jmflu
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,404
- Reaction score
- 0
He had to go home, didn't he? Neighbors could have seen him leave and not come back...
State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11
- Thread starter SleuthyGal
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
He had to go home, didn't he? Neighbors could have seen him leave and not come back...
He couldn't have dumped her body between HT trips. There was not enough time.
I agree....dumping the body was first priority. Then set up his alibi..which is going to convict him JMO.
jmflu
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,404
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the Anyone But Brad moniker someone came up with can only describe a fanatical denial of any of the facts, inconsistencies, and circumstantial evidence presented thus far. I still think of people as fencers if they believe he is innocent until proven guilty but don't act like they think it could be...anyone but Brad. Like they have a personal stake in the outcome...a lover...a mother...a defense attorney...someone most would agree could not be unbiased to begin with.
Maja
Seeker of Truth
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2008
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 1
Must say the SUV would be more practical in terms of putting a body into. Very surprised it didn't go through the same inspection as the car.
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 19,495
- Reaction score
- 51,990
Perhaps Brad felt if he was seen driving Nancy car..that would appear odd. Didn't Nancy keep her car locked from him with important papers inside. Yes. I think Brad knew he had no business in her car, especially while dumping her body.
Yes, he's the husband in a bad relationship. And it's usually the husband. But as far as evidence is concerned, he was obviously lying about checking call logs on his phone. I also am curious why he didn't get the allowance on Friday or Satuday morning. I'm puzzled by the 4:00 am wake up of the daughter but no trip to HT until 6:20 (although I can kind of understand that one). And I am bothered by the testimony about what he said she was wearing. Of course, we don't know the context of that yet or what was said before or after. We only got 1 piece of that. But I'm still anxiously awaiting the evidence with regards to the spoofed call. I hope I'm not disappointed, but assume I will be.
jumpstreet
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2008
- Messages
- 703
- Reaction score
- 0
Can we have an "ABBI" as a moniker? (Any Body But an Innocent)? That one would work for me...
CrimeAddict
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2008
- Messages
- 629
- Reaction score
- 793
I agree, but I am still thinking he didn't go home and did something else in between.. maybe dumped shoes and fixed up the calls.
Fair enough. I hope my post adequately explained my position.
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
I'm going to insert my opinions. I don't think you mean to say "coincidental" do you? These maybe are suspicions to you, but I don't see how one would describe them as coincidence. That doesn't make sense to me.
ETA: This is a reply to less0305. I cut/pasted
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. Lots of people separate and have marital and financial problems. Evidence shows he bought her everything she ever wanted until he finally put her on a budget. They were broke. They seemed civil to each other. He bought paint for her work, they were seen happy together at a Memorial day party and were civil to each other and planning to get together with friends on the 12th.
Suddenly the woman goes missing the day after a fight over the
fact that the man did not give the woman the expected allowance. It is a fact that he gave her $300/week. If she was paid $240 for painting,why should he still pay her $300 on top of that?
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?
He had just purchased $100 worth of paint for her project. She was reimbursed for it and given an additional $140 from JA.
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? Okay, everyone says he cleaned, mopped, etc but the next day say the place was a mess. Which is it? Unless you live with someone, no one can say how much he cleaned or did laundry. That does not look suspicious. The dress in question did not even show signs of being laundered. The SBI specialist said there was no indication of that. There was still a food stain on it.
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?
He called and asked for CC's number, drove around, checked the fitness center. I don't know about not answering the call right away. Maybe he was in the fitness center when the call came and the phone was in the car. I'm not aware that he ignored a police call.
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?
Again, the trips to the store are believable.
The man wears odd clothes for the weather and changes shoes between trips to the store. Coincidental?
What was odd about the clothes? What do you suggest he was hiding in his jacket? What is wrong with wearing jeans?
The man tells officers his wife went jogging. No running shoes can be UNACCOUNTED for except two left shoes. Coincidental?
The defense claims the shoes she was wearing were never found. There is a missing pair of Saucony's Let's let them have a chance to explain this.
The woman is found wearing only a jogging bra - no SHOES, no pants, no undies, no socks. Coincidental?
This, to me means the husband probably did not do it. I don't believe a husband would intentionally expose her like that after a fit of rage turned to murder. He would have dressed her.
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?
If he did it, he would have been careful to not mention that specific detail.
The man has neck scratches and a bandaid on his finger. Coincidental?
Heresay
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?
They were getting along. They were planning to get together with friends that evening. He had just purchased paint for her project.
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?
Cell phones can be confusing. I don't find this unbelievable. I would have no idea how to do that without reading the manual.
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?
I haven't seen evidence of that yet.
The man was the last person to have seen or spoke to the woman before she became missing. Coincidental?
Yes
The woman disappeared during an unplanned run alone, when her normal pattern was to run with one of a couple different running
partners. Coincidental?
She didn't disappear. She told him she was going for a run. For all we know, she may have gone to meet JP. We don't know.
Items seen less than 24 hours before the woman became missing were removed from a foyer area of the home. Coincidental?
Hearsay from an unreliable witness who I do not trust and have bad vibes about. (JA)
The man gave two to three descriptions of clothes the woman wore the night before. Coincidental?
Do you remember what your spouse wore yesterday? The dress is not missing. It was sitting in the hamper.
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?
Yes, more signs that a random crime took place. A sexual assault could not be confirmed or denied.
The man described his route to the grocery stores and yet his car was seen in video coming from a different direction.
Coincidental?
I don't think this is very strong evidence of anything? The entrance to a store being wrong?
The man discloses he has cleaned the trunk of his car in the recent past. Coincidental?
Yes
The man shows no emotion that the mother of the children he adores is missing and then later found dead. Coincidental?
How do you know he showed no emotion? You have no idea how he dealt with this in his private home alone. This proves nothing.
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 wouldn't have either. The neighbors organized a witch hunt the very day she went missing.
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.
ETA: This is a reply to less0305. I cut/pasted
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. Lots of people separate and have marital and financial problems. Evidence shows he bought her everything she ever wanted until he finally put her on a budget. They were broke. They seemed civil to each other. He bought paint for her work, they were seen happy together at a Memorial day party and were civil to each other and planning to get together with friends on the 12th.
Suddenly the woman goes missing the day after a fight over the
fact that the man did not give the woman the expected allowance. It is a fact that he gave her $300/week. If she was paid $240 for painting,why should he still pay her $300 on top of that?
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?
He had just purchased $100 worth of paint for her project. She was reimbursed for it and given an additional $140 from JA.
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? Okay, everyone says he cleaned, mopped, etc but the next day say the place was a mess. Which is it? Unless you live with someone, no one can say how much he cleaned or did laundry. That does not look suspicious. The dress in question did not even show signs of being laundered. The SBI specialist said there was no indication of that. There was still a food stain on it.
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?
He called and asked for CC's number, drove around, checked the fitness center. I don't know about not answering the call right away. Maybe he was in the fitness center when the call came and the phone was in the car. I'm not aware that he ignored a police call.
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?
Again, the trips to the store are believable.
The man wears odd clothes for the weather and changes shoes between trips to the store. Coincidental?
What was odd about the clothes? What do you suggest he was hiding in his jacket? What is wrong with wearing jeans?
The man tells officers his wife went jogging. No running shoes can be UNACCOUNTED for except two left shoes. Coincidental?
The defense claims the shoes she was wearing were never found. There is a missing pair of Saucony's Let's let them have a chance to explain this.
The woman is found wearing only a jogging bra - no SHOES, no pants, no undies, no socks. Coincidental?
This, to me means the husband probably did not do it. I don't believe a husband would intentionally expose her like that after a fit of rage turned to murder. He would have dressed her.
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?
If he did it, he would have been careful to not mention that specific detail.
The man has neck scratches and a bandaid on his finger. Coincidental?
Heresay
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?
They were getting along. They were planning to get together with friends that evening. He had just purchased paint for her project.
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?
Cell phones can be confusing. I don't find this unbelievable. I would have no idea how to do that without reading the manual.
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?
I haven't seen evidence of that yet.
The man was the last person to have seen or spoke to the woman before she became missing. Coincidental?
Yes
The woman disappeared during an unplanned run alone, when her normal pattern was to run with one of a couple different running
partners. Coincidental?
She didn't disappear. She told him she was going for a run. For all we know, she may have gone to meet JP. We don't know.
Items seen less than 24 hours before the woman became missing were removed from a foyer area of the home. Coincidental?
Hearsay from an unreliable witness who I do not trust and have bad vibes about. (JA)
The man gave two to three descriptions of clothes the woman wore the night before. Coincidental?
Do you remember what your spouse wore yesterday? The dress is not missing. It was sitting in the hamper.
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?
Yes, more signs that a random crime took place. A sexual assault could not be confirmed or denied.
The man described his route to the grocery stores and yet his car was seen in video coming from a different direction.
Coincidental?
I don't think this is very strong evidence of anything? The entrance to a store being wrong?
The man discloses he has cleaned the trunk of his car in the recent past. Coincidental?
Yes
The man shows no emotion that the mother of the children he adores is missing and then later found dead. Coincidental?
How do you know he showed no emotion? You have no idea how he dealt with this in his private home alone. This proves nothing.
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 wouldn't have either. The neighbors organized a witch hunt the very day she went missing.
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 agree. Lots of scratch your head type of actions or lack of action from the CPD.
jumpstreet
Member
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2008
- Messages
- 703
- Reaction score
- 0
Maybe I missed it as I caught a bit of out context, but today, was the ADA actually trying to convince the judge to just 'take his prediction' on what the doc would say if he was called to the stand?
The judge seemed to really indulge him (maybe just being polite...). Couldn't help but wonder what type of reaction Kurtz would/will get if he suggests to the judge to just 'take my word for it'.
Fortunately, the judge seemed to go 'by the book' on it: you want the doctor's testimony entered into evidence... call him to the stand, and let's hear it...
The judge seemed to really indulge him (maybe just being polite...). Couldn't help but wonder what type of reaction Kurtz would/will get if he suggests to the judge to just 'take my word for it'.
Fortunately, the judge seemed to go 'by the book' on it: you want the doctor's testimony entered into evidence... call him to the stand, and let's hear it...
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
I would like to add the 6:05 call to his phone from the home phone. The other early morning phone activity isn't evidence (yet) but suspicious. The call to his office system at 6:37 is VERY suspicious to me. By all the evidence he had to be back on the road to HT by then. I don't know anyone that calls their work voice mail without being in a position to write down information for call backs. None of that activity prior to 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning makes sense to me.
Loved your longer post, Lori (that was very cool!) on coincidences.
I am, btw, a professional fence sitter. (Working in Environmental Management and one of my largest responsibilities is conflict mediation and resolution and I am aware this is an odd combo, but a fun one).
But seriously, what fun would it be without both sides here? A whole lotta shorter posts and way less discussion.
Half the fun is in being able to sit down, tear everything apart and put it back together. Especially in trying to see what a jury is getting out of it.
Oops. Sorry! I goofed on the attribution of the author of the post. My apologies.
I am, btw, a professional fence sitter. (Working in Environmental Management and one of my largest responsibilities is conflict mediation and resolution and I am aware this is an odd combo, but a fun one).
But seriously, what fun would it be without both sides here? A whole lotta shorter posts and way less discussion.
Half the fun is in being able to sit down, tear everything apart and put it back together. Especially in trying to see what a jury is getting out of it.
Oops. Sorry! I goofed on the attribution of the author of the post. My apologies.
Can we talk about the cleaning? I am a stay at home mom with a hard working husband. I would never expect him to wake up early Sat. morning, take care of the kids, and clean the heck out of the house...albeit old fashion. Heck, I wouldn't even want to do that much cleaning on a Sat morning while watching 2 young children. Does everyone agree that is a crazy Sat. morning....while your wife is missing?
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
It did. I did read it all. I respect your posts and positions. I just don't consider you on the fence. You are just to one side while I'm on the other. We can still see each other through the slats. :seeya:
I personally would have gone with the screw on the license plate being part of an attempt to switch plates in the middle of the night.
- Status