State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[SleuthinNC]

I heard it was to be in rebuttal.

I heard that as well but in rebuttal to what? The state's own witnesses?

 

[cassius]

I'm also in the BDI camp, but this late piece of hard evidence bothers me. Can the judge allow a piece of new-found evidence to be admitted by the prosecution in rebuttal even though normally they would have to bring that kind of evidence in their case-in-chief?

I can see how this could be devastating to the defense. They see the prosecution's evidence, find whatever expert they can to show the holes (though I haven't really seen that yet), and then once their own experts testify, the prosecution brings new evidence to fill those holes. That strikes me as very unfair to the defense and likely to lead to a mistrial.

Generally, you rebut evidence that is elicited in the opposing party's case in chief. I don't recall, did the defense call any witnesses, expert or otherwise, to testify about the router/voip stuff? If they didn't, my understanding is that the judge, in his discretion, could allow them to introduce evidence that they could have introduced in their case in chief, but then they'd have to allow the D a chance at offering further rebuttal evidence. And that could drag this thing on another couple of days. And if it is allowed through an expert witness, the court would have to give the D a significant amount of time to secure their own expert witness to rebut. I know the J has been very lenient with the P so far, but I think he's about at the end of his rope with this case.

 

[ncsu95]

IIRC, Cummings asked her why she did not tell K & Co. -- not the State

ETA - but I can't re-listen (word?) to the testimony yet to be sure...

No, she said she told Kurtz.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I'm going to give a pass to the CPD with respect to searching for the ducks. At the time the search warrants for the house were issued, I doubt they knew the significance the ducks would play out in the trial. They may not have even been mentioned in the search warrants.
I'm going back to the info that shows what was included in the warrants to see what I can find out.

I am not giving them a pass. Not when Det. D said one of the things that factored into them believing that BC was the killer was items missing from the foyer.

 

[otto]

The state's case has been circling the drain ever since their first few witnesses. I believe that sound I just heard was that of it finally landing in the sewer. CPD and the prosecution team should be ashamed of themselves.

I agree. I came to this case open minded, questioning whether Brad was guilty but mostly looking for confirmation that he was guilty. Knowing that police built a theory around statements from a friend (the one that originally called the police) that there were ducks in the foyer and Nancy was coming over to paint ... makes me shake my head. The police were fools to let the neighborhood gang direct their investigation. I would be surprised with a guilty verdict at this point.

 

[cassius]

I think since the judge wouldn't let defense put their forensic witness on on Monday, due to state not having enough time to prepare for cross, it would be VERY unfair for them to allow something last minute from the state, especially since they have rested. But knowing the judge, I'll be shocked if he doesn't allow it.

Wouldn't be shocked either, but I think his attitude has definitely changed in regards to the State's case.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then on at least partial motive. I think there were both long term motives and short term motives. Yes, I agree, nancy had affairs. But in nancy's case, I think she was looking for intimacy, not sex. She wanted to find someone to love her. And she kept trying to have that something with brad. that's why she kept going back to him, trying to make it work. Until she heard brad say 'he loved HM.' It was at that point she no longer could make it work, he thoughts of 'love & intimacy' with brad were irreperably shattered that new years eve. Brad neither had the capacity for intimacy, nor was he at all interested in it. Brad was interested in being a man on the move. Shallow and materialistic when it came to his women. He saw a bit of 'france' and decided the life-style was far more suiting to him that cary, nancy, suburban home, etc. MOO

Hate to get in this discussion because I feel they were both wrong. But, I don't agree that NC was looking for intimacy if she had a one-night stand with JP. That would equate to pure sex not the longing for a long-term relationship, and someone to love her.
And in all fairness, we don't know that BC did not have the capacity for intimacy or interested in it. Maybe he felt the same way NC did. There was no repairing of this marriage. Maybe he was just getting back at her for her previous indiscretions. Again, I don't think he was purely serious about moving to France. I think it was all talk.

 

[NCEast]

Sounds like an episode of Matlock.

Maybe, but that's exactly what I would have done.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Can we discuss how much of an impact JA has had on this case?

1) The call:
She made that phone call to police (hysterical) that BC may have harmed her friend. Most people would not jump immediately to: My friend must be dead because she left the house 5 hours ago and is not back yet. Then she goes to the Cooper's and is screaming and swearing at MH. "He @#&*#ing killed her!!!" When MH said he had tennis plans with BC, she got an attitude about that and said "Don't talk to the police".

2) The laundry detergent:
She told police she believed the Cooper's only used ALL detergent so it was suspicious that BC bought Tide.
We know from court that the Cooper's purchased 30 bottles of Tide, 1 bottle of All in the past several years.

3)Ducks and Sticks:
She said she was at the Cooper's on Friday and seemed to recall (although not positive) that ducks and sticks were present in the foyer and now they are not. CPD RAN with that as "a sign of struggle". Never even considered that just maybe NC had packed them away in anticipation of her move. This has been a HUGE part of this case. They never even looked for them because they were positive BC had to have disposed of them somewhere.

4) Painting plans - She called police and told them NC was due to arrive by 9AM to help her paint (for no money) and we now know that NC told several people she was sick of painting. CC never told police about NC's painting plans the day she went missing, not until a month later. HP called the Cooper house and spoke to BC Sat AM and never mentioned anything about NC being at JA's to paint. She only called to firm up pool plans for later that day. So if HP knew about the paint plans, why didn't she call NC on her cell? Now we have a witness who claims NC told her she was going jogging the next day. And no one else at the party was told about painting plans the next day.

NC also told CC she went jogging at Lake Johnson on Thursday, but no one knows who she was with. (JP?)

5) Both JA and BA made it a point to write about the fact that BC was a VOIP engineer. They had to steer police toward the "alleged" spoofed call.

6) JA called the pros about the jury member speaking about the case.

7) JA told CD to write a negative affidavit so BC would lose custody of the girls,and then cut off contact with her when she wouldn't.

8) JA went to NC's to help her organize and unpack, yet NC called the RE agent the previous day and told him she needed to find a new place ASAP. So why would NC still organize and unpack?

So what does this mean? I don't know, but to me it indicates she probably knows something. She worked very hard to steer the police in the investigation, beginning with the initial phone call.

She also told police on that call that NC car and cell phone were still at the house but she had no way of knowing that to be true.

She also said when she arrived at the cooper home she saw the cell phone and purse in NC car and the cell phone was in the house.

ETA: forgot to add that the last known call to NC cell phone on July 11 was from a phone belonging to BA.

 

[ncsu95]

Could someone who knows much more about the legal system than me please explain this?

It's my understanding that the state wants to introduce the new Cisco router/call log information. But the state has already rested. And is this new evidence? Doesn't it need to be turned over to the defense?

Not taking sides here, I just don't know enough about all the rules. Personally, I am very interested to hear exactly what this evidence is.

From what I heard, they want to offer this as rebuttal testimony, which seems a huge stretch. They offered 2 things from the defense case (the router brought in to show size, and the csa log on the computer). I don't see how anything found at Cisco that would refer to a router could be used as rebuttal for that. It looks like the state found new information and they are trying to "end around it" to get it in. I would actually love to hear it since it could help clear up some of my confusion, but I don't see (and I admit I lack knowledge in this area) how the judge can allow it. Of course, he's made stranger decisions.

 

[ncsu95]

If he merely wanted to put away only the ducks, that would have taken 5 minutes -- find a box, stick 'em in it. On to the green dress.

But what would the point of that be?

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Maybe, but that's exactly what I would have done.

You would have interrupted the prosecution's case, subjecting yourself to possible contempt of court, to let everyone know you had the ducks??

She alerted the defense as soon as she knew where they were. The defense collected them, and alerted the prosecution and the court on April 6. Three full weeks ago. This wasn't sprung on anyone at the last moment. The state could have corrected it during their case if they wanted to.

 

[johnfear]

She also told police on that call that NC car and cell phone were still at the house but she had no way of knowing that to be true.

She also said when she arrived at the cooper home she saw the cell phone and purse in NC car and the cell phone was in the house.

She meant to say: I planted the cell phone and purse back in the car, but the husband had his accomplice retrieve it. She couldn't find the passports, so she blamed the ducks.

Also, didn't BC's M say that the ducks nested? So, the white and the red duck had been INSIDE the big duck, no?

 

[BrownRice]

BrownRice,

It has to be one way or the other. If he did it, then how did he pull it off? If it was premeditated, then he thought about it, and planned it. What better way then to spoof a phone call, spoof a murder scene (foyer) and spoof the body dump vehicle (by cleaning the trunk).

What I realized was that there was zero physical forensic evidence in the foyer and the trunk. He was no Mr. Clean that was able to make a murder scene forensically spotless. So either he is not guilty or the foyer was not the murder scene and his trunk did carry NC's body.

What leads me to believe he is guilty, is that all the strong (and also questionable) evidence is digital. The spoofed call, the Google search, NC's cell phone. BC expertise is also in the digital/telephony/computer world. That's his wheelhouse, that's where he excels. Is it now just a coincidence that all of the major evidence pointing towards BC, is also those areas where his KSA's are the strongest????

You tell me....

My response was to LyndyLoo suggesting he was leading the CPD astray with cleaning the foyer and the trunk, using it as a red herring to take away from other places the crime could have occurred.

So far, the spoofed call has not been proven (it has only been shown that it could have occurred, not that it did). Furthermore, there is no evidence on NC's cell phone since the CPD wiped it clean. The Google map is open in my mind right now. I kinda sorta understand the conspiracy theories, but it confuses me. I don't know what to think.

If anything, the clean trunk w/ no DNA is the biggest piece of evidence to me.

 

[johnfear]

Just out of curiosity.....does anyone recall if Mr. JA testified (the other B or whatever)?

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Strangulation, no blood. Yes there is the issue of eliminating fluids but he had visited web sites about strangulation and knew about this so he could be prepared for it, like waiting for her to use the bathroom before the attack.

don't forget about vomit....something that happens with strangulation

 

[WolfpackWoman]

My response was to LyndyLoo suggesting he was leading the CPD astray with cleaning the foyer and the trunk, using it as a red herring to take away from other places the crime could have occurred.

So far, the spoofed call has not been proven (it has only been shown that it could have occurred, not that it did). Furthermore, there is no evidence on NC's cell phone since the CPD wiped it clean. The Google map is open in my mind right now. I kinda sorta understand the conspiracy theories, but it confuses me. I don't know what to think.

If anything, the clean trunk w/ no DNA is the biggest piece of evidence to me.

I don't know what you mean about the clean trunk with no DNA. The SBI agents both testified the trunk was dirty, and slightly soiled (as in dirt and debris), not recently vacuumed, but they found no match with anything in this case. I believe they tested it for fiber comparisons with the rug and the sports bra. But no blood, no hair, nothing.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Oh wow.....he posts here.

I missed this afternoon's testimony. Will check up on it in a bit. Who claimed to post on WS?

 

[calgary123]

From what I heard, they want to offer this as rebuttal testimony, which seems a huge stretch. They offered 2 things from the defense case (the router brought in to show size, and the csa log on the computer). I don't see how anything found at Cisco that would refer to a router could be used as rebuttal for that. It looks like the state found new information and they are trying to "end around it" to get it in. I would actually love to hear it since it could help clear up some of my confusion, but I don't see (and I admit I lack knowledge in this area) how the judge can allow it. Of course, he's made stranger decisions.

Yeah, and watch how fast the FBI experts on "another assignment" drop everything to review the router's logs. Of course the FBI wouldn't do that when the defense wanted some leeway.

I'm getting a little cynical with this whole case.

 

[ncsu95]

The ducks don't make or break the case. They were unaccounted for and thus became part of a list of missing/unknown items. They were in the house, and put away in a box at some point (by who and exactly when we don't know). They ended up the property of Sandlin. The fact that the ducks were displayed today in court is just a theatrical moment. The state never suggested that these decorative ducks were used as a weapon.

Does that mean Nancy wasn't murdered? Does that now exclude the foyer as a place where Nancy might have been attacked? Nope and nope. She still could have been overtaken right as she walked in the door. Or it could have happened elsewhere, like upstairs. That was always a possibility.

Did you not hear Cummings? He clearly stated the importance of the ducks to the prosecutions case. Still shaking my head at that one.