State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[gritguy]

Have you ever tried to get red wine out of something?

Certainly so - a bottle! A prize in every one!

 

[otto]

Anyone that has had to sit through the examination for discovery during custody hearings knows that it's a rather unpleasant experience. The questions can be intrusive, and even completely unrelated. Cooperation in answering the questions only goes so far.

 

[ncsu95]

Ok, but we are having to rationalize all the lies away to suggest he's not a liar. However, I think you have said you can concede he's a liar without conceding that means he's guilty. I agree.

It's interesting to me that there are some BDI's who will simply see the case as black and white, and ANYTHING to the defense side is bogus and anything on the state side can be believed w/ or w/o evidence. On the other hand, there are obviously some BII's who feel BC must look lily white and a paragon of honesty, the 100% innocent victim of an LEO super-conspiracy. I find neither approach credible.

Oh no, he's a lying liar. I have no issues with calling him that.

 

[Danielle59]

So we are agreed that BC lied about:

1. Fielding drive knowledge, having searched it on his work laptop;
2. His monitoring of NC's e-mail, including that between her attorney and her and her and her friends;
3. Not knowing his fiancé's name;
4. Having knowledge of what NC would have on when he didn't see her dress for running.

OR do we just say no he gets a pass on these because we believe several LEO's from different agencies conspired to place obscure evidence on his laptop that even if found would barely get the case maybe over the goalpost to guilty?

I'm sticking with it is obvious he's a liar. That doesn't make him a murderer. The things he chose to lie about though, suggest to me he is.

Is that a Royal "WE?" I know I didn't and don't agree with many of those things.

 

[SleuthSayer]

It's interesting to me that there are some BDI's who will simply see the case as black and white, and ANYTHING to the defense side is bogus and anything on the state side can be believed w/ or w/o evidence. On the other hand, there are obviously some BII's who feel BC must look lily white and a paragon of honesty, the 100% innocent victim of an LEO super-conspiracy. I find neither approach credible.

Yeah, the whole Google search thing is hard to overcome.

On one hand, it almost seems too good of a smoking gun. It just worked out almost too well that he searched the dump site and he did it within 24 hours of killing her.

But, on the other hand, you have to be a pretty serious conspiracy theorist to believe that it didn't happen. I think that all of the "neighbor hacking into his WiFi and laptop" stuff is just silly. So, if you dismiss that, you have to assume LE corruption. I think that we can agree that the CPD is not technically competent enough to have hacked the files and gotten it right. So, that leaves the FBI/Durham PD loaner guy. It seems unlikely to me that he would risk his career for..... what? Just to help the CPD? Seems doubtful.

MOO.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Not if I wanted to preclude a confrontation with my soon to be ex-husband.

He claimed that she told him about the spill as soon as he got to the party. He was there. No one at home. She had an opportunity to run home and change according to his story. Not one other person including the married couple called by the defense today testified to a stain on Nancy's dress.

 

[ncsu95]

I watched some at least of the defense witnesses today and found them basically people forced to testify in a situation they would have hoped never happened and doing the best they could, various personalities aside. And I'm BDI.

I find there is a single-minded adherence at work with some on both sides of the debate, and people in the middle liable to be run over from both directions! :crazy:

That's true...neither looked happy to be there.

 

[gritguy]

I would be neat if the defense brings in a soil specialist and the missing Harris Teeter shoes with no matching mica

I agree with this in this regard. If either side could bring in a piece of evidence that would show him innocent or guilty, without doubt either way, that would be a big relief and the best result.

Unfortunately, I think the clock will run out on this one with enough given by both sides for arguments to remain, perhaps even in the minds of the jurors, regardless of the verdict.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Donna Lopez, who didn't know Nancy before the evening of 7/11/08, had a gut feeling she could not ignore. She said she felt something bad was going to happen over in that house (Cooper residence). No one's pointing the finger of suspicion at her, and her gut feeling was 100% correct. Why the need to blame Nancy's friends when they developed the feeling that something was wrong on Sat 7/12?

Here is where I question what feeling her friend felt that Sat - obviously BC and NC were fighting for quite some time. She was in hate mode many times before this Friday night. Why all of a sudden the big concern at that particular point in time? Sure, they were overheard arguing at the Fri night party, but they also fought in public before (daycare). And it didn't sound like the fight at the party that Fri was very loud, etc.
No one testified that NC was particularly concerned about her safety that night. So - why the sudden gut feeling? Just seems so coincidental. Alll of a sudden their friend is murdered and a stranger had a "gut" feeling. Really????

I am anot blaming NC's friends, but I still find it VERY odd that JA was so concerned when NC was out running for only 1 hour before getting worried. And she changed the painting time from 9 am to 8 am. But, still said she was in bed at 8am. Just doesn't add up

 

[sunshine05]

Ok, but we are having to rationalize all the lies away to suggest he's not a liar. However, I think you have said you can concede he's a liar without conceding that means he's guilty. I agree.

It's interesting to me that there are some BDI's who will simply see the case as black and white, and ANYTHING to the defense side is bogus and anything on the state side can be believed w/ or w/o evidence. On the other hand, there are obviously some BII's who feel BC must look lily white and a paragon of honesty, the 100% innocent victim of an LEO super-conspiracy. I find neither approach credible.

Can one be less than 100% innocent?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm one of the few who thinks he is innocent and I do believe there was some shady stuff going on with CPD and also with some of the "friends", based on what has come out in the case. The friends' odd behavior was a big deciding factor in my feeling that he is not guilty.

Then throughout the trial, D. Daniels testimony, stating his opinions over and over but not having many facts to back up his case, several discrepancies with his notes, etc. It doesn't feel right. The police don't seem secure about this case, IMO.

That doesn't mean I believe BC never lied about anything. Yes, some of the things in the deposition were lies, but I didn't see anything major. And it was a very rough interrogation. I don't know that anyone could come out of a 6 hour ordeal like that without a few things being off.

But I'm okay with being called a conspiracy theorist, really.

 

[phillygirl]

Ok, but we are having to rationalize all the lies away to suggest he's not a liar. However, I think you have said you can concede he's a liar without conceding that means he's guilty. I agree.

It's interesting to me that there are some BDI's who will simply see the case as black and white, and ANYTHING to the defense side is bogus and anything on the state side can be believed w/ or w/o evidence. On the other hand, there are obviously some BII's who feel BC must look lily white and a paragon of honesty, the 100% innocent victim of an LEO super-conspiracy. I find neither approach credible.

I agree, for anyone to say with 100% certainty either way is irrational. But I think there are two distinct types of posters here. 1. Just feels emotionally attached to this poor woman who was murdered or this poor man who sits in a jail cell with a lack of evidence. 2. Is interested in how the US judicial system protects the rights of the accused and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, otherwise he is to be found not guilty. That is the law. Some people like MH need the facts, black and white, to test the theory. Others, like many of her friends, don't need facts, they just know he did it.

 

[gritguy]

Yeah, the whole Google search thing is hard to overcome.

On one hand, it almost seems too good of a smoking gun. It just worked out almost too well that he searched the dump site and he did it within 24 hours of killing her.

But, on the other hand, you have to be a pretty serious conspiracy theorist to believe that it didn't happen. I think that all of the "neighbor hacking into his WiFi and laptop" stuff is just silly. So, if you dismiss that, you have to assume LE corruption. I think that we can agree that the CPD is not technically competent enough to have hacked the files and gotten it right. So, that leaves the FBI/Durham PD loaner guy. It seems unlikely to me that he would risk his career for..... what? Just to help the CPD? Seems doubtful.

MOO.

Especially when they could have sprinkled a bit of dirt from the crime scene onto his floorboard and take the rest of the week off!

 

[Madeleine74]

Too inflammatory, IMHO. Also, that person really does not want to be involved and I got a good talking to by someone else (her friend) when I posted about her in 2008. This even though she felt obliged to phone Alice Stubbs having seen the deposition tapes.

I sure don't blame her for not wanting to have anything more to do with this case. Bad enough she had to deal with BC the first time in her relationship, let alone get dragged into this awful mess.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Especially when they could have sprinkled a bit of dirt from the crime scene onto his floorboard and take the rest of the week off!

Yeah. Dirt is probably well within the realm of their expertise.

 

[kantoo]

So which blunder today was the worst for Coomings?

1. Asking a defense witness to read an alternate theory of the crime that pointed to someone other than BC (with no followup to show that couldn't have happened)?
2. Saying in front of the jury that since the ducks have appeared, it blows the prosecutions theory that there was a struggle in the foyer that destroyed the ducks?
3. Saying in front of the jury that since the ducks have appeared, it makes his witnesses look like liars?

I really hope this guy isn't part of the prosecution team for Jason Young.

sorry, i'm way behind on my reading but

my gut says #1

but i'm guessing the jury is at #3

 

[gritguy]

Can one be less than 100% innocent?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm one of the few who thinks he is innocent and I do believe there was some shady stuff going on with CPD and also with some of the "friends", based on what has come out in the case. The friends' odd behavior was a big deciding factor in my feeling that he is not guilty.

Then throughout the trial, D. Daniels testimony, stating his opinions over and over but not having many facts to back up his case, several discrepancies with his notes, etc. It doesn't feel right. The police don't seem secure about this case, IMO.

That doesn't mean I believe BC never lied about anything. Yes, some of the things in the deposition were lies, but I didn't see anything major. And it was a very rough interrogation. I don't know that anyone could come out of a 6 hour ordeal like that without a few things being off.

But I'm okay with being called a conspiracy theorist, really.

I think if you take a critical look at things and reach the conclusion you don't think he did it, how can anyone criticize that?

I think he did it, but I'd be ignoring the obvious not to agree with you on a lot of what you post above about the friends and CPD etc.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

Would you walk around all night with that big wet spot on your chest if you could run across the street and change clothes real quick?

Who knows? They were close friends. Having a stain on your dress, after trying to clean it, really is not a big deal amongst friends. Again, though, none of us knew NC. We don't know if she would have walked around with the stain; tried to wash it; gone home to change. Bottom line is that there was a slight stain. No one determined what it was. Is it so impossible to believe it was red wine?

 

[phillygirl]

My mind is completely closed on this. There would have to be a video of someone else strangling Nancy before I would believe it was anybody but Bradleeeee.

See? You would be dismissed as a possible juror because you're too emotionally involved and thereby not able to form a rational opinion about the case. I'm glad for the jury selection process.

 

[gritguy]

I agree, for anyone to say with 100% certainty either way is irrational. But I think there are two distinct types of posters here. 1. Just feels emotionally attached to this poor woman who was murdered or this poor man who sits in a jail cell with a lack of evidence. 2. Is interested in how the US judicial system protects the rights of the accused and must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, otherwise he is to be found not guilty. That is the law. Some people like MH need the facts, black and white, to test the theory. Others, like many of her friends, don't need facts, they just know he did it.

I agree.

If by MH you mean the witness today; well, I thought they both just laid their testimony out there, the way people should. MH gets more angry when his theories are challenged than may be healthy, but I did not see anything to cause me to doubt his intentions. Or his wife's. Or Mrs. Cooper, who I highly empathize with.

I'll also repeat what I believe I heard her say which is that she (and I'd suppose her husband) are staying with one of the attorneys. That's a very stand up move by that attorney, IMO. The Cooper family is suffering too.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Who knows? They were close friends. Having a stain on your dress, after trying to clean it, really is not a big deal amongst friends. Again, though, none of us knew NC. We don't know if she would have walked around with the stain; tried to wash it; gone home to change. Bottom line is that there was a slight stain. No one determined what it was. Is it so impossible to believe it was red wine?

IMO, Yes.