State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11

[ncsu95]

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.

Actually, I have an electrical engineering degree.

 

[ncsu95]

MOO = my own opinion

And BBM?

 

[SleuthinNC]

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.

The inability to seize a channel may have bee the reason for the 0 duration/dropped call.

Isn't the 6:37 a call with 8 second seizure time?

It makes me think that the 6:34 call and 6:37 all took place in some sort of dead zone, possibly between 2 cell towers, or something similar.

 

[Albert]

The inability to seize a channel may have bee the reason for the 0 duration/dropped call.

Isn't the 6:37 a call with 8 second seizure time?

It makes me think that the 6:34 call and 6:37 all took place in some sort of dead zone, possibly between 2 cell towers, or something similar.

There was no reported seizure time for the 6:37am call, the 6:40am call has an 8 second seizure time.

 

[Albert]

There was no reported seizure time for the 6:37am call, the 6:40am call has an 8 second seizure time.

Let me clarify, during the testimony the seizure time for the 6:37am call was not mentioned. I don't want to imply that there was no recorded seizure time nor do I want to imply the seizure time is 0.

 

[cityslick]

<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.

The cell phone activity and whatever they find on the computers make me lean that he did it. Not 100% convinced, but lean that way. The missing shoes (hers) also are a problem.

I think I figured out why some are on the fence beyond just wanting to see the evidence and part of the reason is where this happened (Cary). To some, this case had the appearance of a bunch of people who immediately pointed at this guy because a) he's the spouse and b) he wasn't part of the circle that Cary gets stereotyped for. Now, looking at all the facts and evidence shows there is more to it than that but it's easy to see why a lot of people look at this case (not necessarily on this forum) as Cary trying to preserve it's image as that squeaky clean place where everyone wants to live.

 

[SleuthinNC]

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.

Ok thanks. With these calls seemingly being so important to the case you think they would do a much better job of very clearly showing this information. Shuffling through multiple reports along with talking about the calls and towers and everything really jumbled it up.

 

[cityslick]

Ok thanks. With these calls seemingly being so important to the case you think they would do a much better job of very clearly showing this information. Shuffling through multiple reports along with talking about the calls and towers and everything really jumbled it up.

This is a great point and you hope they at least will better illustrate this when the expert comes up. Trying to track this stuff while looking at a spreadsheet of numbers has to be very confusing to the jury.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Let me clarify, during the testimony the seizure time for the 6:37am call was not mentioned. I don't want to imply that there was no recorded seizure time nor do I want to imply the seizure time is 0.

Ugh, they need to actually show those records to us again. Oh prosecution, if you are listening, please display the call records for us again. Thanks! :crazy:

 

[Albert]

Let me clarify, during the testimony the seizure time for the 6:37am call was not mentioned. I don't want to imply that there was no recorded seizure time nor do I want to imply the seizure time is 0.

Oh well, I am losing my sleuthiness credibility very quickly.

6:34am no seizure time reported during testimony and 0 second duration

6:37am, 1 second duration, 23 second duration, call from cell phone to Cisco

 

[SleuthinNC]

Oh well, I am losing my sleuthiness credibility very quickly.

6:34am no seizure time reported during testimony and 0 second duration

6:37am, 1 second duration, 23 second duration, call from cell phone to Cisco

At one point they were talking about calls made "with call waiting" was that during any of these early morning calls?

 

[sunshine05]

Excuse me? When I BOLD something, it's because I want it to stand out from the other words.

Okay, good. I'm glad you weren't yelling. Yes, I understand the family income, it's what most people do. I am simply pointing out that he was buying her luxury items that she requested that they clearly could not afford. I think that shows that he did care about her. You don't have to agree with me, it's okay. As a sahm I would never ask for those things. We live debt free and we both want to keep it that way. But the main point is he didn't have to buy her a 50K vehicle, he did it to please her. Why would he try to please her if he hated her so much?

I still haven't hear what disparaging remarks he made from the deposition.

 

[less0305]

Officer Hayes called Brad at 2:36 p.m. and left a message. Brad didn't go into LTF until 2:45 p.m. Officer Hayes calls again at 3:00 p.m.

I feel pretty safe in saying he ignored Officer Hayes' first call. Beyond that, he called and checked his voicemail at 2:55 p.m and STILL didn't return the call.

When your wife is "missing" and may have been located and in desperate need of medical care and the hospital needs information for possible treatment and a police officer is notifying you YOU ANSWER THE PHONE!! ALL CALLS!!.

Nope, he didn't call A POLICE OFFICER BACK when his wife his out on a run and doesn't return. I can't get over that. You don't call an emergency professional back - not to mention you didn't answer a phone call from an unknown number. What if your missing wife (who didn't carry her cellie with her when she went running) was able to call you from a strangers phone who stops to enlist help. WTF??!! No, he didn't answer because he knew it wasn't Nancy and he knew he didn't want to talk to a police officer YET. He had to get his chit together. Give himself a little more time. He never DREAMED that she would have been reported missing so soon - those damn, pesky, meddlesome friends of hers.

 

[gbay]

In my notes I have indicated a seisure time of 1 sec for the 6:37 am call.

 

[Albert]

At one point they were talking about calls made "with call waiting" was that during any of these early morning calls?

No, these calls occurred in the afternoon, I know these calls were not mentioned before 7am.

 

[SleuthyGal]

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?

The point of telling the wrong dress color is that he was buying himself time so he could wash said dress. We don't know that the dress was laundered on Sat. We do know that by Sat evening the dress was being searched for. Remember, Brad had been gone from the house by 1pm ('looking' for Nancy), back at 3pm upon request of L.E. and with L.E. the remainder of that day/evening).

As for why Brad told L.E. the exact colors of the jog bra? Who knows. Brad tried to stage the body dump in terms of what he thought a random (and possibly sexual) attack might look like. Why would Brad mention a jogging bra at all? It's not the thing that would immediately come to mind. But the mind has a very strange way of releasing clues. Freudian slip anyone? A guilty conscience cannot be totally mastered 100% all of the time no matter how 'smart' a person is. We can all say it's not 'logical' that he would happen to name the ONE item of clothing Nancy's body was found in. But he said it. With 2 CPD detectives right there to hear him say it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

No, these calls occurred in the afternoon, I know these calls were not mentioned before 7am.

Ok thank goodness. One less variable to have to consider.

 

[Cheyenne130]

And BBM?

BBM=Bolding By Me (It's done to show that you are emphasizing only one part of a comment.

 

[sunshine05]

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






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.

No, we were talking about why she was trying to reach him on Friday morning. The money came up, and you said "he knew she wouldn't need it anymore".

 

[SleuthyGal]

Ok thanks. With these calls seemingly being so important to the case you think they would do a much better job of very clearly showing this information. Shuffling through multiple reports along with talking about the calls and towers and everything really jumbled it up.

I totally agree! If the prosecution doesn't find a way to clearly and simply present this info and, on their closing statements, make big colorful and simple charts, they are going to lose the strength of this evidence. This is important stuff to their case. Seeing call log after call log in little print, on a screen, will cause the jury to zone right out. They keep skipping around, as well. Sometimes pointing to NC's cell phone records, sometimes to BC's cell phone records, then back to NC's again. ZZZZzzzzzzz.