State v Bradley Cooper 4-5-2011

[Just the Fax]

Honestly, this response has nothing to do with Brad. But a 61 degree day in February when it is usually 30s or 40s just feels warm. A 61 degree day in July when it's been 80s and 90s would feel cold. I know it wasn't 61 in July. I'm just making about about the difference in a warm winter day versus a cool summer morning.

Doesn't work for me.
Factor in July humidity and there is a huge difference.

 

[ncsu95]

So this answer is a bit surprising from you as you seem to rip holes in all theories presented here on WS. Yet you conclude that just because a call is made then there is no doubt that NC must be alive at that point. It seems that you are willing to discount all other possibilities that exist that can explain this call being made. I wonder how many on the jury would be inclined to believe that a voice call made from the home phone must also imply that NC made the call, thus she was still alive. I am only asking this in anticipation that the TWC detailed records will show this 6:40am as a voice call.

You said a voice call. I took that to mean a call made by a person. If that call was made by a person (ie, a person dialing the phone), it had to be NC which means she was alive at 6:40. I've said all along that my opinion will be based on that call and the testimony around it.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Hello, fellow sleuths! I got home from meetings tonight a while ago, and I think I'm caught up with the posts. I just had my hubby, at someone's request (can't remember who), put my sports bra on me while I remained as lifeless as possible. He really didn't have all that much trouble, and it took just under 3 minutes. Now I know my sports bra and my anatomy are not identical to Nancy's, but I thought I'd pass our results along.

I gotta say, my husband is exceptionally cooperative, yes?

 

[Cheyenne130]

You said a voice call. I took that to mean a call made by a person. If that call was made by a person (ie, a person dialing the phone), it had to be NC which means she was alive at 6:40. I've said all along that my opinion will be based on that call and the testimony around it.

Are you saying that it is not possible that the older child made that call?

 

[FullDisclosure]

And let me add that, depending on how you grab a sports bra to drag a body, it can roll either out or under.

 

[sunshine05]

So a husband can kill his wife, but it would be unlikely he could leave her remains exposed:waitasec:

Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

I just don't believe a husband would do that. I don't believe he killed her either though, but IF he did and it was during a heated fight and he lost control, he would be thinking "OMG, what have I done?" and would not disrespect her like that and leave her exposed. I can't imagine that happening. There would have been no reason for him not to dress her completely.

 

[ncsu95]

Are you saying that it is not possible that the older child made that call?

I'd say it is highly unlikely that Bella made that call.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I'd say it is highly unlikely that *the oldest child* made that call.

Why do you think that?

 

[FullDisclosure]

On the subject of the 6:40 call. A call verified to come from the home phone by a person would make me lean more toward "not guilty." Proof that the call was spoofed would take me all the way to "guilty."

 

[SleuthSayer]

Are you saying that it is not possible that the older child made that call?

I agree that it is not fair to conclude that if a human made the call it had to be NC. But, I would personally doubt the older child. My experience with kids that age is that they don't necessarily remember things that are part of their normal routine. I would assume that her making a phone call to her dad at 6:30am is not part of the routine. Seems that asking her to do it would be too high risk for her spilling it to someone.

 

[Just the Fax]

You said a voice call. I took that to mean a call made by a person. If that call was made by a person (ie, a person dialing the phone), it had to be NC which means she was alive at 6:40. I've said all along that my opinion will be based on that call and the testimony around it.

All the state has to prove, with his expertise, is it was possible for Brad to rig the call.
There is no more evidence a "person" dialed it than Brad spoofed it.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I agree that it is not fair to conclude that if a human made the call it had to be NC. But, I would personally doubt the older child. My experience with kids that age is that they don't necessarily remember things that are part of their normal routine. I would assume that her making a phone call to her dad at 6:30am is not part of the routine. Seems that asking her to do it would be too high risk for her spilling it to someone.

Would the risk outweigh the possible "alibi", particularly if you are able to insulate the child from others for a period of time to indoctrinate said child?

 

[ncsu95]

Why do you think that?

Because I think the child would have said something to someone that day.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Because I think the child would have said something to someone that day.

Like what? She was with her father for most of the day. What do you think she would say unless asked directly?

 

[Albert]

You said a voice call. I took that to mean a call made by a person. If that call was made by a person (ie, a person dialing the phone), it had to be NC which means she was alive at 6:40. I've said all along that my opinion will be based on that call and the testimony around it.

Sorry NCSU, I should have clarified a voice call vs a fax call. I am assuming the TWC records will indicate this as a voice call.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Would the risk outweigh the possible "alibi", particularly if you are able to insulate the child from others for a period of time to indoctrinate said child?

I wouldn't think so, but that's just my opinion. I'd be inclined to suspect another accomplice rather than the kid.

I wouldn't discount the accomplice possibility. That might explain what all of the voicemail checks that morning were all about.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I wouldn't think so, but that's just my opinion. I'd be inclined to suspect another accomplice rather than the kid.

I wouldn't discount the accomplice possibility. That might explain what all of the voicemail checks that morning were all about.

It's hard for me to guess, speculate, conjecture because I'm not a murderer. The only reason I would even present this possibility is because testimony of the dad is that this four year old went to bed between 8:30 and 9:00 and didn't wake up until 8:30 the next day (after being in the same bed with her younger sister that cried for 10-15 minutes). Maybe but that is one sleepy child!

 

[SleuthSayer]

All the state has to prove, with his expertise, is it was possible for Brad to rig the call.
There is no more evidence a "person" dialed it than Brad spoofed it.

I would have thought that the burden of proof should be higher than it is "possible" for him to do it.

It's "possible" that this was a random killing.

So, it seems like they should have to go beyond the possible.

 

[sunshine05]

I wouldn't think so, but that's just my opinion. I'd be inclined to suspect another accomplice rather than the kid.

I wouldn't discount the accomplice possibility. That might explain what all of the voicemail checks that morning were all about.

They should have records of who the calls came from though, right?

It's interesting as time has gone by that now people are starting to speak of an accomplice to still hold on to the belief that he did it. (not saying you, but some are suggesting it).

 

[Cheyenne130]

I would have thought that the burden of proof should be higher than it is "possible" for him to do it.

It's "possible" that this was a random killing.

So, it seems like they should have to go beyond the possible.

So far I've not seen the possible of a random killing. Maybe the defense will present some of that.