State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

[CaryFrom NJ]

Wondering if the timing is correct here:

BC and HM were in 2004
HM and JP were early 2005-2009/10
JP and NC was Fall 2005

So HM did not overlap between JP and BC. But JP overlapped with HM and NC.

Is that correct?

JP and HM seem to be the popular ones in this neighborhood. Disgusting and such lack of morals. The fact that JP said that he didn't want this to come out in order to avoid hurting his ex-wife and kids is a joke. He should have thought of that before he was so sneaky and downright disrespectful. For some reason I have a real problem with him and his testimony from yesterday.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Does it really have a strong bearin on this case where anyone had sex with anyone else? Both NC and BC were completely wrong. Noone was worse or better than the other. They both were wrong in their extramarital affairs. Just because one did it on the couch and the other in the closet (with our without kids present) really makes no difference in cheating on your spouse.

This was a a major downfall in their marriage. Lack of trust and respect. They should have gotten divorced a long time before all of this happened. We probably would have a much different outcome today.

BUT the elephant in the room is that Nancy is DEAD and not Bradley..:twocents:

 

[BrownRice]

LyndyLoo,

For what's it's worth I choose to believe that BC washed the foyer because it was not the murder scene. It was done for the benefit of the CPD as a red herring X marks the spot thingee.

Clean the foyer, put the ducks away in a box, and the LEO's will move heaven and earth investigating that spot, to the exclusion of other locations.

I also believe his clean trunk was also another Red herring. NC was not transported in BC's car. But the CPD tried to find that he did, to the exclusion of NC's vehicle. After all finding NC's hair in her BMW, would not be unusual. Finding her hair in his trunk would be....

Just IMHO

But you still think he's guilty, right? If so, that give him so much credit. To be able to do all of these things (kill, think of call spoofing and initiate it, go to HT 2x for alibi, and clean like a crazy person) and then do more things to just throw off the police? While leaving no evidence? It seems unlikely.

I know BC is the person we should believe killed NC. When this first happened, I was oh the husband is guilty for sure. No doubt. But my stance has changed significantly from guilty, on the fence, and now pretty innocent.

 

[BrownRice]

JP and HM seem to be the popular ones in this neighborhood. Disgusting and such lack of morals. The fact that JP said that he didn't want this to come out in order to avoid hurting his ex-wife and kids is a joke. He should have thought of that before he was so sneaky and downright disrespectful. For some reason I have a real problem with him and his testimony from yesterday.

I've been thinking about him - something about him I can't shake. At the point this murder happened, he was already living with HM and the alienation of affection suit was already in place. His reputation was already shattered. It's not like he hadn't been discovered yet to be a disgusting, cad/pig.

Also, loved how he repeatedly said he had little to no information about the law suit (wife against HM) - and acted like he was totally removed from it. Hello, arsehole :crazy: you are the reason for it. You are not innocent here. I hope this case (BC/NC) destroys his reputation and life.

 

[calgary123]

Me? I'm hoping this router, CISCO log on thing has legs since I'm still in the BDI camp, though not perhaps a welcome guest any longer by some!

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.

 

[BrownRice]

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.

I would think it will lead to a guilty verdict rather than a mistrial.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

 

[gracielee]

I'm not following this case, but she certainly seems guilty from what I saw on Nancy Grace during the years. It's so sad because I have a child that age, and to know that my child continues to age and provide so much love to our family, and to know that her child's life was so unvalued - it's too sad to even think about.

I agree. Some of our grandchildren were Caylee's age at the time she was 'missing'. When her remains were found, I thought to myself, "I don't know how we could go on, never seeing their sweet little faces again?" "Never hearing their funny little voices, the cute things they come out with, etc." there's a video of Caylee singing 'You are my Sunshine,' something I think all of us, at one time or another, have sung to our children/grandchildren...'please don't take my sunshine away.' She was such a cute little girl.

 

[gritguy]

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.

In rebuttal, you should be allowed to address things brought up by the defense but not things outside that scope. Like a redirect should be limited to those things hit on cross exam.

I don't know whether this new evidence will be shoe-horned into rebuttal (it possibly could be, as the defense was reasonably wide ranging about the home network and cell phone stuff, etc.) or whether the pros. is trying to have it be some sort of amendment to the case in chief. I did hear the defense say they were not sure when they would close their case depending on what this is.

Basically, it's just down to the judge. I heard the state say something like they didn't get it the first time b/c you had to ask it some specific way to get it from Cisco. To me, the judge should look to the interests of justice for this and any piece of evidence. Is it material? Did one side sandbag? Is the reason they didn't have it reasonably excusable? Can the other side have a chance to prepare to rebut, fairly?

 

[ncsu95]

I still cannot believe that Cummings said in front of the jury, to Mrs. Cooper, that her not telling the state about the ducks makes his witnesses look like liars right after telling her that it blows there theory of a struggle breaking the ducks. I mean did he really say that? I don't know how Boz didn't get up and object to Cummings just to shut him up.

 

[Shadow722]

But you still think he's guilty, right? If so, that give him so much credit. To be able to do all of these things (kill, think of call spoofing and initiate it, go to HT 2x for alibi, and clean like a crazy person) and then do more things to just throw off the police? While leaving no evidence? It seems unlikely.

I know BC is the person we should believe killed NC. When this first happened, I was oh the husband is guilty for sure. No doubt. But my stance has changed significantly from guilty, on the fence, and now pretty innocent.

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....

 

[ncsu95]

I might be thinking about this wrong but if it were my son and those ducks were brought into question very early in the trial-- related to a struggle in the foyer-- I would have stood up in the courtroom and shouted---'no, no, no--I know exactly where those ducks are'. She let the idea of the ducks having been damaged and thrown away go on for the duration of this trial until today. I would have made it very obvious, probably during JA's testimony, that I knew where the ducks were because that would have been proof that my son didn't damage the ducks during a struggle in the foyer on the night of July 11.

Sounds like an episode of Matlock.

 

[ncsu95]

What was the state's witness *wrong* about? JA testifed the ducks were present on the table in the front hall the day before nancy 'went missing' and the ducks were no longer there on the table after nancy 'went missing'. That was a true statement. The fact that all this time, the ducks were in Brad's civil lawyers office doesn't make JA's testimony 'wrong' IMO. Everyone, including all of us WS'ers, knew they were looking for the ducks. That they were in an attorney's office no less, you don't consider that to be concealing evidence in a murder trial? It would appear they took a lesson from Michael Peterson's blow poke IMO.

Yes it does. Unless he took time from cleaning up a murder scene to pack up boxes to help Nancy move, it means they weren't there on the 11th like JA insisted. We know they weren't there on the 12th because CPD photographed that area on the 12th. Those pictures on the 12th led to JAs AHA moment where she "remembered" seeing the ducks on the 11th. If they were packed, it was because NC was taking them with her, and they were packed long before the 12th of July.

 

[3doglady]

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.

My understanding from watching the proceedings after the jury was dismissed is this: The SA stated that he had just received an email from Cisco that one of the routers had been located. Cisco said to expect another email with more info shortly. The SA wanted to alert the court now since he had just received it. The defense got upset, raised his voice and stated that since the SA was bringing in new evidence and would have an expert testify, that they should be given the opportunity to review the new evidence and present their own expert. The judge agreed.

 

[ncsu95]

there was no signs of struggle. Someone took Nancy by surprise. I don't care who agrees or not...the broken hyoid bone.....not an easy thing to do because of the size and location, but possible if a sharp edge is delivered to her neck in the strong grip of an ace tennis player, using his well practiced and "winning" swing.

So Brad is now an "ace" tennis player along with being a computer expert and a cell phone expert? I'll concede a voip expert because he was. But his list of things he was an expert in is growing significantly.

 

[gritguy]

Sounds like an episode of Matlock.

Also, if JA was during the state case, the defense can't just say wait let me call a witness to dispute that!!

 

[SleuthinNC]

OK I think I have solidified my SODDI theory at this point.

 

[ncsu95]

So now the whereabouts and theories about the ducks are insignificant to the case. That's a lot of back pedalling.:floorlaugh:

yeah, no doubt. I guess that will need to be removed from the concrete list of circumstantial evidence.

 

[AnotherSleuth]

He was no Mr. Clean that was able to make a murder scene forensically spotless.

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.

 

[sunshine05]

In rebuttal, you should be allowed to address things brought up by the defense but not things outside that scope. Like a redirect should be limited to those things hit on cross exam.

I don't know whether this new evidence will be shoe-horned into rebuttal (it possibly could be, as the defense was reasonably wide ranging about the home network and cell phone stuff, etc.) or whether the pros. is trying to have it be some sort of amendment to the case in chief. I did hear the defense say they were not sure when they would close their case depending on what this is.

Basically, it's just down to the judge. I heard the state say something like they didn't get it the first time b/c you had to ask it some specific way to get it from Cisco. To me, the judge should look to the interests of justice for this and any piece of evidence. Is it material? Did one side sandbag? Is the reason they didn't have it reasonably excusable? Can the other side have a chance to prepare to rebut, fairly?

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.