State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
He's been defending BC from the beginning. His posts are just as arrogant as he sounds in person. Really upset that poor Brad lost the girls....

There are plenty of people that disagree with him losing his children at that point in time. He hadn't been charged with anything when the custody ruling came out.
 
Well, anyway, I go along with Ghostcrab and not yet fully aware of how it helped the pros. to bring up the posting. The guy didn't think BC was involved is what I got from that.
 
I don't pull up anything except 'no matches' with that.

Click on the earlier link to his post. Click on his userid. Go to statistics. Then to "find all posts by this user".
 
Here is one thing he wrote:

"I really am done here.
Don't confuse my future silence with any type of victory by those who discount the scientific nature of the topic thread (A U T O P S Y) and choose to speculate about the killer's motives and other non-autopsy distractions. "

Seems like his ego causes him to get angry whenever anyone dares question his stance. No wonder he was so uncomfortable on the stand.

Well obviously he had more background information than the people he was arguing with (for the most part). I think that kind of attitude went on for the friends on both sides (hence the you are in or out stuff from earlier).
 
I'm still very puzzled how the state knew Eye_believe was MH.

I've heard of this sort of things happening before. As far as I could figure out, police were monitoring forum comments and zeroed in on a couple that had "too much information". The IP address was obtained, and traced back to a computer. That person was then identified.
 
I don't pull up anything except 'no matches' with that.

Same here ... wondering if they were quickly purged, although there's not much point of that at this time.
 
Probably the same way I did...googling Nancy Cooper. Do you honestly believe that none of Nancy's friends read this site and/or posted on this site?

ETA: He joined October 6th, 2008.
Just an FYI...but not 100% sure if it still applies...we're not supposed to talk about other posters. Heck...how does that TOS rule work now?
 
It got quiet here for a minute. Everybody ran off to dig up his posts.
 
Just an FYI...but not 100% sure if it still applies...we're not supposed to talk about other posters. Heck...how does that TOS rule work now?


I'm not sure how that rule would apply here since we are allowed to discuss the trial evidence, and websleuths, eye_believe, and the autopsy post are all now part of the trial record.
 
I sure hope Tricia didn't have to be involved (and hope that's ok to say).
 
I can't believe the defense atty. is having Bradley's mom get up and show pics to the jury. Probably told her that her performance on the stand and in front of the jury is the key to getting her baby boy a get out jail card. Pressure and DRAMA!
 
Same here ... wondering if they were quickly purged, although there's not much point of that at this time.

Hey otto,
Check out the post from kar and ncsu above.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
237
Guests online
2,135
Total visitors
2,372

Forum statistics

Threads
599,796
Messages
18,099,701
Members
230,927
Latest member
Double
Back
Top