State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11

[CrimeAddict]

They just posted part 2 for today if anyone wants to watch and missed it!

 

[Danielle59]

I don't think there are any people that are defending Brad. <modsnip> Many people just believe in justice and that means they want to see and hear all the evidence before making a decision. Some people also don't think that every typical normal day activity has some ulterior motive to it especially since we do not know if the action is normal for a defendant or not, so those people wait until all the evidence is in and push for fairness in the Court room which is how our Judicial system is supposed to run.

 

[gracielee]

I think that the shoe change could be explained....if only we could find them!!What is odd is that yes he changed shoes from one visit to the next and now they can't be found... it does lead one to conclude he had to dispose of them for some reason. Not finding his shoes is what really is suspicious to me.

And that long-sleeved shirt, closed right up to top. On a muggy july morn.

 

[sunshine05]

He answered her lunch phone call. I just assume when she was calling him Friday during the day when he was at work he was busy and unable to take calls, he was being paid to work, not socialize. When he got the call at lunch time he answered it. I doubt everything he did had an ulterior motive.

We could look at all of these things too closely and start making them more than they are, when that happens it perverts what justice should be.

I'm not sure how many times she tried to reach him, but isn't it a bit strange she was trying repeatedly to call him while swimming with her kids and having lunch with friends? She would have had to have been trying to reach him then but HP never mentioned it. She never mentioned that NC called her RE agent while exercising with her at the gym on Thursday either.

 

[Danielle59]

ok, but then he should have had no problem going to HT at ~6:15am on 7/12 without his phone? If I do not carry my phone all the time then certainly I would not care so much to locate my phone on that morning before I went to the store, correct?

I was talking about at work, Albert, maybe her calls came in while he was walking to the John, should he have answered the phone then, or rather had it with him? Maybe on Saturday he was expecting a call, we don't know what he did on his computer Sat morning, maybe there was something there that prompted him to carry it. Why don't you give us the evidence of what happened and tell us why it happened, everyone on these boards that are sure he is guilty before all the evidence is in seem to think they know all, so go ahead. I am curious why if someone does not act exactly like you act that he has to be guilty of something? Maybe he just didn't want to talk to her during the day, I don't think that is illegal, nor is it wrong considering the state of their marriage according to her friends. He was at work, he knew she would be yelling at him, did he want the aggravation?

 

[CyberPro]

ok, but then he should have had no problem going to HT at ~6:15am on 7/12 without his phone? If I do not carry my phone all the time then certainly I would not care so much to locate my phone on that morning before I went to the store, correct?

Albert,

Try to keep up with the case man! -

BC HAD to have the phone on the HT trip, otherwise he would not have been able to receive the alibi, um I mean call from home to pick up the green juice... right?

I hope you know I am kidding about keeping up with the case. I think your logic on the phone calls was before, and continues to be quite sound.

You got a lot more out of that AT&T testimony than I did, I was sort of able to watch the stream on that, but I was in a hotel and it was hard to keep up with what was going on. I am hoping that since the AT&T guy was not qualified as an expert, and the tower pings and stuff were impossible to follow without seeing the visuals they were looking at, the state still has at least one expert to go.

I would like to see the tower pings, and there were times when the AT&T guy was talking about BC's phone and I thought others when he was talking about NC's phone. It was really hard for me to keep that all straight.

 

[jmflu]

They found irrefutable circumstantial evidence yesterday, Danielle. Spare me the altruistic diatribe supposedly elevating those who refuse to accept the truth.

 

[gracielee]

I might have missed discussion of this earlier because I have been away for quite a while today, but did anybody else catch Daniels say that Brad told him that the girls and Nancy had been sick that week and had been taking some medicine? Did anyone else testify to this? I thought about the speculation that Brad had given the girls something that would make them sleep ala Jason Young fashion. When I heard that it made me wonder if that could have been true.

Yes, I heard that because I'd speculated on Brad giving the girls something to make them sleep. Tylenol w/codine? Benadryl? Something along those lines.

 

[Danielle59]

I thought they presented all of the phone records. If there had been activity during the 4-6 hours, I would have expected the defense to bring it up in cross if the prosecution ignored it. There was no reason for him to wait until he was on his way to the store to check his vm.

You said he had some time to take care of work, I was saying he may have that we did not her about that that I know of, but I meant on the computer.

 

[sunshine05]

I don't think there are any people that are defending Brad. I think there are some people that think that anyone that does not agree with them or their way of thinking must be defending someone because they don't want anyone outside the group to have an opinion that is not like theirs. Many people just believe in justice and that means they want to see and hear all the evidence before making a decision. Some people also don't think that every typical normal day activity has some ulterior motive to it especially since we do not know if the action is normal for a defendant or not, so those people wait until all the evidence is in and push for fairness in the Court room which is how our Judicial system is supposed to run.

Yeah, I don't really understand it, but it does seem like some posters take it personally if you disagree with them and out come the snide remarks and laughter. There are many posts I 100% disagree with and don't understand the line of thinking at all but I usually just move on past them because it's obvious my point of view is completely opposite and most of the time I don't feel a need to try to change others' minds about things, unless I see something very inaccurate. Even then, I would never try to belittle them for their viewpoint.

 

[Albert]

I was talking about at work, Albert, maybe her calls came in while he was walking to the John, should he have answered the phone then, or rather had it with him? Maybe on Saturday he was expecting a call, we don't know what he did on his computer Sat morning, maybe there was something there that prompted him to carry it. Why don't you give us the evidence of what happened and tell us why it happened, everyone on these boards that are sure he is guilty before all the evidence is in seem to think they know all, so go ahead. I am curious why if someone does not act exactly like you act that he has to be guilty of something? Maybe he just didn't want to talk to her during the day, I don't think that is illegal, nor is it wrong considering the state of their marriage according to her friends. He was at work, he knew she would be yelling at him, did he want the aggravation?

Danielle, I have posted a detailed analysis of the phone call activity and I have expressed my doubts about these calls. These calls are the alibi and I believe the alibi is not rock solid.

 

[Danielle59]

I'm not sure how many times she tried to reach him, but isn't it a bit strange she was trying repeatedly to call him while swimming with her kids and having lunch with friends? She would have had to have been trying to reach him then but HP never mentioned it. She never mentioned that NC called her RE agent while exercising with her at the gym on Thursday either.

That really does baffle me. <modsnip>.

 

[Danielle59]

Danielle, I have posted a detailed analysis of the phone call activity and I have expressed my doubts about these calls. These calls are the alibi and I believe the alibi is not rock solid.

Albert, my comments that you are replying to were about Friday at work, not Saturday morning. They had nothing to do with an alibi.

 

[jmflu]

Yeah, I don't really understand it, but it does seem like some posters take it personally if you disagree with them and out come the snide remarks and laughter. There are many posts I 100% disagree with and don't understand the line of thinking at all but I usually just move on past them because it's obvious my point of view is completely opposite and most of the time I don't feel a need to try to change others' minds about things, unless I see something very inaccurate. Even then, I would never try to belittle them for their viewpoint.

I think that some of us have had it with all these months of putting down "the good guys"- Nancy's friends, law enforcement, even Nancy herself. Finally we know Brad premeditated her murder. Where is the putting down of BRAD, the murderer??

 

[gracielee]

I believed that he should have allowed it in the first place but since he denied it as prejudicial, I don't see how he can reverse that now. I understand why he is "considering" it. I think he's irritated that the defense asked that particular question knowing that the court had ruled other evidence found on the computer as inadmissable. I agree with the irritation and do feel that the question was out of line but sustaining the objection should have taken care of that issue without having to compromise his principles.

I disagree, I think the defense opened the door to it. It is important that the jury not be left with the impression that there was nothing else incriminating on Brad's computer, so the CPD must have tampered with the Fielding Dr. zoom ins. MOO

 

[Albert]

I'm not sure how many times she tried to reach him, but isn't it a bit strange she was trying repeatedly to call him while swimming with her kids and having lunch with friends? She would have had to have been trying to reach him then but HP never mentioned it. She never mentioned that NC called her RE agent while exercising with her at the gym on Thursday either.

Are you saying that the calls never happened or that it is impossible for the calls to have happened and that the friends were not aware of the calls? Can't one believe that the calls were made but just not in the presence of anyone?

 

[Albert]

Albert, my comments that you are replying to were about Friday at work, not Saturday morning. They had nothing to do with an alibi.

OK, my analysis is of the Saturday calls that are the basis for his alibi.

 

[johnfear]

Guys, I smell a nice quite day tomorrow (outdoors) for some of us who refuse to play nice...one that is part of the disciplinary processes of six year olds.

 

[Just the Fax]

It's so strange to me that people are back to defending Brad.

Not really. Every murder case has a contingency (though small in this case) that turns a blind eye to damning evidence and simply refuses to accept the defendant may well be guilty.

 

[sunshine05]

That really does baffle me. But it seems we are not supposed to question those things lest we are defending BC.

In initial police interviews, HP didn't mention anything about NC's paint plans, nor did 14 people who attended the party with NC on Friday evening.

Then, in testimony, HP said NC DID tell her she was going to finish up painting at JA's when she spoke to her on Friday before the party. So she added that detail to her story just recently.

What doesn't make sense is that HP called BC Saturday morning at the time NC was supposed to be at JA's house and never mentioned any knowledge of NC's paint plans, just was calling to firm up pool plans for later. So why did she call the Cooper's home phone? Why not her cell phone if she told her she was going to be at JA's?

When JA called BC that morning looking for NC, she also failed to mention that NC was supposed to be there.

Another inconsistency is CC said in testimony that NC was running at Lake Johnson on Thursday but HP said she was at the gym and having lunch with her after taking the kids to school.

Plus MH and BC had tennis plans and JA had plans with her kids that morning at 10:30AM according to her calendar. On the police call, she said NC was expected at her house by 9 (that has now changed to 8 in testimony). Why would you have someone come to paint at 9 when you would have to clean up to take your kids somewhere after one hour. Makes no sense. Plus NC told KL she was sick of painting.

I know most of you don't want to discuss this since the "smoking gun" is now known, but I can't let go of this. It really seems like things just don't add up with the friends' stories and I want to know why. IF they are lying, which most of you don't believe, but just what if they are. Why????