State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

[SleuthinNC]

What evidence do you believe supports him not making the call?

No equipment found, no data transmission indicating access to his network to place the call remotely, call length discrepancy with csim.

I think there are other ways it could have been accomplished but so far the prosecution has not presented anything compelling to say yes he made the call.

 

[water_dancing]

According to the expert testimony today, Brad had access to all the equipment necessary to automate a call. It was easy to set up and equally easy to take down. That is in evidence. He could have done this. Alibi gone. MOO

I agree about BC having the access at one point. Was this witness able to explain a way BC could have used the equipment though for a call longer than 22 sec? That seemed to be a call duration that kept coming up. My connection kept buffering this afternoon.

 

[Just the Fax]

Again, I believe he dumped the FXO, two of the same foot shoes, his first HT trip shoes, ducks, & sticks went into the HT dumpster. Gone forever.

Don't forget the extended period he was driving around w/ just the girls.
Other than LTF, we have no idea where he went, or how many dumpsters used.

 

[sunshine05]

Huh?

Why would this router not be in the home? Why would he have purchased an FXO card from CISCO and had no way of using it?
Do you honestly think this equipment switch would take him any more than 5 minutes? He had at least 5 hours after he killed her to accomplish that simple task. He then had several more hours after he returned to disconnect and dispose of it......as he drove the kids around "looking for Nancy"

It was an internal purchase, probably for his lab at the office. He did not have the correct router to handle the fxo card. You saw the police photos. He didn't have it.

 

[obsessive]

I agree about BC having the access at one point. Was this witness able to explain a way BC could have used the equipment though for a call longer than 22 sec? That seemed to be a call duration that kept coming up. My connection kept buffering this afternoon.

Yes, if I understood correctly (through the buffering), he did explain that 22 seconds was 'standard', but also explained ways to lengthen the duration.

 

[sunshine05]

No equipment found, no data transmission indicating access to his network to place the call remotely, call length discrepancy with csim.

I think there are other ways it could have been accomplished but so far the prosecution has not presented anything compelling to say yes he made the call.

Good point. I forgot about the call time discrepancy. Plus I remember now that Cisco checked all records worldwide btwn 6-7AM and a call such as this was not made.

 

[Just the Fax]

It was an internal purchase, probably for his lab at the office. He did not have the correct router to handle the fxo card. You saw the police photos. He didn't have it.

Tell you what, go back and watch the deposition where he admits he had the Cisco equipment in his home.

And since it makes you feel better, keep latching on to the missing router that he obviously disposed of.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Again, I believe he dumped the FXO, two of the same foot shoes, his first HT trip shoes, ducks, & sticks went into the HT dumpster. Gone forever.

Again, as I said, I have no basis upon which to conclude that he either did or did not use that dumpster or any other.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I agree about BC having the access at one point. Was this witness able to explain a way BC could have used the equipment though for a call longer than 22 sec? That seemed to be a call duration that kept coming up. My connection kept buffering this afternoon.

The longer than 22 seconds is still not confirmed. That call had an 8 second seizure time. The witness knew nothing about seizure time. I think we may need to wait for yet another expert to tie it all together.

 

[SleuthinNC]

If the router doesn't fit you must acquit! :great:

 

[Just the Fax]

That is funny

 

[SleuthinNC]

Seriously the list of things he had to dispose of and clean up is becoming kind of ridiculous. And to have it all come together flawlessly with zero trace is really reaching.

 

[kellyroll]

Seriously the list of things he had to dispose of and clean up is becoming kind of ridiculous. And to have it all come together flawlessly with zero trace is really reaching.

But he was soooopersmart. They said so today.

Betcha he wasn't looking down at his scribbly pad then. :rocker:

 

[Just the Fax]

Seriously the list of things he had to dispose of and clean up is becoming kind of ridiculous. And to have it all come together flawlessly with zero trace is really reaching.

Are you serious?
If he killed her at 12:30AM - 1AM , ditched her body at 6:00AM . cleaned for hours then drove around for hours ---that timeline is way beyond possible.

 

[sunshine05]

The longer than 22 seconds is still not confirmed. That call had an 8 second seizure time. The witness knew nothing about seizure time. I think we may need to wait for yet another expert to tie it all together.

Girault said his testing showed the type of equipment Cooper ordered would have made a call with a 22-second duration before the router automatically hung up. Call logs show a 6:05 a.m. phone call to Brad's cell phone the morning she went missing lasted 23 seconds.

Under cross-examination Cooper's lawyers pointed out that a phone call at 6:40 - which is Brad's alibi - lasted longer.

From the N&O article, it doesn't seem possible since the call in question was,what 32 seconds?

 

[johnfear]

Seriously the list of things he had to dispose of and clean up is becoming kind of ridiculous. And to have it all come together flawlessly with zero trace is really reaching.

Note to selves: When driving around at 5:00 am in Lochmere area with 5'10 dead wife in BMW trunk, and perfecting the dumpster swoop (where you put one piece of evidence in every dumpster for ten miles) don't forget the Laundry detergent and green juice.

Also...where did all this extra vinegar come from?

Do you guys remember how SURE a few folks were in July about the 4:20 am BLEACH trip? Wouldn't that have come out by now?

Thumbing through the Homicide Manual over at CPD today, I found the following entry on page 1: In case of unbelievable murder by techno-Ironman wannabe, check to see if he's A) weird and B) an . If you can prove he's in the middle of a divorce, you have your suspect. Go back to Starbucks. Case Closed.

 

[cityslick]

I agree. I didn't say that we have evidence that he made the call. I said that we have evidence that he could have made the call. That pretty much negates his solid alibi. He now has no alibi. No witness that she was alive. No phone calls. No texts. No internet activity. All we have is his word and this call that he had the means to generate.

You make it sound like this is some grand revelation that we knew that he could make the call. We knew that before the trial began. So how exactly does that 'negate' the alibi? That's like saying I had access to purchase a gun but yet no gun was found so I have no alibi that i didn't shoot someone

 

[Cheyenne130]

Seriously the list of things he had to dispose of and clean up is becoming kind of ridiculous. And to have it all come together flawlessly with zero trace is really reaching.

The initial list of things to get rid of was minimal. The piece of electronic equipment could have easily been returned to Cisco after he realized that the friends were making it a missing person case. He was not being followed from the time he left his house on July 12th until the time he returned.

 

[sunshine05]

Based on my understanding of a circumstancial case (which in many ways in superior to eyewitnesses, etc.), the prosecution continues to build a strong case of circumstances that can lead to only one conclusion.

And, IMO, that conclusion involves the facts (as someone else has already listed) pointing to Brad. I'll wait for the rest of the case, but, I'm curious what facts point to a crazed, sexual predator or just a plain old rapist?

The state's responsibility is to prove the defendant did it. Do you think it is the defense's responsibility to prove that someone other than their client did it?

It won't be much longer and the prosecution will rest.

 

[SleuthinNC]

The initial list of things to get rid of was minimal. The piece of electronic equipment could have easily been returned to Cisco after he realized that the friends were making it a missing person case. He was not being followed from the time he left his house on July 12th until the time he returned.

And cisco would have had records of him accessing the building and video of him entering with the router.