State v. Bradley Cooper 3-29-11

[sunshine05]

Funny, <modsnip> the argument that BC didn't need to give NC the $300 since she made $240 painting - and YET BC himself testified in a sworn deposition he FORGOT to give her the money, even went so far as to say when he spoke with her from work that he would COME HOME right then and give her the money, but that Nancy said, no that wouldn't be necessary. <modsnip> an argument for him that he didn't even make for himself. He never once testified in a deposition or in an affidavit that he thought he didn't need to give Nancy the $300 that week because she made money painting. But dang it, I bet he wishes now he had thought of that sooner. No, simple fact of the matter is - he wasn't going to give her that money, never had any intention to give it to her, she wasn't going to be needing it where she was going (side of the road, lifeless, like a bag of trash).

So you're saying this was premeditated, that is why he didn't withdraw the cash for her?

 

[gracielee]

Didn't know that. Thanks for the correction. Although, my story was better. :winko: Ok, so he forgot, Nancy told him not to worry about it. Guess that works too. Why do you not believe his version of the events?

I'd suggest viewing the deposition tapes made by Brad Cooper, under oath.

 

[BrownRice]

I have a theory but I'm afraid to post it here because I know I will be attacked. I'm going to have to think carefully before I post it. Plus, it's impossible to prove so don't know if I should even bother to mention it.

Just throw it out there. Can't imagine you'd be attacked. You have had a lot of useful posts and I'm sure others agree.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Welcome RTP Engineer. I would definitely take the time to go to the WRAL site and watch the defense opening so you can hear firsthand about the witnesses who claimed to see her that morning, the fact that she had caffeine in her blood, indicating she drank coffee that morning and some indications that JP should have been investigated further since NC still had contact with him.

<modsnip>

Link to defense opening:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9252618/

I have an alternate theory as well. I am trying to let this case play out because if the prosecution does not carry their burden, although some on here will still brand BC as the killer, I think other theories will have to be explored.

 

[Maja]

I have an alternate theory as well. I am trying to let this case play out because if the prosecution does not carry their burden, although some on here will still brand BC as the killer, I think other theories will have to be explored.

Hope you don't keep your cards close for long

 

[BrownRice]

So you're saying this was premeditated, that is why he didn't withdraw the cash for her?

I'd say the reason he didn't give it to her was just to jerk her around and be controlling. For me, the only scenario I could consider would be non pre-meditated. Makes no sense if it was planned (imo). As a result, this $300 issue is moot.

 

[kar]

My personal theory is split at this point: I think he either did it and we have a second degree case OR I think the investigation really has been botched and it's something that was simply not found because it was off the wall. (Take your pick on the random murder/boyfriend from long ago/jealous Lochmere woman rumors)

I have two major issues with the way he has been portrayed. Not because I know him, but because I have been in his shoes (well, up til July 11th or so) and I know how weird my life would look were someone to microscope it. I also know that my reactions to things are bonkers and it would make me look worse than the situation was. That's my first issue.

My second issue is: She was still staying IN the house (whether by choice or not) and actively interacting with him to some degree. "I hate brad" days or not. This is the person who mothered his children. I have a VERY hard time wrapping my head around the way the body was left and I have a very hard time fitting the cleaning of the garage and the house and the murder and the body dump and caring for the kids and all of the things into a sensible time-line. I keep seeing evidence that the guy is self-obsessed, lazy and lacks a compulsive nature. Not only does this NOT make him a murderer. It also makes him a lot less likely to have pulled this off. (In other words, far too much credit is being given to the man's capabilities.)

I definitely see the points that some of the GUILTY folks are making and I have wavered myself thinking there was more to the technical nature of it all, but if the state rested right now, I would not be able to vote GUILTY of first degree murder. Primarily because I think the time spent on trying to show how thoroughly they investigated and followed Brad Cooper showed the defense's allegation that they "closed the case" and pointed the finger at him early to be true. (And I think the judge was right on to give the State this lead way because of that allegation).

The thing is, I think she was trapped in that house. Don't beat me up, I worked with a Canadian friend a long time ago that was hired via NAFTA to come to the US and work for the company I worked for. i am not sure of all the details or if they are even still true. But, his wife came with him (as a dependent) and she was NOT ALLOWED to work in the US. It was very tough on them and she eventually ended up going back (without him).

I don't know if the terms are still the same, but if they are and if Brad withheld the girls' passsports and she wasn't allowed to work here, what was her alternative? And what was his motive for not letting her go home? Control?

 

[BrownRice]

To all you who are leaning towards not guilty........(and not just because you're not seeing the evidence, because you truly think he didn't do it).

This is the area I struggle with - her car being home. Doesn't make sense to me why she would have left w/out it in the a.m. Any comments/scenarios?

 

[johnfear]

The thing is, I think she was trapped in that house. Don't beat me up, I worked with a Canadian friend a long time ago that was hired via NAFTA to come to the US and work for the company I worked for. i am not sure of all the details or if they are even still true. But, his wife came with him (as a dependent) and she was NOT ALLOWED to work in the US. It was very tough on them and she eventually ended up going back (without him).

I don't know if the terms are still the same, but if they are and if Brad withheld the girls' passsports and she wasn't allowed to work here, what was her alternative? And what was his motive for not letting her go home? Control?

Right. I am with you. However, she had just come back from a vacation out of town. So, that torpedoes trapped for me.

Also, I would LOVE to see what Cisco said about the paperwork for her visa. I know it was applied for. I know he claims to have inquired upon it. THAT would be some interesting information.

 

[sunshine05]

Argh. If I spend another 2 and 1/2 hours watching that opening statement, on top of all the time I've invested (wasted?) at this point, I may be able to get a better appreciation for a failed marriage as BC was experiencing after all! :lol:

But seriously, thanks for the link. I may just have to miss out on 2.5 hours of sleep tonight.

Also, I'm totally intrigued regarding your theory. Can you give us a hint?

I think it's (3) 30 minute segments but it's all very interesting. I think Kurtz is well spoken and easy to follow.

I usually listened while doing other things on the computer.

Regarding my theory, let me think about it. Not sure I am ready to go into combat this afternoon, lol.

 

[johnfear]

To all you who are leaning towards not guilty........(and not just because you're not seeing the evidence, because you truly think he didn't do it).

This is the area I struggle with - her car being home. Doesn't make sense to me why she would have left w/out it in the a.m. Any comments/scenarios?

She did something in the neighborhood (walking distance and limited suspect list) or she LITERALLY didn't leave of her own accord.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Funny,<modsnip> the argument that BC didn't need to give NC the $300 since she made $240 painting - and YET BC himself testified in a sworn deposition he FORGOT to give her the money, even went so far as to say when he spoke with her from work that he would COME HOME right then and give her the money, but that Nancy said, no that wouldn't be necessary. <modsnip> an argument for him that he didn't even make for himself. He never once testified in a deposition or in an affidavit that he thought he didn't need to give Nancy the $300 that week because she made money painting. But dang it, I bet he wishes now he had thought of that sooner. No, simple fact of the matter is - he wasn't going to give her that money, never had any intention to give it to her, she wasn't going to be needing it where she was going (side of the road, lifeless, like a bag of trash).

So on the flip side, if he offered to bring it to her and she said it wasn't necessary, it wasn't that big of a deal to her either. If he offered to leave work to get it and bring it to her he wasn't that "controlling" about the money either.

This along with many other issues can be seen different ways depending on which perspective you choose to take.

 

[less0305]

Didn't know that. Thanks for the correction. Although, my story was better. :winko: Ok, so he forgot, Nancy told him not to worry about it. Guess that works too. Why do you not believe his version of the events?

Because sworn testimony is that Nancy was VERY upset about not receiving the allowance money and that she was extremely agitated, and animated that she "Hated" Brad on that particular Friday (day before she went missing). There was sworn testimony that she had words with him when he arrived at the dinner (without the cash, I might add) at the neighbors and it was an "I hate Brad Day." She told several people about not receiving the allowance. The only testimony that he forgot and offered to bring it to her was from him - the last person to see and speak to Nancy - the person who didn't give her the cash - the person who had the most opportunity and motive for NC's death. Who do I believe? You guess right if you think I believe someone other than BC.

 

[BrownRice]

The thing is, I think she was trapped in that house. Don't beat me up, I worked with a Canadian friend a long time ago that was hired via NAFTA to come to the US and work for the company I worked for. i am not sure of all the details or if they are even still true. But, his wife came with him (as a dependent) and she was NOT ALLOWED to work in the US. It was very tough on them and she eventually ended up going back (without him).

I don't know if the terms are still the same, but if they are and if Brad withheld the girls' passsports and she wasn't allowed to work here, what was her alternative? And what was his motive for not letting her go home? Control?

You're correct - she wasn't allowed to work at the time she was murdered. There were other avenues they could have pursued (like a green card sponsored by Cisco) but it hadn't been followed thru. Not sure if it was testimony or just chatter here, but apparently Brad was going to start working it up with Cisco again (I think the process stalled before when they tried). So she was between a rock and a hard place. Couldn't work and couldn't take both girls with her to Canada (which I understand BCs concern with her taking girls).

 

[less0305]

So you're saying this was premeditated, that is why he didn't withdraw the cash for her?

I think this is evidence of premeditation - one of the pieces that point to premeditation - yes.

 

[gracielee]

To all you who are leaning towards not guilty........(and not just because you're not seeing the evidence, because you truly think he didn't do it).

This is the area I struggle with - her car being home. Doesn't make sense to me why she would have left w/out it in the a.m. Any comments/scenarios?

Especially since her friends, even including Brad, all said she didn't run alone. And they even said 'she didn't run from her house.' She always drove somewhere to run.

 

[sunshine05]

Go Kurtz!!!

 

[RTPEngineer]

I don't know if the terms are still the same, but if they are and if Brad withheld the girls' passsports and she wasn't allowed to work here, what was her alternative? And what was his motive for not letting her go home? Control?

Did she offer to go home without the kids? Maybe that would have been fine. I would guess his motive (in taking the passports) is to work out custody regarding the kids before she takes them with her. I don't know anything about a parent wanting to take kids out of the country as it regards to custody. Is a mother allowed to do that? What rights does the father have? Personally, I would be crushed if my wife took my kids away from me to another country. Maybe that's why he killed her, or maybe that's why he was being nice to her (cleaning, running errands) - so that she would be nice back and stay here with the kids.

 

[gracielee]

So on the flip side, if he offered to bring it to her and she said it wasn't necessary, it wasn't that big of a deal to her either. If he offered to leave work to get it and bring it to her he wasn't that "controlling" about the money either.

This along with many other issues can be seen different ways depending on which perspective you choose to take.

Just asking cause I don't know, do we have anyone besides Brad saying 'he offered to bring it to her but she said it wasn't any big deal?'

 

[BrownRice]

She did something in the neighborhood (walking distance and limited suspect list) or she LITERALLY didn't leave of her own accord.

Obviously the state is wanting us to believe she didn't leave on her own accord, which would have to be Brad harming her first. Unless we are really supposed to assume a white van abducted her in the middle of a subdivision at 7:00 a.m. That is ridiculous.

So the other thing - she did something in the neighborhood. Like what? Was having an affair with a neighbor and the rest is history? I had never thought about that.