State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11

[gracielee]

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.

I should have read all these posts before, instead of trying to start at the end and work backwards. Best post of the day!

 

[CyberPro]

Oh ok, I Just heard that part and Det JY specifically said he never saw any shoes like that during his collection of shoes from the house. (not his exact words but pretty close)

Did they check in his mother's purse for the shoes? :waitasec:

I don't remember who pointed out they were science based, but I am still playin' catch up from all the posts today and wanted to point out that I have not 100% been convinced, but I am leaning that way.

I have a background in science and am an expert-level troubleshooter, which means that I understand how to follow a logical deductive reasoning process.

It is logical to look at the people close to the victim. If you start to find things that might point to their involvement, you continue to look. IF at some point, you find what might be strong evidence, you add it to the list.

At some point, you will either decide that the person had no involvement, or they were involved to some degree.

As an example, I am out of town now, and several states away from my home, but if I were killed in the hotel tonight, I would suspect that they would investigate my wife, at least a little bit. Why, because they would need to be sure that she had not hired someone to kill me. If they satisfied themselves that she did not, they would look elsewhere, and they would process the physical evidence and see where that takes them.

But, you mentioned that you had only started reading here. Many of us have been here since the beginning, and we have discussed and discarded some information. Not verified, but some in sworn affidavits. Some information has proven false, more has been proven true.

While it would be wonderful to have something as concrete as DNA to base the decisions on, this would not be helpful in this case as she would have picked up his DNA from the shared residence.

OTOH, you also need to take changes in actions into account. We are dealing with humans, which sometimes do not follow logical, or at least not purely logical paths. They sometimes do inexplicable things. When someone does something, it is only natural to put that up against your personal experiences and see if it seems like a rational thing has been done. If it seems irrational, it makes you say :waitasec: If it was only one, it might have been isolated, but when you see a pattern of illogical or irrational behavior, you question why things don't make sense to you. Pile enough of this stuff up, and weigh it all out. If you have a pattern of suspicious behavior that is not easily understood, then you have a suspect.

Just to illustrate. I travel a lot and like to read. I once picked up a book by Catherine Coulter in an airport. I read it. It will be the LAST book by her I ever read. Why? The people in her books did not react in the same ways as ANY human I have ever been near. Slightly exaggerating, but one of the people was supposed to be a female FBI agent, who was suspicious of a person in an older large home in Virginia. She went rushing into the house with the intention of questioning the person. It was similar to a raid. Then she saw that the person was there and had a couple of other folks drinking tea. She sat down and joined the tea party with them, completely engaging and forgetting that she was there to arrest the hostess.... OK, I don't buy that anyone would react like that.

 

[LaLaw2000]

It might be the bag a little bunched up. But even if it was cut, the clear plastic is clearly seen unused in the bag. There is no way that was used and then folded up perfectly like that to put it back in the bag. It wouldn't make any sense to do that anyways.

No, it was definately cut open at the top. I know what I saw.

 

[gracielee]

Throwing in the towel at trying to catch up. Question, how does one catch up here? Reading, I mean. I tried starting at the end tonight, but that confused me more, since I'm new, I thought perhaps the veterans have a system down pat?

 

[ncsu95]

No, it was definately cut open at the top. I know what I saw.

Does it matter? It was obvious that the plastic was still in the wrapper.

 

[ncsu95]

Throwing in the towel at trying to catch up. Question, how does one catch up here? Reading, I mean. I tried starting at the end tonight, but that confused me more, since I'm new, I thought perhaps the veterans have a system down pat?

Yes, it's called don't get behind. :crazy: You can't read from the end though....just pick a point and go from there.

 

[gracielee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gracielee
Why would he, he knew she wouldn't *need* it anymore.

Okay, so you think this was premeditated now? The prosecution presented this as a heated fight turned to murder right after the party? You disagree with them?

I didn't say that. My remark was in reference to the fact that Brad didn't get Nancy's allowance money during his early morning trips to Harris Teeter. He didn't get the money once the girls were awake that morning. He didn't run through the drive thru when he went out on Saturday. All the things he said he did to 'make Nancy happy' didn't include getting her allowance.

 

[gracielee]

Yes, it's called don't get behind. :crazy: You can't read from the end though....just pick a point and go from there.

Okay, thanks! Tonight was hell, I'll never try starting at the end again. Very bad decision. :banghead: In fact that's exacty how I feel, banging my head into a brick wall.

By the way, I think my youngest daughter would have attended NC State at the same time you did. But she majored in microbiology, minored in genetics. You were obviously in the computer program.

 

[CyberPro]

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


[snipped respectfully for space ]



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 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 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 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.

{several snips for space}

court case.

Sunshine05,

Please understand that I am not being snarky or sarcastic, but I do have to point out a couple of inconsistancies with your comments, especially in light of your previous post about letting the evidence speak.

Mentioning the specific garment she was found in might have been a Freudian Slip.

The neck scratches and bandaid are not Hearsay, they were in testimony by LE.

Cell phones might be confusing, but he worked with phones and technology for a living. You are a chemist, if someone asked you how to work a simple chemical reaction, you would either know how to do it, or would be able to find out quickly.

"she told him she was going for a run..." THIS is hearsay, from the accused no less. There has been no corroboration that she ever left the house under her own power.

"Missing items" Is not hearsay, there is photographic evidence that the items mentioned in testimony as having been seen on Friday are not in the area on Saturday. I will leave the "bad vibes" comment to stand on its own merit.

Perhaps a random crime. That is still a possible explaination. But why take all the clothing mentioned and leave something of value. Why is was there no evidence of a struggle? While ME testified that it was possible that there was some brusing that was covered by the decomposition on the side of her face, if she had been running, someone would have had to grab her, or knock her down. There is no firm evidence that she had any injuries other than a fractured Hyoid bone.

Again, not being snarky, but I saw some misconceptions in your post.

 

[gracielee]

Does it matter? It was obvious that the plastic was still in the wrapper.

I made a reply to your post about ABB. I think those were the right letters. Anyway, I went through this whole reply and somehow lost it. :banghead:

I thanked you for elaborating on your thoughts, and added a couple of mine. You mentioned the shoes, and I said I think he saw something in the bright lights of Harris Teeter that caused him to dump the shoes. Mud, clay, what ever, something that wasn't visible in the darkness outside, but the bright lights of the store illuminated the shoes and whatever.

As for the tarp, I think CPD might have picked up on it because it looked like it was in a bag of trash, if as you say, it was unopened. Why stuff it in the bag of junk? Me? I thought perhaps the tarp WAS opened, and was stuffed in that bag. That what we saw at the top was only the package it came in, but no longer had the tarp inside it. But my eyes are bad, I have go wear 3.00 magnifiers. So I couldn't say for sure, even after reviewing the tape again.

 

[LaLaw2000]

LE always starts the investigation with the husband. wife, boyfriend, or girfriend of the murdered person. They start with the people or persons closest to the victim. In this case LE started with Brad, the husband. LE never got to the point where they could clear Brad. Now that is a fact. Another fact is that there are not many coincidences in crime. I refer to less0305's post. There just simply are not that many coincidences for an innocent man or circumstance.

I cannot remember which post it was, but someone (not less0305) was stating that they disliked seeing someone use the little sideways laughing icon. Just look at some of the other cases here at Websleuths and you will see this little icon used even in the worst of cases. The Caylee Anthony case is one example. That is a horrible case and it does really get to almost everyone who reads the forum. Sometimes there has to be a little humor to lighten things up. No one will get a timeout for that.

I believe with everything in me that BC murdered Nancy. Some want to make this seem like a courtroom. It isn't. We speculate here and we try to figure it out. You will see this in every case here. I love this place because we are allowed to post our opinions as long as we are respectful to each other and post within TOS. If someone kind of rubs me the wrong way, then I just get to the point where I scroll on past his/her posts. That is such an easy thing to do.

Anyway, I am looking forward to each day of court. And I am looking forward to justice for Nancy, her little daughters, her family, and her friends.

MOO's

 

[gracielee]

LE always starts the investigation with the husband. wife, boyfriend, or girfriend of the murdered person. They start with the people or persons closest to the victim. In this case LE started with Brad, the husband. LE never got to the point where they could clear Brad. Now that is a fact. Another fact is that there are not many coincidences in crime. I refer to less0305's post. There just simply are not that many coincidences for an innocent man or circumstance.

I cannot remember which post it was, but someone (not less0305) was stating that they disliked seeing someone use the little sideways laughing icon. Just look at some of the other cases here at Websleuths and you will see this little icon used even in the worst of cases. The Caylee Anthony case is one example. That is a horrible case and it does really get to almost everyone who reads the forum. Sometimes there has to be a little humor to lighten things up. No one will get a timeout for that.

I believe with everything in me that BC murdered Nancy. Some want to make this seem like a courtroom. It isn't. We speculate here and we try to figure it out. You will see this in every case here. I love this place because we are allowed to post our opinions as long as we are respectful to each other and post within TOS. If someone kind of rubs me the wrong way, then I just get to the point where I scroll on past his/her posts. That is such an easy thing to do.

Anyway, I am looking forward to each day of court. And I am looking forward to justice for Nancy, her little daughters, her family, and her friends.

MOO's

Just one quick question, what does MOO's mean? I've seen it and kept meaning to ask? BTW, I agree with everything you said. Was just discussing this with my husband at dinner tonight. Mentioned some of the humorous things I read here, and how it's like 'hospital or cop humor'. One has to laugh a bit, or it all becomes too sad and depressing IMO.

 

[TigerBalm]

Just one quick question, what does MOO's mean? I've seen it and kept meaning to ask? BTW, I agree with everything you said. Was just discussing this with my husband at dinner tonight. Mentioned some of the humorous things I read here, and how it's like 'hospital or cop humor'. One has to laugh a bit, or it all becomes too sad and depressing IMO.

MOO = my own opinion

 

[gracielee]

MOO = my own opinion

Ah! Thank you! I couldn't figure out what it meant. LOL, like earlier, I thought perhaps it was a derrogatory remark, like a cow mooing.

 

[CaryCanuck]

Can I message you my wifes email address so you can let her know this. I like your way of thinking.

Let's not forget that the little children were kept inside the room with the tv blocking the door! I think that is very bizarre!

 

[carolinalady]

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"

I wrote down what Det. Young said he said during his glance at the call log on BC's phone. The 6:34 call showed as a missed call, the 6:37 outbound call, and the 6:40 incoming call where what he saw.

Not knowing BC's phone, I don't know if only a certain number of calls show up on initial page of the call log. On my phone (not a blackjack and no longer a blackberry), the top two calls show, and then are covered by the touchscreen keyboard. If I minimize the keyboard or scroll, I can see the previous calls in my history.

 

[carolinalady]

Let's not forget that the little children were kept inside the room with the tv blocking the door! I think that is very bizarre!

IIRC, the witness conceded that a child could've fit between door and TV.

 

[NCEast]

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.

Now THIS is a post I hope the prosecution will read and get their summary ideas from! Excellent!!!

 

[cityslick]

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?

I'll ask again because no one has been able to come up with an answer to this. If he was willing to volunteer the exact color bra she was wearing, why did he not do the same thing with the party dress? What was the point of lying about what color the dress was only to tell LE the exact color of the bra?

 

[borndem]

<snip>

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

<snip>

less0305, this is indeed a masterpiece. You have done a very fine synopsis of a circumstantial case of homicide. All the little pesky details are here. One or two items can be explained away, and we all go home, but you have created a large pile of bricks that are just not going to go away.

You should deliver the prosecution's closing argument.

A Big Thanks for the hard work. IMO, Perfect.