent and/or have decided 2.5 years later that important information that was asked by the police at the time of murder was not important to now. I'm saying that each and everyone of them are human and capable of being inconsistent...and that it is not fair to say it is ok for them to be inconsistent, but his inconsistency must mean he is lying. He is damned because of his inconsistencies, which I looked at the deps again today and did not see anything that was an OMG he did it moment, but the NC friends are granted absolution for their inconsistencies.

There's a difference between one person making inconsistent statements among different interviews/documents/videos all within a short time span, and a witness not remembering a detail from almost 3 yrs ago. It's also common that different witnesses will experience a common situation with different impressions--they will pay attention to different things. Some will be more observant, others less so.

Over time memories fade. That's a fact. It's why defense attorneys sometimes like to stretch out cases as long as they can. Because they KNOW that memories fade and they know that can be of benefit to them. It's one reason why Kurtz was in no hurry to get this case to trial.

 

[otto]

NC friends have made statements that are inconsistent and/or have decided 2.5 years later that important information that was asked by the police at the time of murder was not important to now. I'm saying that each and everyone of them are human and capable of being inconsistent...and that it is not fair to say it is ok for them to be inconsistent, but his inconsistency must mean he is lying. He is damned because of his inconsistencies, which I looked at the deps again today and did not see anything that was an OMG he did it moment, but the NC friends are granted absolution for their inconsistencies.

At this time, it does appear that some of the witnesses withheld information from police, and that some of the friends compared notes before trial. It's truly unfortunate that they did not understand and/or respect the seriousness of the situation and the need to allow police to solve the murder through investigation rather than neighborhood opinion.

Brad may well be guilty, but parading neighborhood gossip through the courts during a murder trial strikes me as completely bizarre.

 

[rwesafe]

I think you said it best:

"Such hatred...curious. Geez jenn."

"I'm not tearing them down because I see them as HUMANS"



Clearly you are interested in vetting an emotional hurt and are holding a grudge. You sound very hurt and angry. I don't think that has any bearing on this murder case though. At some point you'll either let go of this painful episode and move on or you'll continue to carry it along year after year and let it fester.

LOL! I have no emotional hurt. And I am very, very far from being anything approaching angry. That is ludicrous. Being passionate about people getting a fair trial and not liking to see these rush to judgements or these double standards ignored if they interrupt your guilty vote does not make me hyper-emotional or clingy to a hurtie. Demeaning my opinion by trying to depict me as a hurt individual incapable of forming an opinion about things from my very own perspective speaks more to your character than mine. Ad hominem attacks are are for those who do not have a legitmate argument.

 

[rwesafe]

At this time, it does appear that some of the witnesses withheld information from police, and that some of the friends compared notes before trial. It's truly unfortunate that they did not understand and/or respect the seriousness of the situation and the need to allow police to solve the murder through investigation rather than neighborhood opinion.

Brad may well be guilty, but parading neighborhood gossip through the courts during a murder trial strikes me as completely bizarre.

I concur completely. It is a travesty of justice in my opinion. It really is not that difficult to try anyone in the court of public opinion.

I want justice, and if it turns out that the evidence supports that he did it...I hope he gets what he deserves.

If the evidence does not fully support that he did it, I hope that the trail is not so cold now that a murderer may still roam free.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Regarding "Rush to judgements"

Brad Cooper was arrested 3 months after the murder. Is that too fast? How long should the DA have taken to indict him?

Jason Young was arrested 3+ years after the murder of his wife. Was that too fast?


Please define when an indictment is NOT a 'rush to judgment,' because I don't understand what definition you are using to determine this.

 

[rwesafe]

Regarding "Rush to judgements"

Brad Cooper was arrested 3 months after the murder. Is that too fast? How long should the DA have taken to indict him?

Jason Young was arrested 3+ years after the murder of his wife. Was that too fast?


Please define when an indictment is NOT a 'rush to judgment,' because I don't understand what definition you are using to determine this.

Good lord...

I have not seen the evidence collected against him so I don't know that CPD rushed to judgement...I have only read the same articles you have that speculate they very well may have.

I was not talking about arrest or indictments...as I'm sure you know. I'm talking about people deciding that he is guilty without having first seen and heard 100% of the evidence available for presentation by the court.

Would you want to be sitting in his seat and have the judge say, you know what...lets not waste any more time, we will just put you in jail for the rest of your life because all of your spouses friends feel like you did it. Why waste all these peoples time...off ya go...

Fair, and unbiased...that is the stuff justice is made of...

 

[ncsu95]

I don't think rush to judgement deals with time before arrest. If they only looked at Brad Cooper as a suspect and ignored other potential explanations, then that would be considered a rush to judgement. The fact that they basically ignored the eyewitness testimony (woman that called the police on Sunday to say she saw NC jogging) from the very beginning means that BC was the only suspect from the beginning (in my opinion).

 

[per_curiam]

As to remarks about Donna Lopez's deep "intuition", etc.: Donna Lopez and D.Duncan worked together or at the same place, so that's how they knew each other, and Donna L. ended up at the party, having never met Nancy Cooper before?

How do we know that maybe Donna Lopez didn't discuss some of the Cooper relations/problems with D.Duncan or someone else at the party? That could have tripped D. Lopez's mind into thinking "something bad is going to happen in that house", etc.

I would want to know that. What exactly did Donna Lopez know or talk about with others before she made her comments that were attributed to foreshadowing of doom, or intuition? She may have learned more after Nancy left the party, or she may have known some things from D.Duncan or other person. OR, it may all be totally intuitive.

Anyone want to put her on the stand and ask her?

 

[otto]

I concur completely. It is a travesty of justice in my opinion. It really is not that difficult to try anyone in the court of public opinion.

I want justice, and if it turns out that the evidence supports that he did it...I hope he gets what he deserves.

If the evidence does not fully support that he did it, I hope that the trail is not so cold now that a murderer may still roam free.

Juries are instructed not to listen to what they hear outside of court because it could prejudice them against the accused. Clearly this jury doesn't really run the risk of being influenced by gossip outside of the courtroom because it's been brought into the courtroom. Every piece of gossip and opinion that was said on the streets prior to trial is now part of the trial transcript. What difference would there be if the jury all read every detail that was published prior to trial?

I'm disappointed that the prosecution is unable to make a case without all the gossip and opinion.

 

[Albert]

Donna Lopez and D.Duncan worked together or at the same place

Donna Lopez's husband works with her husband, Donna does not work.

 

[Albert]

Donna Lopez's husband works with her husband, Donna does not work.

Sorry, Donna Lopez's husband works with D. Duncan, Donna does not work.

 

[otto]

As to remarks about Donna Lopez's deep "intuition", etc.: Donna Lopez and D.Duncan worked together or at the same place, so that's how they knew each other, and Donna L. ended up at the party, having never met Nancy Cooper before?

How do we know that maybe Donna Lopez didn't discuss some of the Cooper relations/problems with D.Duncan or someone else at the party? That could have tripped D. Lopez's mind into thinking "something bad is going to happen in that house", etc.

I would want to know that. What exactly did Donna Lopez know or talk about with others before she made her comments that were attributed to foreshadowing of doom, or intuition? She may have learned more after Nancy left the party, or she may have known some things from D.Duncan or other person. OR, it may all be totally intuitive.

Anyone want to put her on the stand and ask her?

I've been half-listening to the testimony, and I think that the husband of Lopez worked with Duncan. Lopez was at the party, and had never met Nancy before. Nancy, within an hour, poured out her marital complaints to Lopez. Duncan participated in some of the conversations. Lopez said that she had never heard anything like what Nancy said before, and found it incredulous. Nancy had been telling the same story to anyone that would listen for some time, and I suspect that she had perfected the art of telling it such that she was completely innocent, and Brad was a complete monster. Naturally Lopez would have been very concerned to hear Nancy's story. Nancy left the party after Lopez.

 

[per_curiam]

Thanks, Albert for letting me know that D. Lopez's husband works w/D. Duncan. That's what I mean: there could have been a conversation between or among some of them where Lopez's wife had some info to base her fear for Nancy or foreboding feelings upon.

Or not. It is just something I wondered about. I don't think she's going to set up a kiosk on Fayetteville Street as a psychic or anything. But, I had to wonder.

 

[per_curiam]

And thanks to you too, Otto.

So, there probably was not a whole lot of "psychic" going on. Lopez heard Nancy's story via Nancy at the party. I'd assume something "bad" was in the works too, if I had seen Nancy and Brad at the party and knew the story. Bad could mean lots of things, not necessarily murder. Murder was a stretch, but murder it was. Now, who done it, I say?

 

[otto]

And thanks to you too, Otto.

So, there probably was not a whole lot of "psychic" going on. Lopez heard Nancy's story via Nancy at the party. I'd assume something "bad" was in the works too, if I had seen Nancy and Brad at the party and knew the story. Bad could mean lots of things, not necessarily murder. Murder was a stretch, but murder it was. Now, who done it, I say?

I think Lopez was simply shocked that someone she didn't know would tell the story she told. At the same time, Nancy was very kind to the children of Lopez. Nancy probably presented as a very sympathetic person, and, when you think about it, who wouldn't respond sympathetically and with concern after hearing Nancy's description of her life? If Nancy said that $300/week wasn't enough money for food and gas, most people wouldn't question it, but would instead listen to how it was a hardship for Nancy. Stories about having to walk to get groceries would also sound terrible. Nancy's wishes to take the children permanently out of the country, and Brad's resistance, would have made Nancy appear trapped, but the flip side of the coin was that there was a man at home, across the street, looking after the children while his wife was partying. It was a man who was faced with losing his family and having no opportunity to raise his daughters. Lopez heard a sad story and felt for Nancy. She wanted to hear the end of the story, not realizing that it would happen the next day.