State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

[momof7]

I just wanted to pop in and thank everyone for their insight and updates to the trail as it is going on. I will admit, I do think Brad is guilty BUUUUT, I also think the prosecution hasn't given enough for the jurors to not have reasonable doubt about his guilt. I am hoping as the trail continues they are able to really tie everything together.

I did want to mention, as I read through and saw the posts regarding the separation agreement, there were some who felt it was 'greedy' etc. As a divorced person in NC, the first agreement is always the first step in negotiation. Had Brad gotten an attorney, his lawyer would have changed a lot. My ex and I had 3 different agreements that went back and forth. We were not in a situation to have a mediator. My ex had a girlfriend, who felt that she could discuss what I 'should' get after several children and years taking care of the homefront. His attorney returned an agreement that gave me LESS than what the State mandated for Child Support, no alminoy, no 50% of assets etc. By all accounts, his return was equally as unfair. In the end, we did meet in the middle so everyone was in agreeance. I also wanted to mention, he is required to pay for the children's transportation back and forth. Not for me, only the children. The kids, always flew as unaccompanied minors. The reason for this was soley because I was staying in the same area as the children and he moves a bit for his job. It was a negotiation tool, I did not seek alimony and in return he paid their expenses back and forth to his location. I guess, what I am trying to say that a lot of is being said about this agreement and honestly, I don't think any of it would have stayed the same. Basically her attorney was seeing how badly Brad wanted out of the relationship. Who could have known he was going to go this route, instead of seeking an attorney who had HIS interests at heart. Also, there has been discussion re: the Life Insurance. Initially, in my first agreement, my attorney did ask to keep me as beneficiary for the policy. She did tell me that wouldn't stand, but it was to put my ex and his attorney on notice that the policy was in 'play' as it were. In the end, they wanted the policy out and on the third an final agreement they agreed to keeping the policy, with it in trust being held by his sister (who is an attorney) btw should anything happen to him.

In the end, I can visualize the conversation between Nancy and her attorney because of my own experience. Most likely, Nancy was told that she should find the few things that were not negotiable and the other things, i.e., the Life Insurance Policy and who was to inherit, will be negotiable. Most likely, since she wanted to go to Canada with the children that was something not negotiable for her. So, her attorney most likely threw as much financials in there so when it came time for the negotiation process, Brad would concentrate on keeping as much of the money as he could and release the children and let them live in Canada with their mother. In this, I think Nancy knew exactly what Brad cared about most, his financials. From my experience and those of my divorced friends, I truly believe that the final agreement would have looked nothing like this one.

Kelly

 

[SleuthinNC]

I realize I am in the minority on this but I do not believe the separation was called off because Brad saw the high dollar amounts and went nuts.

I believe Brad was attempting to get Cisco to move on helping Nancy to get a Green Card so she could stay in the country with the kids and that Nancy was willing to at least see how that was going to pan out before she moved forward with the separation.

One of her friends testified that was reason things were put on hold.

I think the story about the money being an issue was simply to cover the fact that Brad was actually trying to be reasonable and that would tarnish the image she was building of Brad the controlling demon.

 

[momof7]

I realize I am in the minority on this but I do not believe the separation was called off because Brad saw the high dollar amounts and went nuts.

I believe Brad was attempting to get Cisco to move on helping Nancy to get a Green Card so she could stay in the country with the kids and that Nancy was willing to at least see how that was going to pan out before she moved forward with the separation.

One of her friends testified that was reason things were put on hold.

I think the story about the money being an issue was simply to cover the fact that Brad was actually trying to be reasonable and that would tarnish the image she was building of Brad the controlling demon.

Anything is possible, and that is a good one! If Brad was actually working on finally helping Nancy getting a green card, then yes I would guess that would be a good reason to put things on hold.

I will have to go back and read but didn't wasn't there speculation that Brad had been promising they would move forward with the green card for several years? I think if that is the case, Nancy pretty much knew it was more 'talk' with little 'walk' and was giving him one last opportunity.

Kelly

 

[cody100]

Anything is possible, and that is a good one! If Brad was actually working on finally helping Nancy getting a green card, then yes I would guess that would be a good reason to put things on hold.

I will have to go back and read but didn't wasn't there speculation that Brad had been promising they would move forward with the green card for several years? I think if that is the case, Nancy pretty much knew it was more 'talk' with little 'walk' and was giving him one last opportunity.

Kelly

Who knows what to believe because of the embellishments of her stories. I personally agree that he was trying to get her to stay in the USA. When you think about it, it makes good sense to him, and would alleviate the travel issue. This may come out on the defense side if it is true.

 

[Just the Fax]

Why did Cummings bait Butts on electrical wire? Any takers?

I assume he was making the point that there were some construction remnants around the site, including some wire. He got Butts to admit such a wire was not likely used as a ligature.....making it less likely she was strangled at the scene.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Anything is possible, and that is a good one! If Brad was actually working on finally helping Nancy getting a green card, then yes I would guess that would be a good reason to put things on hold.

I will have to go back and read but didn't wasn't there speculation that Brad had been promising they would move forward with the green card for several years? I think if that is the case, Nancy pretty much knew it was more 'talk' with little 'walk' and was giving him one last opportunity.

Kelly

I think at this point Brad had more leverage with the company to get things worked on more quickly with the impending divorce and potential to have his kids move out of the country.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Thinking about the discussions with folks here last night, it occurred to me just how crafty the prosecution's questioning was yesterday. Even though it was intentionally misleading, the way he kept describing the FXO card was probably very effective.

He kept mentioning that it was the size of a cell phone and could be put in your pocket, etc. He also kept suggesting that all that was missing was the FXO card.

It wasn't until the cross that the expert was asked and honestly answered that using the FXO required another router that is not proven that Brad had. Surprisingly, the defense attorney did not ask the witness to describe how big that router is.

The point being, while it is true that the FXO card is small and could be put in a pocket, it is mostly irrelevant. To be used, it had to go in a piece of equipment that is too large to put in a pocket, a bag, a backpack, etc.

Assuming Brad at one point had the FXO card at home and was using it, he probably brought it home already installed in the 28xx or 38xx router. There is no real reason to keep the two separate.

But assuming the jury members have a similar level of technical experience as many of the folks here and many here were left with the impression that all that was missing was something cell phone sized, I would bet that the jury was also left with that impression.

 

[momof7]

Who knows what to believe because of the embellishments of her stories. I personally agree that he was trying to get her to stay in the USA. When you think about it, it makes good sense to him, and would alleviate the travel issue. This may come out on the defense side if it is true.

It would have been better for the children if Nancy had a green card and was able to stay in the area so that Brad and Nancy could co parent as it were. However, I am sure that Nancy's divorce attorney could have made a case for why it was better they moved back to Canada, i.e., family, support, ability to get a job etc. Ultimately in the end, there is no way to know what or how the judge would have viewed this type of thing. I have a friend who divorced, her dd's were in high school, the father military. He retired, mostly because of the custody issues. He stayed in the area, rented a home near his dd's in the same school district and they spent one week at his house, one at hers. On the outside looking in the first thought is 'poor kids'..however it really worked well for everyone involved. There are so many hypotheticals in the situation I can't blindly look at what was presented by her attorney and say wow, she was greedy.

I only think that neither parent, in the stage they were in were thinking of the children. To live the way they were, the amount of stress involved, it is amazing to me it lasted as long as it did. Her calling the relator and saying she needed a home to go to says she was willing to give up on the material portion, the home, just to get away from the constant stress going on there.

I am not sure that I believe that Nancy was embellishing anything. We all have different versions of something, and her versions were 'true' for her. I know that my ex, who was a good parent btw, changed dramatically after he became involved with someone who really had no 'ties'. One of his responses during a conversation was he was happy to finally not have to look for a babysitter when he wanted to go somewhere. We will never know what kinds of conversations were had that caused Nancy or Brad to think the way they did or act the way they did. No one would have believe my ex would have ever said that, or that he even thought of his children as barriers to the 'life' he wanted.

Kelly

 

[Just the Fax]

At the end of the day, I think the Cisco testimony was very effective for the prosecution. I'm sure they came away fully understanding Brad had the knowledge, means and opportunity to rig that 6:40AM call. The "test 123" VM bounced from another country, placed in the early hours of 7-12 was very compelling to say the least. If I were on the jury, not only would that 6:40 AM alibi be busted in my mind, the circumstances surrounding the call make it even more likely he did it.

Bring on the computer evidence and the FBI and lets wrap this up.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Thinking about the discussions with folks here last night, it occurred to me just how crafty the prosecution's questioning was yesterday. Even though it was intentionally misleading, the way he kept describing the FXO card was probably very effective.

He kept mentioning that it was the size of a cell phone and could be put in your pocket, etc. He also kept suggesting that all that was missing was the FXO card.

It wasn't until the cross that the expert was asked and honestly answered that using the FXO required another router that is not proven that Brad had. Surprisingly, the defense attorney did not ask the witness to describe how big that router is.

The point being, while it is true that the FXO card is small and could be put in a pocket, it is mostly irrelevant. To be used, it had to go in a piece of equipment that is too large to put in a pocket, a bag, a backpack, etc.

Assuming Brad at one point had the FXO card at home and was using it, he probably brought it home already installed in the 28xx or 38xx router. There is no real reason to keep the two separate.

But assuming the jury members have a similar level of technical experience as many of the folks here and many here were left with the impression that all that was missing was something cell phone sized, I would bet that the jury was also left with that impression.

Do you know what the model of router was that he did have? I'm looking at this:

http://www.cablesandkits.com/cisco-2port-fxo-voice-interface-card-vic2fxo-p-1221.html

It is compatible with much smaller routers.

 

[momof7]

At the end of the day, I think the Cisco testimony was very effective for the prosecution. I'm sure they came away fully understanding Brad had the knowledge, means and opportunity to rig that 6:40AM call. The "test 123" VM bounced from another country, placed in the early hours of 7-12 was very compelling to say the least. If I were on the jury, not only would that 6:40 AM alibi be busted in my mind, the circumstances surrounding the call make it even more likely he did it.

Bring on the computer evidence and the FBI and lets wrap this up.

I agree, not being computer savy at all, I did find that most of the information did leave me thinking there is no way for his 6:40 alibi would hold up. Especially if there is more evidence linking those calls to him, their house etc.

The only thing that trips me up is the length of the calls. If they automatically disconnet at 23 seconds or so, how did the length of the call at later times become so much longer. Are the times from Brad's call logs, meaning the call was sent via his home phone, he let it go to voice mail and that caused the call to be longer? There have been times when I have called someone and gotten the answering/vm. I hang up not wanting to leave a message. The phone calls me back linking me directly to the unfinished voice mail. Is this a possibility if the records are from Brad's phone versus the house phone? When I asked my cell phone carrier I was told it had to do with the call waiting feature on my phone.

Kelly

 

[SleuthinNC]

The router found in his house was an 871W it does not even have a slot to insert an FXO card

 

[cityslick]

At the end of the day, I think the Cisco testimony was very effective for the prosecution. I'm sure they came away fully understanding Brad had the knowledge, means and opportunity to rig that 6:40AM call. The "test 123" VM bounced from another country, placed in the early hours of 7-12 was very compelling to say the least. If I were on the jury, not only would that 6:40 AM alibi be busted in my mind, the circumstances surrounding the call make it even more likely he did it.

Bring on the computer evidence and the FBI and lets wrap this up.

I get that he had the means to do all this. I also get he had access to this equipment. What I didn't know (until yesterday) was none of the equipment capable of doing it was found in the house. I'm still confused as to how the alibi is busted. That not even going into explaining how the 32 second phone call was possible if the max time on a remote call is 22 seconds. You're assuming he did it because he just happens to be a VOIP expert who works with this type of equipment. You're assuming he did it because he ordered an FXO card back in January, not April or June which would make more sense if he had nefarious intentions for that device. You're assuming that this router and FXO card is buried in some landfill in New Mexico somewhere because he dumped it (along with ducks/sticks/his shoes/her missing shoes) when he went out looking for her July 12th (this would be the only time he would be able to do this since I believe they photographed the rooms on the 12th, no?)

I agree with you about the vm's. That's shady to me and I said as such when we found out yesterday during testimony. I was hoping for something a little more concrete than what we got yesterday.

One note about the first witness the state called yesterday (Dan'Toni), I think that's the first one that the Pros. wishes they hadn't called. It's been pretty well established I think by now that BC wasn't the model husband (having a long term affair proves that) so I wasn't sure what the added benefit was of try to get the witness to admit that he had a fling with the French girl. And it turns out he wouldn't admit to it anyway.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The router found in his house was an 871W it does not even have a slot to insert an FXO card

Thanks. I missed the details on the model.

 

[Just the Fax]

The router found in his house was an 871W it does not even have a slot to insert an FXO card

Yes, that was clearly established.
However, he had multiple hours to dispose of the Cisco 21XX/31XX router and FXO card when he was out "looking for Nancy", before the CPD arrived.

Common sense tells the jury this was a very likely scenario.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I just thought of something. Maybe the jury does understand the size of the router. At one point didn't Zellinger ask the witness if the blue box on the defendant's table was a router?

 

[cityslick]

Yes, that was clearly established.
However, he had multiple hours to dispose of the Cisco 21XX/31XX router and FXO card when he was out "looking for Nancy", before the CPD arrived.

Common sense tells the jury this was a very likely scenario.

What time did he say he went out searching (I know he returned by 3PM)?

 

[SleuthinNC]

Yes, that was clearly established.
However, he had multiple hours to dispose of the Cisco 21XX/31XX router and FXO card when he was out "looking for Nancy", before the CPD arrived.

Common sense tells the jury this was a very likely scenario.

I was just answering the question for the previous poster but thank you for more of your snarkasm

 

[RaleighNC]

The big however here is that I believe the Cisco VoIP expert testified that for the prior installation of Cisco VoIP technology, the FXO port would have been required.

That establishes the existence of the correct networking hardware in the Cooper home at least through April.

If it was no longer in his office at work and not recovered from the home - where is it?

 

[Just the Fax]

I just thought of something. Maybe the jury does understand the size of the router. At one point didn't Zellinger ask the witness if the blue box on the defendant's table was a router?

Though sneaky, that was a very effective point he made.