State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
...and he was paid by who?

Well technically he is being paid by the state because B is indigent which means he is most likely receiving much less than his normal rate. All the while he might be working on a different matter making his normal asking rate.

Not everything is so black and white.
 
I'm sure you are right, but it just appears, now, that the friends of the victim dictated the entire direction this trial took. And so much of it was incorrect. That's disturbing to me.

And to a degree injured the case, by overstating things.

I also didn't like JP, not only due to his misdeeds and cowardly attempts to hide them, but due to the fact that by lying to LEO he was hindering the investigation and then later making the final case tougher to prosecute (assuming it should be prosecuted).
 
Come on, that's not what he said. He said files on those dates were altered and could have easily done at a later date, i.e. when it was in the custody of LE.

Again, does convicting the RIGHT person not matter?

That is exactly what he said. Could have been malware that caused those changes. He also noted that file discrepancies started in June 2008 (June 28). Yes, it could have been done at a later date. He could not state this for sure though. This is not proof that CPD tampered with BC computer. It merely shows file and timestamp anomalies and it does not show WHO created those anomalies. You can't say it wasn't BC.
 
You mean the two shoes that were not NC size, the opposite side for each to which the CPD testified 'were not considered missing' ?

or do you mean the newer right and left Saucony shoes owned by NC, which fit her, which she ran in, that have not been recovered?

Not sure. Why would 2 same-footed shoes (anyone in home's size) be there anyway? Where would the other pair of same-footed shoes be?

If they are not considered 'missing'... where are they???

No, I don't mean the newer right AND left Saucony shoes.
 
She is one the hardcore BDI groupies that is not concerned with justice. Their only desire is to make Brad pay regardless of what the evidence says. It doesn't matter that every shred of the state's CE has been refuted...let him rot in jail the rest of his life.
FYI...Let's remember to attack the post...not the poster. TOS rule
 
You have to look for evidence in the right place. CPD found no DNA evidence at the site of NC body or at the Cooper home or in the cars. They probably didn't look for it ahywhere else.

There was blood under her nails - not good enough to get a DNA analysis.

I wonder - what there testimony to typing the blood?

If I remember correctly, they were only looking for DNA matches that matched BC or NC. I may be wrong though.
 
Well technically he is being paid by the state because B is indigent which means he is most likely receiving much less than his normal rate. All the while he might be working on a different matter making his normal asking rate.

Not everything is so black and white.
Doesn't matter.
 
Well we know what was in the refrigerator on the 12th since the detectives checked. And we know he purchased milk. So either they were out of milk or that is another thing he disposed of to cover it.

The detective said Green Juice and Milk are all that was in the fridge. So odd with young children.
 
That is exactly what he said. Could have been malware that caused those changes. He also noted that file discrepancies started in June 2008 (June 28). Yes, it could have been done at a later date. He could not state this for sure though. This is not proof that CPD tampered with BC computer. It merely shows file and timestamp anomalies and it does not show WHO created those anomalies. You can't say it wasn't BC.

You can't say it was BC..at best then it is a wash. How could you put someone in jail with that as part of your reasoning?
 
Nope...they got it right...they know exactly what was going on in that house...IMHO.

They stated she wore that necklace every day like gospel and today proved that was not the case.

I wouldn't use the word 'exactly'.
 
Really, what are you talking about?

She said Brad never answered her calls on Friday. I said he answered the one at lunch. She was saying that's what he told his coworkers. I'm assuming that to mean that she doesn't necessarily believe it was a call from Nancy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
2,011
Total visitors
2,090

Forum statistics

Threads
602,094
Messages
18,134,604
Members
231,231
Latest member
timbo1966
Back
Top