State v Bradley Cooper 4-5-2011

[RoughlyCollie]

Excerpt: "the personality disorder most likely to actually kill his spouse is dependent and passive-aggressive."

Would it be passive-aggressive behavior for a husband to give his wife a cash allowance, and remove her access to credit cards and bank accounts, especially when both spouses did not agree to this, and the poor financial condition of the family was caused by both?

It seems to me it would be, because the power over the money is solely in the hands of one of the contributors to the problem.

I think BC felt very threatened and took control over NC's access to funds and over her ability to do what she wanted to do, which was to move to Canada with their daughters.

He did not interfere with her daily life, and gave her enough money to buy groceries and necessities, because the only thing that was important to him was that she did not leave *and* take their daughters with her.

She had a lawyer, and an initial separation agreement had been drafted. He read it, saw the handwriting on the wall, and killed her.

Furthermore, he figured out a way to kill her bloodlessly so that no occult blood could be detected at the crime scene. He cleaned or threw away everything that could possibly have other bodily substances on it. He dumped her body in a relatively out of the way place and figured nature would do its job. Voila! No direct physical proof that he committed the crime. The availability of abundant circumstantial evidence will be his Archilles' heel.

At this point, I think BC killed Nancy, but I could change my mind, depending on what happens during the rest of his trial. I am not wedded to my opinion at all.

I cannot get past this, however, especially since Nancy had other sports bras, and none of them IIRC, were red and black:

He rubbed his forehead with his right hand and held his head with his left hand as he told detectives Nancy Cooper, his wife of almost eight years, usually wore a red and black sports bra when she went out for runs. He stopped talking after that and never mentioned any other clothes.

Detectives had not told him that the woman's body found near a drainage ditch in an unfinished Wake County subdivision was clad in nothing more than a sports bra pushed up under her arms.

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/16/1057820/cary-officer-brad-cooper-seemed.html#ixzz1IheWITqO

 

[Albert]

We all know the call came from the home to his cell at 6:40AM.
How is that going to change anything?

Has there been testimony that shows the details of this call from the TWC records? Or have we just been teased that the TWC records have been submitted into evidence.

 

[CuriousDad]

The defense filed a motion to delay the trial right before this trial started, that would be a good time for the pros to speak up to delay the trial Probably because of all the last minute moves, evidence gathering by prosecution
The grand jury ruled there was enough evidence to take this to trialGJ is a farce. i've been there. Only hear 1 witness, a LEO, tell his view of the story. BTW, all the LEO's sound exactly the same when they testify - same coach?
That Cisco witness was contacted in February probably after the FBI found the instant message evidence on Brad's computer, Cisco was contacted immediately and was served with search warrants hence the motions to delay by defense.

Why would an innocent man have to LIE and not go to the Police Station to be questioned?Why should an innocent man have to go to the police station to answer questions? He'd answered plenty, already.

I don't think the witnesses are being called in a hap hazard way..it is just how the pros are laying the foundation of their evidenceMother between CPD? Realtor, pest guy testified to events prior to murder, after we'd already reached a missing person stage. Sister after scientists and before Cisco security?

Once the pros rest the Defense will say they did not prove their case and they want the charges dropped...of course it will be denied and then the Defense will also rest..because if you think the Pros have nothing the Defense has less Defense has already "testified" on several occasions.

 

[Maja]

Kurtz already asked that question to Detective Young.

Young said no.....I agree.

Just proves the phones work.

 

[BrownRice]

I think the one thing we can all agree on after today's testimony is there was no smoking gun. Nothing that made either side say, see aha. There you go.

I was a minority in my opinion Kurtz did a good cross on Fry. Probably because I didn't understand the technical side of it (so I didn't understand he was an idiot, because apparently I am too). But, what I got from it was the same as every other witness the state has had up there - nothing. Things could have happened, they want us to believe it happened, but there's no evidence showing it did.

 

[sunshine05]

Just curious to know how many fence sitters would fall to the not guilty side simply based on a voice phone call originating from home phone to BC cell phone at 6:40am?

I'm already on the "not guilty" side and therefore feel very confident they will not be able to prove a spoofed call or any computer searches for dump sites.

But I think showing a record that the call came from the house phone to his cell phone is very strong and it is a huge stretch to suggest there was an accomplice making that call, IMO. It goes against the Pros case that he was in a rage and killed her because the accomplice would have had to have been prearranged. Any calls to anyone else would have been picked up on records.

 

[Just the Fax]

Has there been testimony that shows the details of this call from the TWC records? Or have we just been teased that the TWC records have been submitted into evidence.

Not yet

 

[borndem]

My interpretation is different.

Brad set up a Paree phone number because he allegedly had a 'girlfriend'/lover who lived in FRANCE. This would allow HER to call HIM at no charge, by calling this Paris phone #, and the call would reach BC's phone in North Carolina. At no charge to her, and free for him too. IMHO.

Some security examiners might call that little set-up internal fraud.

 

[Just the Fax]

I'm already on the "not guilty" side and therefore feel very confident they will not be able to prove a spoofed call or any computer searches for dump sites.

But I think showing a record that the call came from the house phone to his cell phone is very strong and it is a huge stretch to suggest there was an accomplice making that call, IMO. It goes against the Pros case that he was in a rage and killed her because the accomplice would have had to have been prearranged. Any calls to anyone else would have been picked up on records.

Interesting you are so firm on your "not guilty" before all the evidence is presented.

Accomplice- huh :waitasec:

 

[Albert]

I'm already on the "not guilty" side and therefore feel very confident they will not be able to prove a spoofed call or any computer searches for dump sites.

But I think showing a record that the call came from the house phone to his cell phone is very strong and it is a huge stretch to suggest there was an accomplice making that call, IMO. It goes against the Pros case that he was in a rage and killed her because the accomplice would have had to have been prearranged. Any calls to anyone else would have been picked up on records.

Sunshine, someone else injected that another human was at the house. I am simply asking if the detailed TWC records show a voice call from the home phone to the cell phone would that lead credibility to BC being found not guilty. Secondly, does this call therefore imply NC is alive at 6:40am?

 

[CuriousDad]

Interesting you are so firm on your "not guilty" before all the evidence is presented.

Accomplice- huh :waitasec:

You are just, if not more firm, on Brad being guilty. That's the definition of the pot calling the kettle black!

Accomplice was mentioned by some desperate BC is guilty gang members last night, to explain the 6:40 call.

 

[less0305]

Would it be passive-aggressive behavior for a husband to give his wife a cash allowance, and remove her access to credit cards and bank accounts, especially when both spouses did not agree to this, and the poor financial condition of the family was caused by both?

It seems to me it would be, because the power over the money is solely in the hands of one of the contributors to the problem.

I think BC felt very threatened and took control over NC's access to funds and over her ability to do what she wanted to do, which was to move to Canada with their daughters.

He did not interfere with her daily life, and gave her enough money to buy groceries and necessities, because the only thing that was important to him was that she did not leave *and* take their daughters with her.

She had a lawyer, and an initial separation agreement had been drafted. He read it, saw the handwriting on the wall, and killed her.

Furthermore, he figured out a way to kill her bloodlessly so that no occult blood could be detected at the crime scene. He cleaned or threw away everything that could possibly have other bodily substances on it. He dumped her body in a relatively out of the way place and figured nature would do its job. Voila! No direct physical proof that he committed the crime. The availability of abundant circumstantial evidence will be his Archilles' heel.

At this point, I think BC killed Nancy, but I could change my mind, depending on what happens during the rest of his trial.

I am deep in moving two children to two different places - and cleaning a rental house right now. I can't put a decent thought together if my life depended on it. But what you said - oh yeah!!! So good. Thanks for stating the obvious. There's so much I feel, but am relying on the smarties of the group to put it into words right now. :great::clap:

 

[Maja]

I have been thinking that he is very passive aggressive...passive on the outside and aggressive on the inside!! It is a behavior learned in childhood as a coping strategy. Growing close to people at an emotional level is next to impossible. Examples of his passive aggressive behaviour that I have noted:...
Avoid getting money for nancy
Avoid cleaning when asked
Avoid answering Nancy's phone calls
Avoid social interaction
Avoid having sex ???
Avoid confrontations

The testimony today though looks like the aggressive side took over so now I am not sure what went on behind closed doors...

Meloy cites a study by Weiss et al. (1960) of "sudden murderers" who commit a "single, isolated, unexpected episode of violent, impulsive acting out behavior - behavior which is never well thought out and has no obvious purpose or hope for personal advantage" (Weiss, Cited in Meloy, 1992, p.43). Such sudden murderers came from large, mother dominated families with hostile or rejecting fathers. Attachment between mother and child was ambivalent, characterized by "an underlying hostility that had to be repressed or split off during affectionate moments by both parties" (Weiss, Cited in Meloy, 1992, p.44).

 

[Just the Fax]

Some security examiners might call that little set-up internal fraud.

Brad was a sneaky rascal

 

[jmflu]

I really don't like 4 weeks of foundational witnesses in what was supposed to be a 6 week trial. I would really like to see the actual evidence they have linking him to the crime so I can get my numb @$$ of of this fence.

Thanks for the giggle.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Some security examiners might call that little set-up internal fraud.

Why would that be fraud? He was on the Alpha network. Theft of bandwidth? it is an insignificant amount of data. That's like saying a friend sent him an email at work, and calling it internal fraud.

 

[sunshine05]

Sunshine, someone else injected that another human was at the house. I am simply asking if the detailed TWC records show a voice call from the home phone to the cell phone would that lead credibility to BC being found not guilty. Secondly, does this call therefore imply NC is alive at 6:40am?

Yes and yes.

Sorry, I was just answering already for those who would suggest someone besides NC could have made the call.

 

[borndem]

Just an FYI, it may not be uncommon due to his job responsibilities to occasionaly wipe data off of drives. I don't know if it was or not, just throwing it out there.

I don't think that type of work would be given to a CCIE -- that's more for an operations-type associate in data security. That's who did it where I worked.

 

[sunshine05]

Interesting you are so firm on your "not guilty" before all the evidence is presented.

Accomplice- huh :waitasec:

Nothing is certain, of course. I've seen things come up in this case that go firmly against the State's case. I don't believe they have a "smoking gun" or they would have presented it by now. JMO

 

[SleuthinNC]

I don't think that type of work would be given to a CCIE -- that's more for an operations-type associate in data security. That's who did it where I worked.

He was testing VoIP systems which means he was installing operating systems on servers.