State v. Bradley Cooper 4-12-2011

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
That's not what the testimony was. It was Nancy's account on that computer.

What exactly did I say that wasn't the testimony? My understanding is that the laptop was on a desk in the kitchen that is being assumed to be hers. We have nothing that confirms that she had her own account, even her parents had the email listed and Nancy and Brad.
 
No - if you read my posts a while back I saw I run ALWAYS with my dog (trust me - you wouldn't want to mess with me when I have him around) AND my cell phone. And - I NEVER said that run at odd hours. But, yes, even on major greenways at times I am the only runner / walker regardless of the time. I don't think I could be more careful unless I had a CDP detective running with me. Ya think?

Be careful if you run with anyone from CDP--they might wipe your cell phone!
 
I hope so JTF, I sure hope so.

Say what you will about the CPD, but after watching the grilling they get on the stand as well as the name calling in the public social media, I could not do that job. I certainly could not sit on a witness stand for days and be treated as if I were the criminal. I'm quite impressed with how calm and matter of fact and non defensive they were. Okay that one cop didn't look so calm but the main detectives were. Every single thing was called into question. People saying they are corrupt and inept and out to frame a man. I could not take that kind of treatment.
 
Bad or Good husbands are always the first suspect and must be ruled out when a wife turns up dead. Even bad husbands can help to remove the aura of suspicion if they cooperate with an investigation fully and tell the truth. Bad or good husbands that remain suspects and eventually are arrested are those husbands who make inconsistent statements and lie, have a motive, have the opportunity, has the means, and has a shady alibi.

I agree. It is completely understandable that he would want an attorney present when talking with the police, even if he were innocent. That in itself is not what bothers me, the hiring of an attorney. What bothers me is that he did have representation, and easily could have been interviewed by the CPD, as AS continued to ask him if he was willing to do in his deposition yesterday, and he refused. Why? He had an attorney who could be present and protect him from answering anything incriminating. (Hard to do if you are lying however, and having trouble keeping your stories straight.)
 
I can only imagine how clogged the court system would be if everyone had access to 4 or 5 lawyers. I for one am glad that most criminals are denied bail and are off the street while their lawyer team just delay, delay, delay
 
I have nothing to understand how BC rated as a father and I know neither BC nor NC. However it does bother me a bit that the water was turned off several times.


I agree. He made too much money for them to be that damn broke.
 
I brought this over from another thread. I'm posting and then I'm going to bed because I have to work tomorrow and believe me when I say, I need my beauty sleep. Y'all can have at it, chew up, spit it out - but this is how I see it - clear as day:
:seeya:

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 removes the woman from all money accounts, bank accounts, credit cards - and doesn't tell her himself. Coincidental?

The man is agreeable to a separation and the woman taking children back to Canada until he sees a copy of a draft
separation agreement that would have him paying out 75 % of his income in child support and expenses and has a provision
for alimony, at which time he cancels all plans for the woman to be able to leave. 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 within a 15 min. time frame. 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?

The man does not notify the woman's family for assistance in locating his missing wife. 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 woman died from strangulation (considered a soft kill where no blood evidence is left behind). 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?

The man has inconsistent stores relating to his actions between 8:00 p.m. on the night before his wife went missing and until
the early morning hours of the morning she went missing. Coincidental?

The man refused to speak with police officers after only a few days and never once contacts police to determine how the
investigation into the woman's disappearance/death is going. Coincidental?

The man and the woman have been seen screaming obscenities to each other on multiple occasions. Coincidental?

The man and the woman were seen to have a disagreement/argument on the night before her disappearance. Coincidental?

The man makes inquiries as to how to wipe hard drives. Coincidental?

The man purchases equipment that is related to the activity of re-routing phone calls and spoofing calls from one location
and to appear to be placed from another location? Coincidental?

The man sets up routing of calls through a foreign country, makes test calls, has the capibility, equipment, and knowledge
to spoof a call to himself. Coincidental?

The man accesses the woman's email accounts serendipidtously and forwards all e-mails to his own e-mail account for
over three months until her death. Coincidental?

The woman's time of death is estimated to be between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. Coincidental?

The man happens to be in possession of a diamond necklace that the woman did not take off for runs. Coincidental?

The man states under oath he was asleep between 8:30 p.m. and 4 a.m. and computer forensics prove he was logged into his
computer four times between 10 p.m. and 12 a.m. Coincidental?

The man spends the day and days after the woman disappears searching jobs in Canada, flights for Air Canada, power washing his house,
internet boards regarding the woman's disappearance and death. Coincidental?

The man told countless lies in a sworn deposition regarding the events surrounding his marriage and events of the woman's death.
Coincidental?

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 thought it has been discussed and understood that without a search warrant then the CPD could not take pictures of BC?

It's been discussed, but I don't believe it is understood as fact. Why would they be able to photograph other parts of the house? Also, I'm sure BC could have given them permission to photograph him without a warrant. Police can search your vehicle without one if you give them permission. They didn't ask him to photograph the marks. They screwed up. And now we get to speculate about them. Heck, he could have scratched an itch right before walking downstairs and left little red marks. But we'll never know now.
 
Bad or Good husbands are always the first suspect and must be ruled out when a wife turns up dead. Even bad husbands can help to remove the aura of suspicion if they cooperate with an investigation fully and tell the truth. Bad or good husbands that remain suspects and eventually are arrested are those husbands who make inconsistent statements and lie, have a motive, have the opportunity, has the means, and has a shady alibi.

Sometimes totally innocent people, bad and good husbands, fully cooperate with the police and are convicted only to find out later they were innocent. Now a husband/wife case, but that case about that child in PA that was killed many years ago, the father was tired and sentenced only to have it come out later that he was not the killer. He and his wife totally cooperated. I think their name started with a D. It was a little girl, they were a young couple. The move actor that plays on Entourage played the father in the lifetime movie, and it was so compelling I looked up the case after I watched it to read more about it. Darn, I can't think of their name.
 
I agree. It is completely understandable that he would want an attorney present when talking with the police, even if he were innocent. That in itself is not what bothers me, the hiring of an attorney. What bothers me is that he did have representation, and easily could have been interviewed by the CPD, as AS continued to ask him if he was willing to do in his deposition yesterday, and he refused. Why? He had an attorney who could be present and protect him from answering anything incriminating. (Hard to do if you are lying however, and having trouble keeping your stories straight.)

I've posted this before, but here is one excellent reason why. This is absolutely worth the watch (both videos):

http://boingboing.net/2008/07/28/law-prof-and-cop-agr.html
 
I have nothing to understand how BC rated as a father and I know neither BC nor NC. However it does bother me a bit that the water was turned off several times.

I have wondered about that, did he always pay the bills? Since they were in No Carolina. I was under the impression she paid them when she still had access to the accounts.
 
If the pros call detective Daniels
I hope they just ask him a couple of questions pertaining to the fact Brad DID NOT fully co-operate with the Police...just so the defense can't keep him on the stand for 5 days

I am pretty sure his attorney told him not to after they started acting like he was a suspect. That is not an indication of guilt or innocence in my opinoin.
 
Sometimes totally innocent people, bad and good husbands, fully cooperate with the police and are convicted only to find out later they were innocent. Now a husband/wife case, but that case about that child in PA that was killed many years ago, the father was tired and sentenced only to have it come out later that he was not the killer. He and his wife totally cooperated. I think their name started with a D. It was a little girl, they were a young couple. The move actor that plays on Entourage played the father in the lifetime movie, and it was so compelling I looked up the case after I watched it to read more about it. Darn, I can't think of their name.

Are you thinking of "Gone in the Night?" Cindi and David Dowaliby?
 
:great::great:
I brought this over from another thread. I'm posting and then I'm going to bed because I have to work tomorrow and believe me when I say, I need my beauty sleep. Y'all can have at it, chew up, spit it out - but this is how I see it - clear as day:
:seeya:

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 removes the woman from all money accounts, bank accounts, credit cards - and doesn't tell her himself. Coincidental?

The man is agreeable to a separation and the woman taking children back to Canada until he sees a copy of a draft
separation agreement that would have him paying out 75 % of his income in child support and expenses and has a provision
for alimony, at which time he cancels all plans for the woman to be able to leave. 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 within a 15 min. time frame. 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?

The man does not notify the woman's family for assistance in locating his missing wife. 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 woman died from strangulation (considered a soft kill where no blood evidence is left behind). 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?

The man has inconsistent stores relating to his actions between 8:00 p.m. on the night before his wife went missing and until
the early morning hours of the morning she went missing. Coincidental?

The man refused to speak with police officers after only a few days and never once contacts police to determine how the
investigation into the woman's disappearance/death is going. Coincidental?

The man and the woman have been seen screaming obscenities to each other on multiple occasions. Coincidental?

The man and the woman were seen to have a disagreement/argument on the night before her disappearance. Coincidental?

The man makes inquiries as to how to wipe hard drives. Coincidental?

The man purchases equipment that is related to the activity of re-routing phone calls and spoofing calls from one location
and to appear to be placed from another location? Coincidental?

The man sets up routing of calls through a foreign country, makes test calls, has the capibility, equipment, and knowledge
to spoof a call to himself. Coincidental?

The man accesses the woman's email accounts serendipidtously and forwards all e-mails to his own e-mail account for
over three months until her death. Coincidental?

The woman's time of death is estimated to be between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. Coincidental?

The man happens to be in possession of a diamond necklace that the woman did not take off for runs. Coincidental?

The man states under oath he was asleep between 8:30 p.m. and 4 a.m. and computer forensics prove he was logged into his
computer four times between 10 p.m. and 12 a.m. Coincidental?

The man spends the day and days after the woman disappears searching jobs in Canada, flights for Air Canada, power washing his house,
internet boards regarding the woman's disappearance and death. Coincidental?

The man told countless lies in a sworn deposition regarding the events surrounding his marriage and events of the woman's death.
Coincidental?

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.

:great: :great: Excellent summation....
 
Sometimes I think we go around and around and around the same questions in the same thread so much that it must just be the same poster with a new name...there is so much asking and answering of the same questions... Thank goodness for patient people!!! Because I surely would be in time out!
 
I thought it has been discussed and understood that without a search warrant then the CPD could not take pictures of BC?

But, did they ask him if they could? The pros wants us to believe that is what caused the blood under her nails, on the 15th they had a serch warrant for the house, if he had of had scratches that drew blood there would have still been evidence of them on his nect on the 15th.
 
If I read the tweet correctly it said the Detective testified that Brad logged into Nancy's account. Stands to reason he had to have - Brad said she left the home by 7 a.m. So at 8:30, if it wasn't Brad, who else would have logged into NC's account?

I don't think anyone is disputing it was Brad that logged in.
 
:great::great:

:great: :great: Excellent summation....


Don't recall hearing NC screamed obscenities at BC only TWO incidents of BC using obscenities to NC. Both times at the preschool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
807
Total visitors
976

Forum statistics

Threads
604,672
Messages
18,175,206
Members
232,791
Latest member
PragmaticR
Back
Top