State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11

[ncsu95]

I'm willing to bet she didn't....seems like running for her was social.

Running half marathons is not a social event (in my opinion). It requires a certain level of dedication and training that doesn't always match up with running with others. I've run in pouring down rain, snow/ice, 15 degree weather with 30 mile an hour winds, 100+ degree temperatures, and every other scenario you can think of. I've run 6 miles on New Years day after puking my brains out from over indulging the night before. I've run when sick, when tired, when hurt (like I am now) because it needs to be done.

Now I also always run alone, so I have a different perspective. But I can't believe she NEVER ran alone.

 

[Albert]

I disagree because I don't think the description given for the seizure time is completely accurate or at least the understanding people have come away with.

My understanding of seizure time is how long it takes to do the call signaling till the call is actually answered. Finding an exact definition of seizure time on the internet is difficult, I have to filter epilepsy hits.

 

[ncsu95]

But you didn't know Nancy. The people that knew her said she did not. Why would Brad involve someone in her running plans who could easily disprove it if he wasn't trying to make it look like it really happened?

Exactly. Why would he say she was running with someone that could easily prove she had no plans to run with unless that is what he was told:innocent: by her. Why would he intentionally pick something so easy to disprove?

 

[ncsu95]

I thought they were seen in the call records but not on the call log on the phone which is what sent up a suspicion flag for me.

I wish you could remember where....it would explain that call for me.

 

[SleuthinNC]

My understanding of seizure time is how long it takes to do the call signaling till the call is actually answered. Finding an exact definition of seizure time on the internet is difficult, I have to filter epilepsy hits.

My understanding of seizure time has always been the time from initiation of call until the switch determines how to process the call and a channel is assigned. During this time the switch "seizes" a temporary or signaling channel to use until the actual channel is assigned. There are many variables that can effect the length of seizure time.

 

[Albert]

I wish you could remember where....it would explain that call for me.

Has the call history from the phone been entered into evidence yet? The only thing I recall about this is that BC indicated he did not know how to view the history.

 

[gracielee]

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.

Excuse me? When I BOLD something, it's because I want it to stand out from the other words. It has nothing to do with yelling. My best friend called me the other day to ask why I did this ((((((((( best friend ))))))))) on Facebook. She thought I was mad at her or something, until I told her those were 'hugs' to her cause it was the anniversay date of her husbands death. I was merely attempting to comfort her on that date. I don't know how to make words or phrases in different colors, so I sometimes bold things. It has nothing to do with yelling, neither does my usage of ***'s. I'm old, I don't know what the younger folk do, I pick up what I can, but I don't know how to make different colors to highlight stuff I want to say.

As for the other remarks, I don't consider a marriage as 'providing for' anyone. We are equal partners. I stayed home, took care of the house, children, and now grandchildren, for free. My husband and I always considered *our* income to be *our's* equally. But for my staying home and caring for the house and children, he wouldn't have been able to up and go on business trips with a moments notice sometimes. He wouldn't have been able to be counted on at work, time off cause one of the kids is sick again, doctors appointments, etc. So we always considered the money 'we' earned to be ours. We always had joint checking accounts, joint savings accounts. And back in the olden days, we had a checking account in my name only, just in case something every happened to him and I'd need cash before things could be settled. So I'd always have a way to get money to pay bills, feed our kids, etc. I provided apple pies, plentifully, but never thought about them in terms of *providing* apple pies. He loved 'em, I baked 'em.

 

[lib's mom]

Exactly. Why would he say she was running with someone that could easily prove she had no plans to run with unless that is what he was told:innocent: by her. Why would he intentionally pick something so easy to disprove?

I don't know. Why did he say he went to vet clinic where Carrie was working that morning to see if Nancy was there? Carrie said he never came in looking for Nancy.

 

[Albert]

My understanding of seizure time has always been the time from initiation of call until the switch determines how to process the call and a channel is assigned. During this time the switch "seizes" a temporary or signaling channel to use until the actual channel is assigned. There are many variables that can effect the length of seizure time.

hmmm... I guess it can't be initiation of the call from the perspective of the calling party as this can be a call originated from a different network. So, perhaps initiation of call is when the cellular network receives notification of the call till the cellular network seizes a channel? If this is the case then this would not account for the time it takes to answer the call. I wish that my wife would not have gotten rid of my telecommunications books. Oh well, expert testimony is forthcoming.

 

[gracielee]

We have hashed through this very point since 2008. Every conceivable thought about Brad cleaning to 'please' his wife after her unhappiness about the state of the house after vacation. But the one thing...nee...the ONLY thing Nancy wanted that Fri was her money. And here Brad is picking up a tarp, and buying a 6 pack of beer, and making TWO trips to HT...all to 'please Nancy.' Except Nancy wanted the one thing he never ever gave her again. He never went to get her any money. Not on Friday, not on Sat, not on Sun, not on Mon.

Yeah, I'm new here. Wasn't here in 2008. < slaps forehead > :innocent:

It just struck me when I read your post earlier. < trying to find one of those little thingies for SLOW > to insert here.

 

[lib's mom]

It matches what he told the detectives. He said NC was doing the laundry early that morning.

No, no, it's something more than that. Wasn't part of the reason he got picked up in October his who was doing laundry when story?

It's tickling the back of brain...it just can't put my finger on it right now.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Has the call history from the phone been entered into evidence yet? The only thing I recall about this is that BC indicated he did not know how to view the history.

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the middle of all the numbers flying back and forth it was.

I have notes showing the phone call log with calls starting at 6:37 am and then detailed call records starting at 6:05. I remember thinking "That's odd, it looks like the 6:05 and 6:34 calls were deleted from the call log on his phone"

 

[CyberPro]

Yeah, why didn't Brad want CPD to know he stopped in at Lowe's on Fri morning 7/11/08? He was merely being a 'good guy' getting a painting type supply for his wife, wasn't he? What was the big deal? Did Brad not want to have to answer questions about his Lowe's purchase? I assume that's why he said nothing about that little trip--I don't believe it slipped his mind. He didn't tell them on purpose.

I have been traveling most of the day, but I did manage to catch a bit of the video of BC at Lowe's.

To me, this kinda throws a bit of cold water on the CPD not being through in their investigation. Now, I know that some might see this differently as they are still focused on BC, but that is not at all unusual. Most people are killed by someone they know. So, you start there and see where it leads you. If they had found lots of folks saying what a loyal and devoted spouse he was, great with the kids and devoted to his family. I don't think they would have been checking with Lowe's to find the contents of their store cameras.

As it is, they were able to discover a trip he made to the Lowe's and PAID WITH CASH, so there were no credit card records. The receipt in the floorboard was the indicator.

O' what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

 

[SleuthinNC]

hmmm... I guess it can't be initiation of the call from the perspective of the calling party as this can be a call originated from a different network. So, perhaps initiation of call is when the cellular network receives notification of the call till the cellular network seizes a channel? If this is the case then this would not account for the time it takes to answer the call. I wish that my wife would not have gotten rid of my telecommunications books. Oh well, expert testimony is forthcoming.

Exactly! I definitely hope there is more clarification provided from the experts. Unfortunately I just don't think it is as accurate a time stamp as it would initially seem.

 

[ncsu95]

No, no, it's something more than that. Wasn't part of the reason he got picked up in October his who was doing laundry when story?

It's tickling the back of brain...it just can't put my finger on it right now.

The testimony from the detectives in this trial said BC told them NC was doing the laundry early that morning.

 

[ncsu95]

I have been traveling most of the day, but I did manage to catch a bit of the video of BC at Lowe's.

To me, this kinda throws a bit of cold water on the CPD not being through in their investigation. Now, I know that some might see this differently as they are still focused on BC, but that is not at all unusual. Most people are killed by someone they know. So, you start there and see where it leads you. If they had found lots of folks saying what a loyal and devoted spouse he was, great with the kids and devoted to his family. I don't think they would have been checking with Lowe's to find the contents of their store cameras.

As it is, they were able to discover a trip he made to the Lowe's and PAID WITH CASH, so there were no credit card records. The receipt in the floorboard was the indicator.

O' what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

I don't think anyone has ever said they weren't thorough in their investigation of BC, including the defense.

 

[gracielee]

I'm in the camp of "inclinded to believe he is guilty" but "not convinced". There are a lot of things against him that don't prove guilt but are also not the actions/words of an innocent man. There are a lot of inconsistencies in what he has said and that is not the characteristic of an innocent man. I know that NC was murdered and I know that it happened on July 12th, 2008. That narrows it down and her husband is definitely a likely suspect. So far there is nothing to change my mind to knock him off the #1 spot. MOO

Exactly, there are so many things that point towards him. Not the least being the black & red sports bra. It isn't that he said 'she wore a sports bra to run in', but he specified the correct colors. All those other sports bras laid out on the dining room table and photographed for evidence. Not a single other black & red one, though. It's like that with so many things. All the little things add up. Seeiing all those clothes freshly laundered and in piles in the photographs too. Brad had to have had that washer and dryer going non stop to wash that many clothes in the couple days since Nancy 'went missing' and turned up dead. why was her bed covered in boxes and boxes of clothes between the morning she 'went missing' and the day the cops photographed the bedroom?

 

[Albert]

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the middle of all the numbers flying back and forth it was.

I have notes showing the phone call log with calls starting at 6:37 am and then detailed call records starting at 6:05. I remember thinking "That's odd, it looks like the 6:05 and 6:34 calls were deleted from the call log on his phone"

OK, so I screwed up a bit and I missed the 6:34am call. However, the 6:05am call that ended in VM and the 6:34am call that was of 0 second duration would not appear on the billable record. They would, however, appear on the detailed record.

The 6:37am call, the one I wrongly claimed was BC locating his phone but how can he do this if he was already on his way back to HT at 6:36, this 6:37am call was actually his call to Cisco. There is a a call at 6:34am that is of 0 second duration to his cell phone from the home phone. Perhaps ncsu and others are correct that this is a dropped call since seizure time was not indicated for this call. I wonder why seizure time was not mentioned for this call?

Sorry about my confusion, I thought I was having a Perry Mason type of moment.

 

[gracielee]

The testimony from the detectives in this trial said BC told them NC was doing the laundry early that morning.

Every reference I've seen Brad make, on video, in his statements I've read, referred to 'we were doing laundry'. We started a load of clothes. We saw we needed more laundry detergent...... It was like they were conjoined twins.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Every reference I've seen Brad make, on video, in his statements I've read, referred to 'we were doing laundry'. We started a load of clothes. We saw we needed more laundry detergent...... It was like they were conjoined twins.

However, in Brad's written and sworn affidavit of July 22, 2008 he says that *he* noticed they were out of laundry detergent. (cf #167 of BC affidavit). One more of Brad's inconsistencies, eh?