State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11

[lib's mom]

Approximately what time did this evidence get shown today? I missed it and I want to find where that came in so I can watch it. ANYONE?

I'm thinking between 4:00 and 5:00.

 

[jmflu]

I do not believe it was premeditated in the sense that he was planning it for weeks, days or even hours. I do think it happened but when you are strangling someone, at some point you realize that what you are doing will cause death and you can stop. That fits the definition of pre-meditation.

Yes, I'm torn on pre-med, but it sure is fishy that he didn't stop and get her money when he stopped to get his beer.

 

[less0305]

I don't think the circumstantial evidence so far introduced is "easily" explained away.

A man and woman are having a very rough spot in their marriage to the point where there are affairs,
money problems, seeking out attorneys for separation agreements/divorce advice, talk of "hate" to anyone who would
listen, and hiding passports, important papers, etc. Suddenly the woman goes missing the day after a fight over the
fact that the man did not give the woman the expected allowance. The man NEVER EVER withdrew the money from his
bank - not that Friday when it was expected, and neither on Saturday when his wife was just "on a run or out with her friends." Coincidental?

The man mops, cleans, scours, launders the very day his wife becomes missing when it's not usually in his nature to
be THE main housekeeper. Coincidental?

The man can't find his wife and makes some attempt to ride around and look for her - and yet when his cell phone rings
he doesn't answer it, and when he realizes it is a call from a police officer, doesn't return the call immediately.
Coincidental?

The man makes two trips to a Harris Teeter which happens to capture his image on camera on the very morning his wife becomes
missing. Coincidental?

The man wears odd clothes for the weather and changes shoes between trips to the store. Coincidental?

The man tells officers his wife went jogging. No running shoes can be UNACCOUNTED for except two left shoes. Coincidental?

The woman is found wearing only a jogging bra - no SHOES, no pants, no undies, no socks. Coincidental?

The man happens to name the exact clothing item his wife was wearing when found dead after he told police officers he did not see her
leave the home. Coincidental?

The man has neck scratches and a bandaid on his finger. Coincidental?

The man informs police that he and his wife for the last couple months have been getting along fine and any marital
discord hasn't taken place. Coincidental?

The man tells police that he doesn't know how to access the call history on his cellular phone when he clearly is an expert
in his technological field dealing with phones, prototype phones, video phones. Coincidental?

The man is not truthful with police regarding his phone calls and movements in the day and hours leading up to his wife's
disappearance. Coincidental?

The man was the last person to have seen or spoke to the woman before she became missing. Coincidental?

The woman disappeared during an unplanned run alone, when her normal pattern was to run with one of a couple different running
partners. Coincidental?

Items seen less than 24 hours before the woman became missing were removed from a foyer area of the home. Coincidental?

The man gave two to three descriptions of clothes the woman wore the night before. Coincidental?

The woman showed no signs of sexual assault, her missing clothing (for a run) were never found, expensive diamond earrings
remained on her body. Coincidental?

The man described his route to the grocery stores and yet his car was seen in video coming from a different direction.
Coincidental?

The man discloses he has cleaned the trunk of his car in the recent past. Coincidental?

The man shows no emotion that the mother of the children he adores is missing and then later found dead. Coincidental?

The man does not attend a memorial service for a woman he had been married to for years and was the mother of his
children. Coincidental?


I think I could go on and on, but I'm getting foggy because it's late. But my point being... that is a lot of coincidences
to happen all within a very very short amount of time. I can't EASILY explain ALLLLLLLLL that coincidence away. I think
you really have to stretch to explain away all of the circumstantial evidence that has already been admitted into this
court case.

 

[lib's mom]

I still want to know what happened to those ducks and decorative sticks.

 

[CrimeAddict]

Carefully listening to this car thing at HT and this is what I got in case someone wasn't paying enough attention or had buffering issues like me today

1st trip car last seen at 626am
Car seen coming back second trip 641am

Detective said it takes between 4.5 and 6 minutes to get from HT to Coopers residence.

Assumption: He did not go home in between. Was he fixing the phone with his blackberry to have home call cell or just doing something else..

 

[Cheyenne130]

Yes, I'm torn on pre-med, but it sure is fishy that he didn't stop and get her money when he stopped to get his beer.

I definitely think they were fighting about the money. I've said many times that the whole timing of her vacation, him living life for a week without her, her getting money before going on vacation, no food in the house even though she had been home for five days, living basically seperate lives within their house was in total a perfect storm. And just for the record, I don't believe there is proof that he was giving her $300 a week. It was going to be a very bad weekend considering that they had been apart for the previous two and seemed to like not having to deal with each other. MOO

 

[jmflu]

I don't think the circumstantial evidence so far introduced is "easily" explained away.

(snipped so no one kills me for a response that goes to another page.)


I think I could go on and on, but I'm getting foggy because it's late. But my point being... that is a lot of coincidences
to happen all within a very very short amount of time. I can't EASILY explain ALLLLLLLLL that coincidence away. I think
you really have to stretch to explain away all of the circumstantial evidence that has already been admitted into this
court case.

I think I'm in love.

 

[kellyroll]

Yes he did say that!

so once again...why did Brad the good guy make time to go get the plastic tarp when ALL NANCY CARED ABOUT THAT DAY WAS HER WEEKLY ALLOWANCE? That's what had Nancy furious the rest of the day and well through the night!

And Nancy called him 5 times before noon that day, with one call being intentionally redirected to VM and additional calls being allowed to ring through. She must have really wanted to talk with him that morning.

 

[Lori59]

lees0305............THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Great post. It is not just one thing, but rather one after another after another.....

 

[jmflu]

lees0305............THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Great post. It is not just one thing, but rather one after another after another.....

I agree. Less0305, post of the day. You should make a thread called "Coincidental?" and copy your post there for all to easily find again.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I don't think the circumstantial evidence so far introduced is "easily" explained away.

A man and woman are having a very rough spot in their marriage to the point where there are affairs,
money problems, seeking out attorneys for separation agreements/divorce advice, talk of "hate" to anyone who would
listen, and hiding passports, important papers, etc. Suddenly the woman goes missing the day after a fight over the
fact that the man did not give the woman the expected allowance. The man NEVER EVER withdrew the money from his
bank - not that Friday when it was expected, and neither on Saturday when his wife was just "on a run or out with her friends." Coincidental?

The man mops, cleans, scours, launders the very day his wife becomes missing when it's not usually in his nature to
be THE main housekeeper. Coincidental?

The man can't find his wife and makes some attempt to ride around and look for her - and yet when his cell phone rings
he doesn't answer it, and when he realizes it is a call from a police officer, doesn't return the call immediately.
Coincidental?

The man makes two trips to a Harris Teeter which happens to capture his image on camera on the very morning his wife becomes
missing. Coincidental?

The man wears odd clothes for the weather and changes shoes between trips to the store. Coincidental?

The man tells officers his wife went jogging. No running shoes can be UNACCOUNTED for except two left shoes. Coincidental?

The woman is found wearing only a jogging bra - no SHOES, no pants, no undies, no socks. Coincidental?

The man happens to name the exact clothing item his wife was wearing when found dead after he told police officers he did not see her
leave the home. Coincidental?

The man has neck scratches and a bandaid on his finger. Coincidental?

The man informs police that he and his wife for the last couple months have been getting along fine and any marital
discord hasn't taken place. Coincidental?

The man tells police that he doesn't know how to access the call history on his cellular phone when he clearly is an expert
in his technological field dealing with phones, prototype phones, video phones. Coincidental?

The man is not truthful with police regarding his phone calls and movements in the day and hours leading up to his wife's
disappearance. Coincidental?

The man was the last person to have seen or spoke to the woman before she became missing. Coincidental?

The woman disappeared during an unplanned run alone, when her normal pattern was to run with one of a couple different running
partners. Coincidental?

Items seen less than 24 hours before the woman became missing were removed from a foyer area of the home. Coincidental?

The man gave two to three descriptions of clothes the woman wore the night before. Coincidental?

The woman showed no signs of sexual assault, her missing clothing (for a run) were never found, expensive diamond earrings
remained on her body. Coincidental?

The man described his route to the grocery stores and yet his car was seen in video coming from a different direction.
Coincidental?

The man discloses he has cleaned the trunk of his car in the recent past. Coincidental?

The man shows no emotion that the mother of the children he adores is missing and then later found dead. Coincidental?

The man does not attend a memorial service for a woman he had been married to for years and was the mother of his
children. Coincidental?


I think I could go on and on, but I'm getting foggy because it's late. But my point being... that is a lot of coincidences
to happen all within a very very short amount of time. I can't EASILY explain ALLLLLLLLL that coincidence away. I think
you really have to stretch to explain away all of the circumstantial evidence that has already been admitted into this
court case.

You did a pretty darn good job!

 

[Lori59]

I definitely think they were fighting about the money. I've said many times that the whole timing of her vacation, him living life for a week without her, her getting money before going on vacation, no food in the house even though she had been home for five days, living basically seperate lives within their house was in total a perfect storm. And just for the record, I don't believe there is proof that he was giving her $300 a week. It was going to be a very bad weekend considering that they had been apart for the previous two and seemed to like not having to deal with each other. MOO

Yep, and I'm thinking she came back from spending time with her family feeling supported and loved....I bet we will hear more from her dad. She came back from a great week and walked straight back into a life of hell with Brad at it's worse state. Very sad.

 

[CrimeAddict]

Approximately what time did this evidence get shown today? I missed it and I want to find where that came in so I can watch it. ANYONE?

Well I am on part 3 watching now, I am thinking you may need to look at part 1 and then part 2 and fast forward to find it. Hope that gets you close.

 

[ncsu95]

I see people who are truly on the fence finding positives and negatives on both sides. That's why it's called a fence. There are a few here who see everything the prosecution does as being wrong and are all pro-Brad and some that see everything as anti-Brad. Most of the true fence-sitters don't seem to say much. MOO

I assume from this statement that you think I am an ABB person. And that is so not true. I have been following this case from the beginning. It just intrigued me from the get go because of similarities in my life. I've been in telecom for 16 years, the last 11 as a Voip engineer. I worked at Nortel for most of that (a Cisco competitor). I have to young daughters (1 born a few months after the murder and the other is now 8). I have a stay at home wife. I'm and avid runner. And I have a lot of friends at Cisco. So there were many things that drew me to this case. I don't usually follow cases like this.

Anyways, I have read all the affidavits, watched all the depositions, participated in all of the discussions from way back when. And for this case, I just never was able to form a strong opinion one way or another. I'm not naive enough to think that Brad isn't the likely culprit. Most of the time, it is obviously the husband. But I was completely shocked when he was arrested based on what we knew from the depositions and search warrants. But I still didn't form an opinion on guilt.

So I decided to watch this trial as if I were a juror and with a presumption of innocence, which is what every defendant deserves. It's also why I couldn't be a juror on the Jason Young murder...I have formed an opinion on that one. So, since I have a presumption of innocence, I am trying to look at the evidence from that point of view. And that means I try to look at the actions of BC and determine if there is a logical and reasonable explanation for what he did during that time. I've shared many things about my past, and I always try to explain my opinion. There are many things that he did that I could see myself doing (except killing my wife if that is what he did). And I do like to participate in this forum. So my posts are usually me thinking through what is being presented to see if there is an explanation.

I also think some of the things the prosecution are throwing out there are absolutely absurd, which is frustrating. Look at 2 things from today. The first being the drop cloth purchase. I honestly don't get the point in this whole thing. He obviously didn't hide it since the receipt was in his car. And he obviously didn't use it since it was unopened in the garage. So why so much testimony around this? If it was just to show he left it out when describing his actions from the day before, that could have been done quickly just by showing the receipt. And we have argued over this thing all day and its pointless (in my opinion). Now take the shoes argument. This one is even more frustrating. I think we can all agree that he did not dump the body between the first trip to HT and the second trip to HT. There simply wasn't enough time to do so. So if he did it, he had to have dumped the body before the first trip. Yet he was wearing those shoes to HT after dumping the body. Based on all of the arguments in this forum, the 2nd trip was to provide the alibi with the phone call, and this was thought of during the first trip. It's fairly obvious he went home. We can see his vehicle moving into the parking lot for the 2nd trip, so he went somewhere (and it wasn't to dump the body). If the whole purpose of the 2nd trip was to produce an alibi, why would he change shoes? His whole focus would be on trying to set up the spoofed call, yet I'm to believe that he also had his mind on getting rid of his shoes too? It just doesn't make sense. There was very little time between the 2 trips. It's 4.5-6 mins each way to drive it. So why would he go home to turn around and come right back if he was doing it remotely anyways? And if he didn't go home, why would he have a pair of flip flops (or whatever they were) with him? And if he had it with him while dumping the body, why wouldn't he have changed them before going to HT the first time? It just doesn't make sense.

And then the prosecution keeps throwing in other stuff, such as the direction he came into the parking lot. That was supposed to look suspicious, but it's not. It's ridiculous to even talk about it. I'm assuming what the prosecution was trying to say is that he couldn't have been coming from the direction he said he did because he would have had to take an illegal left turn into the parking lot. But, if he was coming from the other direction, he would have passed every other entrance to get to that entrance. And if he is going to do that because he prefers that entrance, then why didn't he do that on the 2nd trip? So most likely, he made an illegal left turn into the parking lot because it was 6:20 in the morning and no traffic. But why even discuss it?

Anyways, I will continue to look at this and argue this in this forum. I will not disparage posters even if I disagree with their take on the evidence. I would greatly appreciate people doing the same to me. Feel free to disagree with my view of the evidence. Argue it all day long. But please do not post comments that are directed at me simply because you disagree with me. I am not being "snarky" or arguing for the sake of arguing. I am watching the trial just like you all and I am enjoying discussing the evidence as it is presented. Once it is all done, I will gladly share my opinion of guilt or innocence. I've shared many times the 2 big items that will go a long way in determining my view (physical evidence...which there was apparently none and the voip call). The computer evidence will also be big for me, unless it is just showing him monitoring her email.

Sorry for the length of the post...carry on.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Carefully listening to this car thing at HT and this is what I got in case someone wasn't paying enough attention or had buffering issues like me today

1st trip car last seen at 626am
Car seen coming back second trip 641am

Detective said it takes between 4.5 and 6 minutes to get from HT to Coopers residence.

Assumption: He did not go home in between. Was he fixing the phone with his blackberry to have home call cell or just doing something else..

I don't think so. Based on the 6:34 call and the 6:37 call, (I think I have those times right) I think he went home.

 

[jmflu]

ncsu, I've enjoyed reading your posts of late. In fact I was enjoying reading what you just wrote but it disappeared when I went to the 2nd page to continue it!

ETA ok, I was able to continue reading it.

 

[CrimeAddict]

I don't think so. Based on the 6:34 call and the 6:37 call, (I think I have those times right) I think he went home.

I think it's possible he sat in his car and fixed up the phone and called himself.

 

[johnfear]

Don't forget the shoes, folks, I think we'll hear about them (I didn't say "see" them) again. The ADAs have lightly dismissed some things (as in the question about the necklace, when Zellinger said to young Young, something like "never mind for now."

They have driven us crazy on a few details like this. Although Cummings is slow and has his er's and um's, I think he's in the back room cooking up a bomb.

I have been thinking this the whole time.

 

[Lori59]

ncsu95..read your post. Thanks. I'm just curious, as someone coming from your view...is there anything that you find that makes Brad look guilty yet? I see most of your post as trying to dismiss any circumstantial evidence with any possible explanation....which is fine and makes everyone see a different point. But, if you care to share.....anything yet makes you go hmmm......I am being totally serious and not antagonistic....really am curious if anything has made you stop and feel he may have done this crime. Thanks.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I assume from this statement that you think I am an ABB person. And that is so not true.

(snipped to address this issue)

I'm not one to use the ABB acronym so I wouldn't call you or anyone else by that. I look at a fence sitter as being one who comments pro and con equally. I don't see you in that category anymore than I see myself there. I see you as someone who is on the "not guilty" side of the fence and you are waiting for someone to provide something to pull you over to the other side. I see myself as being on the "guilty" side of the fence and I'm waiting for someone to provide something to pull me over. And before you tell me that he is "innocent until proven guilty", you are correct. But I'm not on the jury and what I think has zero to do with the outcome so I can consider evidence not in court at this time. I think that so far it's looking like he did this. MOO