State v Bradley Cooper - 3/25/11

[Lori59]

But with that argument, you are trying to say that the police should ignore witnesses. Why bother posting all the missing person fliers if they are just going to ignore the calls they receive on them? How can anyone be okay with that?

NO, I didn't say to IGNORE witnesses. I was pointing out that we all had different things we saw.....being human and all. Slow down......I didn't say to not post fliers, ignore calls or dismiss eye witnesses. I said we had different things we remembered.

 

[Lori59]

"Of course we will help you officer! He was a shortish.tall, thin yet stocky fellow. He had blondish black hair and was wearing jeans, a t-shirt and a tuxedo."

Haha...yes, and he had a plaid shirt with stripes....

 

[Just the Fax]

But with that argument, you are trying to say that the police should ignore witnesses. Why bother posting all the missing person fliers if they are just going to ignore the calls they receive on them? How can anyone be okay with that?

Who says they ignored the calls from the flyers?
I have seen 1 person officially documented that saw a lady jogging in Cary that AM. The CPD did eventually interview her.

 

[Cheyenne130]

But with that argument, you are trying to say that the police should ignore witnesses. Why bother posting all the missing person fliers if they are just going to ignore the calls they receive on them? How can anyone be okay with that?

After just now rereading the affidavit of RZ for the custody hearing, I cannot agree that they ignored her. They did speak to her on the telephone and she says she gave her statement. She was waiting for someone to come to her house at some point. It is very possible that the statement she gave on the phone couldn't possibly match with what they knew by the time she called and they got back to her. I will say that in her affidavit she has a glaring error that has nothing to do with the crime but does show a possible lack of accuracy. MOO

 

[Star12]

It's my understanding that investigators don't share their results with tipsters.

 

[LyndyLoo]

But with that argument, you are trying to say that the police should ignore witnesses. Why bother posting all the missing person fliers if they are just going to ignore the calls they receive on them? How can anyone be okay with that?

I have to ask..Are you speaking to someone who said they saw NC jogging?? Dont recall what time this was reported nor what time the visual this person says...But, what we dont know..Maybe she/he did see someone jogging, and it is possible a simple verbal exchange with that person by LE deemed it either unclear, or not reliable in the early stages of the investigation..I have watched enough cases of abductions/missing people to know that LE always rules out the last person who saw the victim, then moves the circle outwards..So since apparantly they did inview this person down the road, to get detail..was appropriate, as they could see too many red flaggs initially and inconsistencies by Brad etc...

Nancy Cooper reportedly went out at 7AM to jog...and by 9AM JA got concerned since NC didnt arrive over there..and her call to Brad didnt waylay her concerns..so called Police for direction on how to handle it..She sure sounded concern and fearful on that phone call..BUT JA was advised BC had to make the report of missing persons as per protocol, being the last person who saw her, and was NOK...Searches were done apparantly prior to that call to police by JA..and nothing??..

Eyewitness reports of seeing a possible Jogging women ( maybe the women was vague in description??) Remains were found 48 hours later by dog walker in evening hours (14thJuly)..Also agree it is a well known fact that eyewitness accounts are not reliable..however eventually get interviewed for the record...Def. always like to make hay with this....

Here.s link to accuracy of eyewitness accounts and why they are lacking..I find it interesting to say the least..It usually comes down to the individuals perception of time, place, descriptions..and lets face it...Some people are far more perceptive than others..

Errors in Eyewitness Identification Procedures
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html

Conclusion

Although eyewitness identification is highly fallible, it still carries great weight with jurors. There are some situations where identification is more likely accurate. For example, if the suspect is someone previously known to the victim, then high accuracy is more probable. When it comes to strangers, however, identifications are frequently in error. Lastly, eyewitness confidence provides only modest assurance that the identification is correct.

 

[LyndyLoo]

After just now rereading the affidavit of RZ for the custody hearing, I cannot agree that they ignored her. They did speak to her on the telephone and she says she gave her statement. She was waiting for someone to come to her house at some point. It is very possible that the statement she gave on the phone couldn't possibly match with what they knew by the time she called and they got back to her. I will say that in her affidavit she has a glaring error that has nothing to do with the crime but does show a possible lack of accuracy. MOO

Seems our minds are working on the same thinking processes.....I posted other reasons for putting her on a list for followup, NOT urgent...Hee Hee

 

[SleuthinNC]

Ok not to change the subject but I am still trying to put all these computers into order.

What happened to the eMachine?

 

[LivinginNC]

That's true, but a deposition is a sworn statement, so I wouldn't classify it in the same catagory as news article. It is sworn, given with a judges approval, the judge was called on at least one occasion I recall from the tapes, to hear an objection by the defense. Brad had numerous attorney's present in the room, at least three or four I heard in the background. Now, can someone tell me, are his sworn statement's admissible in this trial? If that's been discussed, I missed it?

That is a great question, one that I am sure several of you could clarify.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Seems our minds are working on the same thinking processes.....I posted other reasons for putting her on a list for followup, NOT urgent...Hee Hee

Paying particular attention to sections 14, 15 and 16 and especially 15 leads me to believe that she wasn't accurate regarding this case. MOO

 

[LyndyLoo]

That's true, but a deposition is a sworn statement, so I wouldn't classify it in the same catagory as news article. It is sworn, given with a judges approval, the judge was called on at least one occasion I recall from the tapes, to hear an objection by the defense. Brad had numerous attorney's present in the room, at least three or four I heard in the background. Now, can someone tell me, are his sworn statement's admissible in this trial? If that's been discussed, I missed it?

That is a great question, one that I am sure several of you could clarify.

I would say Yes sworn statements are admissible..especially when that person makiing that statement is being questioned..but failing that, the person actually taking the sworn statement can also testify to it as well.. The only way it would be kept out is if a defense motion attempting to quash it succeeded on some legal grounds..Hope I got that right:innocent:

 

[johnfear]

So, it's my birthday weekend and some Wake County folks and out-of-county folks indulged me a fairly lengthy conversation on this case.

Oddly enough, several of them had followed it from the get go and we wound up with the standard 3 arguments: 1) He did it and he should be locked away, 2) He did it, but not first degree and 3) I think he's innocent.

The innocent argument I heard would have made a much better defense opening statement. It went something like this: (Pardon my lack of evidence to this theory, but the folks involved were using the affidavits to back up some of it, swelling the truth a bit on the rest) Brad and Nancy start the separation process (almost all Nancy) and the attorney (They said Alice Stubbs, but I am not sure if that is who kicked it all off) and one of the items that Nancy wanted to back off was establishing paternity. She just wanted Brad to accept it, but her attorney brought it up. She realized that the kid was a person's whom she had a fling with long ago (John Pearson) who was still around but had no clue it was his. She had hit him back up for conversation (captured possibly in email/text messages, the later being deleted by CPD) and then dropped the bomb on him that she had not been sleeping with her husband close enough to that time for it to be his child so she was going to need some child support.

They went on to round out a lot of the theory to fit what we are seeing and while I am not sure how onboard the defense is with this (or myself for that matter) and while they may not have proven Pearson's guilt, they certainly gave me reasonable doubt on the state's case as it stands right this second.

BTW, they were the ones who made me go back through all of the various affidavits and they found one or two that seemed to state there were other locations that were listed as undisclosed. Their particular understanding of "undisclosed" locations were that they were either unknown as of yet, or that they dealt with sensitive information that required further approvals to get than JUST the judge's signature and should be handled with care. (Doctor's offices, etc)

It made for a very interesting weekend as I had just stepped off the fence onto the guilt side.

Their argument did not line up exactly with Kurtz's opening, but it was very close AND it tied down all of the ineptness of CPD to John Pearson (using the barrage of other allegations as foundation and saying that his changing stories was a key element in this case). I have not seen Pearson's information, but if he did indeed A) change his story and B) not have any type of alibi but had a motive, then Brad Cooper would walk if I were on the jury.


Wonder if Pearson smokes...

 

[NCEast]

So, it's my birthday weekend and some Wake County folks and out-of-county folks indulged me a fairly lengthy conversation on this case.

Oddly enough, several of them had followed it from the get go and we wound up with the standard 3 arguments: 1) He did it and he should be locked away, 2) He did it, but not first degree and 3) I think he's innocent.

The innocent argument I heard would have made a much better defense opening statement. It went something like this: (Pardon my lack of evidence to this theory, but the folks involved were using the affidavits to back up some of it, swelling the truth a bit on the rest) Brad and Nancy start the separation process (almost all Nancy) and the attorney (They said Alice Stubbs, but I am not sure if that is who kicked it all off) and one of the items that Nancy wanted to back off was establishing paternity. She just wanted Brad to accept it, but her attorney brought it up. She realized that the kid was a person's whom she had a fling with long ago (John Pearson) who was still around but had no clue it was his. She had hit him back up for conversation (captured possibly in email/text messages, the later being deleted by CPD) and then dropped the bomb on him that she had not been sleeping with her husband close enough to that time for it to be his child so she was going to need some child support.

They went on to round out a lot of the theory to fit what we are seeing and while I am not sure how onboard the defense is with this (or myself for that matter) and while they may not have proven Pearson's guilt, they certainly gave me reasonable doubt on the state's case as it stands right this second.

BTW, they were the ones who made me go back through all of the various affidavits and they found one or two that seemed to state there were other locations that were listed as undisclosed. Their particular understanding of "undisclosed" locations were that they were either unknown as of yet, or that they dealt with sensitive information that required further approvals to get than JUST the judge's signature and should be handled with care. (Doctor's offices, etc)

It made for a very interesting weekend as I had just stepped off the fence onto the guilt side.

Their argument did not line up exactly with Kurtz's opening, but it was very close AND it tied down all of the ineptness of CPD to John Pearson (using the barrage of other allegations as foundation and saying that his changing stories was a key element in this case). I have not seen Pearson's information, but if he did indeed A) change his story and B) not have any type of alibi but had a motive, then Brad Cooper would walk if I were on the jury.


Wonder if Pearson smokes...

This is all terribly interesting as it is coming from the general public. I hope there will be more info forthcoming about JP and his role, or lack of, with respect to the paternity issue. That has been a point of interest for me.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Even if CPD did erase her phone, there would still be a record of the text messages via the phone company. Emails I'm not as sure about if it was a pop3 account.

 

[CyberPro]

So, it's my birthday weekend and some Wake County folks and out-of-county folks indulged me a fairly lengthy conversation on this case.

[snipped for space ]
Wonder if Pearson smokes...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! :Happybirthday:arty::bdsong::bdscroll:


On the smoking/cigarette butt thing.

I have not seen this or a picture of it, but I wonder how fresh it was? I used to be on a rescue unit where a lot of folks smoked and tossed the butts in the grass. It was a mess! I think those things take 100 years to break down. This area having been under construction, heavy equipment, etc. makes me wonder if it had been tossed by the construction folks. It can be determined sometimes by looking at it that it is old. Outside paper frayed, etc. This might have been why it was not on the DNA hit parade. They did test it I understand, but it might not have been the highest priority thing they were doing.

 

[gracielee]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! :Happybirthday:arty::bdsong::bdscroll:


On the smoking/cigarette butt thing.

I have not seen this or a picture of it, but I wonder how fresh it was? I used to be on a rescue unit where a lot of folks smoked and tossed the butts in the grass. It was a mess! I think those things take 100 years to break down. This area having been under construction, heavy equipment, etc. makes me wonder if it had been tossed by the construction folks. It can be determined sometimes by looking at it that it is old. Outside paper frayed, etc. This might have been why it was not on the DNA hit parade. They did test it I understand, but it might not have been the highest priority thing they were doing.

Somehow I can't see anybody hanging around to 'have a smoke' at a body dump site. :great: I'm visualizing say 'The Hillside Stranglers', hauling a body out of the trunk to dump it, and then having a smoke. Usually it's a quick dump & run, I would think.

 

[sunshine05]

After just now rereading the affidavit of RZ for the custody hearing, I cannot agree that they ignored her. They did speak to her on the telephone and she says she gave her statement. She was waiting for someone to come to her house at some point. It is very possible that the statement she gave on the phone couldn't possibly match with what they knew by the time she called and they got back to her. I will say that in her affidavit she has a glaring error that has nothing to do with the crime but does show a possible lack of accuracy. MOO

But she called them before she was even found so how could her statement have conflicted with what they already knew? They didn't know yet.

We will hopefully hear from her in this trial.

 

[sunshine05]

Paying particular attention to sections 14, 15 and 16 and especially 15 leads me to believe that she wasn't accurate regarding this case. MOO

Can you be specific because I'm not seeing what you think are inaccuracies?

 

[jmflu]

Here's my problem with CPD in this case. They had a potential eyewitness in the days that NC was missing and they didn't even talk to her during that time - because they didn't buy Brad's story

They've got Greer testifying that they told the ME that she was last seen at 12AM, not 7am - because they didn't buy Brad's story

They had the chief of police go in front of the media a few days later and say this was not a random crime - because they didn't buy Brad's story.

Now, at the end of the day it may not matter if he did it (probable), but that does not excuse the fact LE from day one had no intention of following any other lead despite at that point in time not having any hard evidence that Brad's story wasn't true.

How do you know that they didn't? If they had proof Brad murdered Nancy, proof, why would they chase dead ends and waste your tax money?

 

[sunshine05]

Happy Birthday johnfear. It's interesting, without even knowing much at all about this case, my husband brought up his theory that it was the guy she had the affair with.

It's nice that you were able to have an at length discussion with a bunch of opposing viewpoints and remain friends.