State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11

[ncsu95]

Here is my problem with the 6-7am phone calls on 7/12. BC indicated that at one point he called his cell phone from the home phone to locate the cell phone. There are just 2 such calls that are placed from home phone to cell phone prior to the call from NC at 6:40am for juice. The first is at 6:05am and the second is at 6:37am. The 6:05am has a seizure time of 1 second and a duration of 23 seconds. My thinking, and perhaps also my misunderstanding, is that a 1 second duration implies that called device was set to auto answer or call forward all to a system like VM. For the 6:05am call I have reason to believe that this call was forwarded to VM since it is not on the billable record. This implies to me that the 6:05am call would not have resulted in an audible ring of the cell phone. The call to locate the cell phone must have occurred at 6:37am. There is also records that indicate that at 6:25am the cell phone was involved in some internet browsing. So, if we are to believe that BC misplaced his cell phone it must have occurred between 6:25am and 6:37am.

Testimony today indicated that BC's car was last seen in HT parking lot at 6:26 and was seen again at 6:40. Detective Young indicated that a one-way trip takes between 4.5 and 6 minutes. Therefore BC arrived home at 6:30am at the earliest. If he was to have been back in the HT parking lot at 6:40am then he could have left no later than 6:36am. I am using 4 minute one-way trip time. How can he have called his cell phone at 6:37 from the home phone to locate his cell phone if he was already on his way to HT for the second trip?

Excellent points. The defense said in opening statements that the 6:05 call was to locate the phone. Is it possible that NC tried calling Brad at 6:37 and hung up for whatever reason (maybe had to put the laundry in or whatever). Then tried again a couple of minutes later. Did that call actually show in his call logs on the phone, or just the call records from AT&T?

 

[gracielee]

It was a custody hearing. Of course he wanted to come across as super dad.

At the expense of making derogatory, dispairaging remarks about his poor *murdered* wife, mother of his children? Did you actually listen to all the tapes?

 

[Maja]

Those are definately parking lot times.

Maybe it's late and I'm stupid, but the way I do the math (giving him 5 mins. travel time to and from) would leave him with 5 mins. at home. No?

Not stupid, that's for sure. Good catch. I had 15 mins in my head and meant to say drive 5 home 5 drive 5. Thank you for keeping me straight

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm sure it's all just a misunderstanding. The fact that CPD could not locate the 2 left shoes of NC's and did not find BC's shoes worn on 7/12 only points to their incompetence and ineptness. I'm sure those shoes were right there in open sight...maybe on the shelf in the laundry room. They couldn't have been truly *missing,* cause that would be something a brilliantly smart man like Brad wouldn't do. Nope. They are there...in fact, maybe they're STILL there with the new owners of the house since 2009? The police just aren't being thorough and they're obviously so stubborn not to admit they didn't really look for those shoes.

Tsk, tsk. Missing shoes. As if!

 

[Cheyenne130]

Here is my problem with the 6-7am phone calls on 7/12. BC indicated that at one point he called his cell phone from the home phone to locate the cell phone. There are just 2 such calls that are placed from home phone to cell phone prior to the call from NC at 6:40am for juice. The first is at 6:05am and the second is at 6:37am. The 6:05am has a seizure time of 1 second and a duration of 23 seconds. My thinking, and perhaps also my misunderstanding, is that a 1 second duration implies that called device was set to auto answer or call forward all to a system like VM. For the 6:05am call I have reason to believe that this call was forwarded to VM since it is not on the billable record. This implies to me that the 6:05am call would not have resulted in an audible ring of the cell phone. The call to locate the cell phone must have occurred at 6:37am. There is also records that indicate that at 6:25am the cell phone was involved in some internet browsing. So, if we are to believe that BC misplaced his cell phone it must have occurred between 6:25am and 6:37am.

Testimony today indicated that BC's car was last seen in HT parking lot at 6:26 and was seen again at 6:40. Detective Young indicated that a one-way trip takes between 4.5 and 6 minutes. Therefore BC arrived home at 6:30am at the earliest. If he was to have been back in the HT parking lot at 6:40am then he could have left no later than 6:36am. I am using 4 minute one-way trip time. How can he have called his cell phone at 6:37 from the home phone to locate his cell phone if he was already on his way to HT for the second trip?

Tapes and testimony today showed him at 6:25 in HT with the cell phone in his hand doing something, so that matches up with the 6:25 data activity. Question is what data activity was so important at that particular time when he was on a quick trip to get milk for a crying child?

 

[Lori59]

I must say, we have a grocery store about the same distance from our house and there have been a few times my husband went to get something we needed only to come home and we realize we need something else. He doesn't get upset, just goes back to get the item. So the story is not unreasonable.

Well this whole case is making me think I don't have the perfect man anymore! Brad is just so helpful. I couldn't get my husband to go to the store on a Sat. morning at 6:30 period! And if I did, and then said upon his return....oh honey you need to go back.....well let's just say I would be in fantasy land at that point. Then I say...bye honey..I'm off to jog....watch the kids and clean the house for 6 hours....well that is just an amazing husband that ole Brad guy :banghead:

 

[sunshine05]

Here is my problem with the 6-7am phone calls on 7/12. BC indicated that at one point he called his cell phone from the home phone to locate the cell phone. There are just 2 such calls that are placed from home phone to cell phone prior to the call from NC at 6:40am for juice. The first is at 6:05am and the second is at 6:37am. The 6:05am has a seizure time of 1 second and a duration of 23 seconds. My thinking, and perhaps also my misunderstanding, is that a 1 second duration implies that called device was set to auto answer or call forward all to a system like VM. For the 6:05am call I have reason to believe that this call was forwarded to VM since it is not on the billable record. This implies to me that the 6:05am call would not have resulted in an audible ring of the cell phone. The call to locate the cell phone must have occurred at 6:37am. There is also records that indicate that at 6:25am the cell phone was involved in some internet browsing. So, if we are to believe that BC misplaced his cell phone it must have occurred between 6:25am and 6:37am.

Testimony today indicated that BC's car was last seen in HT parking lot at 6:26 and was seen again at 6:40. Detective Young indicated that a one-way trip takes between 4.5 and 6 minutes. Therefore BC arrived home at 6:30am at the earliest. If he was to have been back in the HT parking lot at 6:40am then he could have left no later than 6:36am. I am using 4 minute one-way trip time. How can he have called his cell phone at 6:37 from the home phone to locate his cell phone if he was already on his way to HT for the second trip?

I still think that 23 sec call will be shown to be the one he claimed to use to find his phone, it was set to ring once then roll to VM...23 second message.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I don't see a sports bra as 'underwear'. Remember the USA Women's soccer girl? Did anybody think she was doing a strip tease in her celebration? You didn't get my point - the bra could have been the only thing he could think of that she more than likely had worn while running. If my wife was murdered to/from church, I'd think along the lines of what would she most likely would have worn to church. It seems you think that a sports bra is kinda risque, something men shouldn't talk about in public. Dude, women wear them as tops, with no shirt over them sometimes. What's the big deal???

You don't but Nancy was known to never run in just a sports bra. So to Nancy it was something to be worn underneath another item of clothing. Under wear. Hey...underwear! Whaddya know!

 

[jmflu]

Here is my problem with the 6-7am phone calls on 7/12. BC indicated that at one point he called his cell phone from the home phone to locate the cell phone. There are just 2 such calls that are placed from home phone to cell phone prior to the call from NC at 6:40am for juice. The first is at 6:05am and the second is at 6:37am. The 6:05am has a seizure time of 1 second and a duration of 23 seconds. My thinking, and perhaps also my misunderstanding, is that a 1 second duration implies that called device was set to auto answer or call forward all to a system like VM. For the 6:05am call I have reason to believe that this call was forwarded to VM since it is not on the billable record. This implies to me that the 6:05am call would not have resulted in an audible ring of the cell phone. The call to locate the cell phone must have occurred at 6:37am. There is also records that indicate that at 6:25am the cell phone was involved in some internet browsing. So, if we are to believe that BC misplaced his cell phone it must have occurred between 6:25am and 6:37am.

Testimony today indicated that BC's car was last seen in HT parking lot at 6:26 and was seen again at 6:40. Detective Young indicated that a one-way trip takes between 4.5 and 6 minutes. Therefore BC arrived home at 6:30am at the earliest. If he was to have been back in the HT parking lot at 6:40am then he could have left no later than 6:36am. I am using 4 minute one-way trip time. How can he have called his cell phone at 6:37 from the home phone to locate his cell phone if he was already on his way to HT for the second trip?

I think we have a tie for post of the night! Whoa! That's some sleuthing!

 

[gracielee]

Can you be more specific? I didn't catch him diminishing her at all. He talked about all the things he provided for her over the years, many of those things we know as fact..car, jewelry, paintings.

I have a car, jewelry, paintings, never considered any of that as 'stuff my husband *provided* for me over the years though. Lot's of the jewelry was gifts, Christmas, Birthday, Mother's Day, etc. Some of our art I bought, some my husband wanted, and we both had/have 'car's'. What does any of this *stuff* have to do with the dispairaging remarks Brad made about the murdered mother of his children?

 

[SleuthinNC]

Here is my problem with the 6-7am phone calls on 7/12. BC indicated that at one point he called his cell phone from the home phone to locate the cell phone. There are just 2 such calls that are placed from home phone to cell phone prior to the call from NC at 6:40am for juice. The first is at 6:05am and the second is at 6:37am. The 6:05am has a seizure time of 1 second and a duration of 23 seconds. My thinking, and perhaps also my misunderstanding, is that a 1 second duration implies that called device was set to auto answer or call forward all to a system like VM. For the 6:05am call I have reason to believe that this call was forwarded to VM since it is not on the billable record. This implies to me that the 6:05am call would not have resulted in an audible ring of the cell phone. The call to locate the cell phone must have occurred at 6:37am. There is also records that indicate that at 6:25am the cell phone was involved in some internet browsing. So, if we are to believe that BC misplaced his cell phone it must have occurred between 6:25am and 6:37am.

Testimony today indicated that BC's car was last seen in HT parking lot at 6:26 and was seen again at 6:40. Detective Young indicated that a one-way trip takes between 4.5 and 6 minutes. Therefore BC arrived home at 6:30am at the earliest. If he was to have been back in the HT parking lot at 6:40am then he could have left no later than 6:36am. I am using 4 minute one-way trip time. How can he have called his cell phone at 6:37 from the home phone to locate his cell phone if he was already on his way to HT for the second trip?

I would be more inclined to think the 6:05 call was to locate the phone, it rings several times and goes to voicemail while he is looking around for it.

6:34 call rings and drops for whatever reason. He notices the missed call and dials voicemail to see if he has a message.

 

[LaLaw2000]

While I was looking for the picture of the shoes, I ran across the plastic drop cloth in the HD bag as well. It's here at about 9:14 on the video.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9344262/#/vid9344262

I was just catching up from this afternoon and saw your post, DogWood. I did stop the video exactly where you stated and in the next frame or so ADA Zellinger did an even better closeup on the plastic bag with the dropcloth in the top. If you view this frame in full screen, you can clearly see that the top part of the original drop cloth bag is cut open at the top. It looks like scissors or some sharp item had cut the bag open. It is a clean cut. JMO.

*Going to finish catching up now.

 

[sunshine05]

Well this whole case is making me think I don't have the perfect man anymore! Brad is just so helpful. I couldn't get my husband to go to the store on a Sat. morning at 6:30 period! And if I did, and then said upon his return....oh honey you need to go back.....well let's just say I would be in fantasy land at that point. Then I say...bye honey..I'm off to jog....watch the kids and clean the house for 6 hours....well that is just an amazing husband that ole Brad guy :banghead:

It's just different personalities. My husband would not complain about going back to the store and I think he just likes feeling like he's being helpful for the family. Every single time he is out he calls to ask me if I need anything, even if I told him right before he left that I don't. It would be out of character for him to complain when I ask for help. It is not that rare to find guys like this.

I don't know enough about BC to know if he was helpful or not. I just know that he bought her everything she wanted.

 

[Albert]

I still think that 23 sec call will be shown to be the one he claimed to use to find his phone, it was set to ring once then roll to VM...23 second message.

For ring once and then go to VM... I would think that the seizure time would be greater than 1 second, correct? Call the 476-2001 number, this call is answered immediately and the seizure time is 1 second.

 

[lib's mom]

Not stupid, that's for sure. Good catch. I had 15 mins in my head and meant to say drive 5 home 5 drive 5. Thank you for keeping me straight

Don't worry about it, Jack!

Sorry. I've spent alot of time in Robeson Co. for work and I do believe everybody in that county calls each other Jack, pa, pa sack, daddy, momma, Mookie or variations of gal (black gal, white gal, long haired gal, mule-faced gal.) Now I'm doing it!

 

[jmflu]

You don't but Nancy was known to never run in just a sports bra. So to Nancy it was something to be worn underneath another item of clothing. Under wear. Hey...underwear! Whaddya know!

Not to mention, Nancy never ran alone. Even Brad knew that, that's why he invented the running partner.

 

[ncsu95]

At the expense of making derogatory, dispairaging remarks about his poor *murdered* wife, mother of his children? Did you actually listen to all the tapes?

Yes, although it's been 2.5 years.

 

[Albert]

Excellent points. The defense said in opening statements that the 6:05 call was to locate the phone. Is it possible that NC tried calling Brad at 6:37 and hung up for whatever reason (maybe had to put the laundry in or whatever). Then tried again a couple of minutes later. Did that call actually show in his call logs on the phone, or just the call records from AT&T?

Perhaps, but wouldn't BC have indicated that not only did NC contact him at 6:40am that she also tried to contact him at 6:37am?

 

[sunshine05]

I have a car, jewelry, paintings, never considered any of that as 'stuff my husband *provided* for me over the years though. Lot's of the jewelry was gifts, Christmas, Birthday, Mother's Day, etc. Some of our art I bought, some my husband wanted, and we both had/have 'car's'. What does any of this *stuff* have to do with the dispairaging remarks Brad made about the murdered mother of his children?

What disparaging remarks did he make?

I think the expensive luxury items go beyond simply providing for someone. He did it to try to please her. That doesn't sound like someone who hated their spouse, imo.

*** Please don't yell at me when you direct a post to me. ( You bolded *stuff* and *provided*.) If it happens again, I will not respond back.

 

[jmflu]

What disparaging remarks did he make?

I think the expensive luxury items go beyond simply providing for someone. He did it to try to please her. That doesn't sound like someone who hated their spouse, imo.

*** Please don't yell at me when you direct a post to me. ( You bolded *stuff* and *provided*.) If it happens again, I will not respond back.

All caps is yelling. Bolding is emphasis.