State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[sunshine05]

Just because criminals are better prepared to kill without leaving evidence, should they all be found not guilty

I can hardly wait to hear the evidence that was prejudicial to Bradley that the Judge would not let in...I hope it is released to the public immediately after verdict

What does that mean? If anything, it his tougher to get away with murder today *because* of all the available forensic testing.

 

[jrb0124]

Any one of the following things would convince me he is guilty:

1. Full stomach contents in the body when found;
2. Tire marks or footprints near where the body was found that are definitively matched to BC or his car;
3. An actual router configured with an FXO port that had been programmed to make an outbound call at a specific time;
4. BC DNA found under the fingernails;
5. Any physical evidence that there was a dead body in the trunk of that car.
...etc etc

There is a whole world of possible evidence that would clearly incriminate him if he had done it. Police found none. Instead, they uncovered evidence that ruled him out as a suspect, and they attempted to discredit that evidence through rather wild theories.

I'd like to add to your list some less direct CE that would have at least put me back on the fence;

6. The actual runner RZ exchanged greetings with on 7/12 (given all the publicity and roadblocks, and resources available how hard would it be to find this woman??? her friends could have gone door to door in a weekend)
7. ANY documentation/emails/calls implicating BC was planning for NC not to be around (and BC not giving her the $300 by 7/11 doesn't count)
8. having ALL of NC's running shoes accounted for (one pair is missing)
9. nothing on NC blackberry indicating she was meeting someone, or anything out of the ordinary (BB was wiped)
10. testimony/evidence that BC had NEVER visited HT this early in the morning before

...for some

 

[ncsu95]

I find the dress thing quite interesting too. Brad thought maybe it was a black dress, which I wondered about throughout the trial. Then we see that Nancy was wearing a black dress that day, probably up until she went to the party. That's another point that the prosecution made so much about - that Brad got the dress wrong. It was suggested that he was deliberately hiding the right dress. Now it looks like an innocent mistake.

No doubt about that. And it won't be lost on the jury either since it was such a big point during the prosecutions case. Finding that video of her on the 11th was huge in so many different ways for the defense. The good thing for the defense is that the video speaks for itself and destroys 3 big points of the prosecution (the necklace, that she had no money on the 11th, and that she wasn't wearing a black dress on the 11th even though she wasn't wearing it to the party).

 

[jrb0124]

I can hardly wait to hear the evidence that was prejudicial to Bradley that the Judge would not let in...

and the exculpatory evidence disallowed as well.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The defense in closing will focus on possibilities and the prosecution will focus on evidence and probabilities.

I never thought that him not remembering the color of the dress was an issue. I don't know many men who pay much attention to what their wives are wearing unless it is special and stunning. The issue with the dress is that he claimed she had spilled wine on it and therefore he had to wash it. Number one, not one other person saw any big wet spot or anything else spilled on her dress. Number two, she would not have asked him to wash it. The color of the dress has nothing to do with it.

 

[cityslick]

I think he's guilty, but one thing that keeps nagging in my mind is IMO, I don't think the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that NC did not go jogging that morning. That's what this all comes down too and I just don't think they have proved that part of their case to the jury. I keep going over the various testimonies and there is nothing that I recall that locks down:

1 - specific time of death
2 - location of death

Add the fact that they never proved he for certain spoofed the call. I think that may be a real issue for the jury in determining guilt.

 

[ncsu95]

The defense in closing will focus on possibilities and the prosecution will focus on evidence and probabilities.

I never thought that him not remembering the color of the dress was an issue. I don't know many men who pay much attention to what their wives are wearing unless it is special and stunning. The issue with the dress is that he claimed she had spilled wine on it and therefore he had to wash it. Number one, not one other person saw any big wet spot or anything else spilled on her dress. Number two, she would not have asked him to wash it. The color of the dress has nothing to do with it.

I believe the defense will go point by point through the prosecutors case and completely destroy it all together. Nothing about possibilities. And the color of the dress might not have been huge to you, but it was a focus point in this trial starting with the first prosecution witness until the last one (non including rebuttal). And ironically, we refer to both as DD.

 

[ncsu95]

I think he's guilty, but one thing that keeps nagging in my mind is IMO, I don't think the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that NC did not go jogging that morning. That's what this all comes down too and I just don't think they have proved that part of their case to the jury. I keep going over the various testimonies and there is nothing that I recall that locks down:

1 - specific time of death
2 - location of death

Add the fact that they never proved he for certain spoofed the call. I think that may be a real issue for the jury in determining guilt.

If you were on the jury, how would you vote?

 

[Cheyenne130]

I believe the defense will go point by point through the prosecutors case and completely destroy it all together. Nothing about possibilities. And the color of the dress might not have been huge to you, but it was a focus point in this trial starting with the first prosecution witness until the last one (non including rebuttal). And ironically, we refer to both as DD.

The defense did not completely destroy the prosecution case during their CIC. I don't know how you think they are going to manage that in closing. The prosecution will go after they go and correct the misinformation. MOO

 

[jrb0124]

I believe the defense will go point by point through the prosecutors case and completely destroy it all together. Nothing about possibilities. And the color of the dress might not have been huge to you, but it was a focus point in this trial starting with the first prosecution witness until the last one (non including rebuttal). And ironically, we refer to both as DD.

I think they already have.

 

[NCEast]

The defense in closing will focus on possibilities and the prosecution will focus on evidence and probabilities.

I never thought that him not remembering the color of the dress was an issue. I don't know many men who pay much attention to what their wives are wearing unless it is special and stunning.

About 20 years ago I spent $200.00 having extensions done to my hair. It was a pretty new and exciting 'hair thing' at the time. My own hair was strawberry blonde and the extensions were just a bit lighter. Not a person in my family noticed that my hair was 6" longer than normal and much, much fuller. I had to end up pointing it out at the dinner table that night. I found out then that men, and kids, don't pay attention to many things.
So the dress issue in this case was not very important to me either. Since she was seen in the HT video with the black cover-up dress, I can understand why Brad thought it was the same one she was wearing at the party.

 

[cityslick]

If you were on the jury, how would you vote?

I'd have to look long and hard at a couple of things. I would zero in on the google search and really try to understand what I'm looking at and if I really believe something improper happened there. That really would determine my verdict.

I guess that doesn't really answer your question. I think he's guilty, but I don't know if I would vote that way.

 

[Madeleine74]

If Brad specifically washed the dress (and he said he did to get out a stain of wine), then why don't people think it's suspicious that he suddenly couldn't remember the dress and then, magically, did remember the dress the next day or so? Brad himself placed importance on this dress by bringing it up when asked what Nancy wore to the party. He could have said "I dunno, don't remember." But he didn't. He went to to tell a story about that dress.

 

[sunshine05]

I hope when this is over there will be an investigation into police handling of evidence. It would be pretty sad if nothing is done to correct these things. I'm glad I don't live in Cary, that's for sure.

 

[Madeleine74]

Missing items, router, Google search, many lies, cleanliness of trunk vs. rest of his car along with his excuse that he vacuumed a gas spill, what Nancy was found wearing (and not wearing), his stated 6 hrs of cleaning, dodging LE calls on Sat, his behaviors, are just a few of the items that would allow me, without any hesitation, to vote guilty. There is no way I could explain away ALL of it and keep a straight face doing so.

He's guilty. I have no doubt.

I don't know if he'll be convicted or not, but I'm convinced he did that murder.

 

[ncsu95]

I'd have to look long and hard at a couple of things. I would zero in on the google search and really try to understand what I'm looking at and if I really believe something improper happened there. That really would determine my verdict.

I guess that doesn't really answer your question. I think he's guilty, but I don't know if I would vote that way.

So what I think you are saying is that you are glad you aren't on this jury. Me too.

 

[jrb0124]

I'd have to look long and hard at a couple of things. I would zero in on the google search and really try to understand what I'm looking at and if I really believe something improper happened there. That really would determine my verdict.

I guess that doesn't really answer your question. I think he's guilty, but I don't know if I would vote that way.

I hope JW (as he promised) comes back and posts about what he found but was prohibited to testify to re: the Google maps.

If BC is innocent, which at this point I believe is plausible, there has to be an explanation for those, and not all would involve intentional tampering;

Perhaps the search was done on 7/14 and not 7/11 - invalid timestamps? after the body was found and he was told generally where, he tried to navigate to it to see out of curiousity.

How zoomed were the actual maps? how many other areas were looked at? What if there was activity which showed him looking over a broader area and this part of the move and zoom was singled out of context? Was the map centered on the dump site?

 

[ncsu95]

If Brad specifically washed the dress (and he said he did to get out a stain of wine), then why don't people think it's suspicious that he suddenly couldn't remember the dress and then, magically, did remember the dress the next day or so? Brad himself placed importance on this dress by bringing it up when asked what Nancy wore to the party. He could have said "I dunno, don't remember." But he didn't. He went to to tell a story about that dress.

He didn't bring the dress up. He was asked about the dress and tried to answer the question.

 

[ncsu95]

Missing items, router, Google search, many lies, cleanliness of trunk vs. rest of his car along with his excuse that he vacuumed a gas spill, what Nancy was found wearing (and not wearing), his stated 6 hrs of cleaning, dodging LE calls on Sat, his behaviors, are just a few of the items that would allow me, without any hesitation, to vote guilty. There is no way I could explain away ALL of it and keep a straight face doing so.

He's guilty. I have no doubt.

I don't know if he'll be convicted or not, but I'm convinced he did that murder.

But honestly, you were convinced of that before the trial began. Right?

 

[johnfear]

If Brad specifically washed the dress (and he said he did to get out a stain of wine), then why don't people think it's suspicious that he suddenly couldn't remember the dress and then, magically, did remember the dress the next day or so? Brad himself placed importance on this dress by bringing it up when asked what Nancy wore to the party. He could have said "I dunno, don't remember." But he didn't. He went to to tell a story about that dress.

Because he is a man, and as men, we don't like to have to admit that we saw two dresses on the wife over an eight hour period and when we were asked to wash said dress we grabbed every dress that looked like it had been on her that week and we dump it all into the laundry.

That's one possibility.

The other possibility is he didn't want to admit how little he actually cared about the whole deal.