State v. Bradley Cooper 5-2-2011

[NCEast]

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.

I agree, but as I've said and thought so many times before, I think he thought he had another day to get his mess straight before LE became involved in her disappearance. I think he was lying, covering up, confused, and flying on the cuff the day of the 12th to pretty much everybody he came in contact with.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

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.

Perhaps I missed this during testimony or the prosecution completely missed this, someone please educate me......

1) Was NC wearing a swimsuit under the black dress at HT? If so, doesn't that mean she went swimming? Wearing a $3000 diamond necklace in a pool would have to be considered pretty dumb, no?
2) Didn't BC work on that Friday? Would she not have been changed already for the party by the time he got home? Would she really still be in her bathing suit and black sun dress?

Way too much attention given to these side issues, not enough on the key facts in dispute by the prosecution.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

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 agree. That google map search demanded more in-depth scutiny and I'm frustrated we didn't get it. The "tampering" issue, to me, took over the discussion yet no one offered a concrete conclusion related to the authenticity of the google map search files. The rest is merely diversion. You either believe in a conspiracy to frame him or that the police can be sloppy and those updates were normal Cisco security updates, etc that happen everyday while connected to your corporate workplaces intranet.

 

[jrb0124]

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.

Agree. I would also hope there is an investigation into how the investigation itself was initially focused, directed and conducted. I would hate to think that non-LEOs were unduly influential.

 

[NCEast]

Perhaps I missed this during testimony or the prosecution completely missed this, someone please educate me......

1) Was NC wearing a swimsuit under the black dress at HT? If so, doesn't that mean she went swimming? Wearing a $3000 diamond necklace in a pool would have to be considered pretty dumb, no?
2) Didn't BC work on that Friday? Would she not have been changed already for the party by the time he got home? Would she really still be in her bathing suit and black sun dress?

Way too much attention given to these side issues, not enough on the key facts in dispute by the prosecution.

I wouldn't wear a $3,000 necklace in a pool, or a shower, or to bed. But she may have, although I didn't see the necklace in the HT video as hard as I tried.
I think they arrived at the party at different times and he left much earlier than she did to take the children home. They had very little interaction at the party so I can see how he would not remember what she had on. They probably saw one another that morning before he left for work and she probably had on the black dress then.

 

[gbay]

If I were the prosecution I would concentrate on a few things:

1) Brad's inconsistances as found in his deposition
2) Brad and Nancy's marital state, the separation agreement
3) Brad's controlled and controlling nature
4) Nancy's lack of trust in Brad (Hiding articles in the car, sleeping with her clothes on)
5) Nancy's calling the Real estate person about the urgency of getting out asap
6) Brad's odd behaviour on July 12, trips to store, cleaning, not actively looking for Nancy until much later
7) Brad's shoes disappearing
8) Nancy's shoes she always wore still at home
9) The sports bra Brad somehow knew she had on, and the way it was rolled when the body was found.
10) The earrings still on her body
11) The search of the Fielding Dr. area on July 11 (with the matching mica on his shoes)
12) The router that is missing from Cisco used to spoof the call, indicating Brad had in fact used it to spoof the call at 6:40
13) The fact Brad never got Nancy money July 11 or 12
14) The fact the body did not appear to have been in any type of a struggle
15) The fact that no credible witness saw her in the daylight hours July 12
16) July 11 they were in hate mode
17) Cell phone data
18) Computer data, Brad reading NC emails without her knowledge
19) Brad saying he went to sleep around 9:30 but computer activity shows he accessed the computer at least 4x between 10:00 and 12:00
20) Garage door open at 6:45 (unusual)
21) All of a sudden Brad's car can fit in the garage on July 12 when it had not been able to for a few years
22) Brad's trunk clean and the rest of the car a disaster
23) Brad lied about why he was late for work on Friday morning, he said he helped NC with children when in fact he was in Lowes....

I am sure there are more but off the top of my head these are the points I would highlight if I was on the prosecution team. As they are going last these items should stick in the jury's head for a time.

 

[ncsu95]

Videos from today are now posted on wral

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9517204/

I went back to watch Kurtz's reaction when Coomings said no more rebuttal witnesses. It was genuine shock. But I couldn't help but watch KL and HP giggling with each other again during this time. I've never really paid attention to it even though it has been mentioned in here. It just seems like such an odd time to be telling jokes to each other.

 

[NCEast]

Agree. I would also hope there is an investigation into how the investigation itself was initially focused, directed and conducted. I would hate to think that non-LEOs were unduly influential.

I'm firmly convinced that the CPD let the friends and neighbors drive the early weeks/months of the investigation. They placed too much importance on what they thought and said. And it came back to bite them.

 

[NCEast]

If I were the prosecution I would concentrate on a few things:

1) Brad's inconsistances as found in his deposition
2) Brad and Nancy's marital state, the separation agreement
3) Brad's controlled and controlling nature
4) Nancy's lack of trust in Brad (Hiding articles in the car, sleeping with her clothes on)
5) Nancy's calling the Real estate person about the urgency of getting out asap
6) Brad's odd behaviour on July 12, trips to store, cleaning, not actively looking for Nancy until much later
7) Brad's shoes disappearing
8) Nancy's shoes she always wore still at home
9) The sports bra Brad somehow knew she had on
10) The earrings still on her body
11) The search of the Fielding Dr. area on July 11 (with the matching mica on his shoes)
12) The router that is missing from Cisco used to spoof the call, indicating Brad had in fact used it to spoof the call at 6:40
13) The fact Brad never got Nancy money July 11 or 12
14) The fact the body did not appear to have been in any type of a struggle
15) The fact that no credible witness saw her in the daylight hours July 12
16) July 11 they were in hate mode
17) Cell phone data
18) Computer data, Brad reading NC emails without her knowledge
19) Brad saying he went to sleep around 9:30 but computer activity shows he accessed the computer at least 4x between 10:00 and 12:00
20) Garage door open at 6:45 (unusual)
21) All of a sudden Brad's car can fit in the garage on July 12 when it had not been able to for a few years
22) Brad's trunk clean and the rest of the car a disaster
23) Brad lied about why he was late for work on Friday morning, he said he helped NC with children when in fact he was in Lowes....

I am sure there are more but off the top of my head these are the points I would highlight if I was on the prosecution team. As they are going last these items should stick in the jury's head for a time.

Very good synopsis of points that the prosecution could bring out. But they must do it in a concise and effective way in order for the jury to absorb it all.
Can the jury take notes during the closing arguments? Anybody know?

 

[lib's mom]

Videos from today are now posted on wral

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9517204/

I went back to watch Kurtz's reaction when Coomings said no more rebuttal witnesses. It was genuine shock. But I couldn't help but watch KL and HP giggling with each other again during this time. I've never really paid attention to it even though it has been mentioned in here. It just seems like such an odd time to be telling jokes to each other.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I am really fed up with their behavior. It's rude and tacky. The more I think about it, the madder I get. I'm sure it did not go unnoticed by the jury. If I had been on that jury, listening to testimony (often very dull and dry) day after day and had to look out to see *anybody* whispering and tittering non-stop I would be irate.

 

[gbay]

Perhaps I missed this during testimony or the prosecution completely missed this, someone please educate me......

1) Was NC wearing a swimsuit under the black dress at HT? If so, doesn't that mean she went swimming? Wearing a $3000 diamond necklace in a pool would have to be considered pretty dumb, no?
2) Didn't BC work on that Friday? Would she not have been changed already for the party by the time he got home? Would she really still be in her bathing suit and black sun dress?

Way too much attention given to these side issues, not enough on the key facts in dispute by the prosecution.

I believe there was testimony that she did wear it all the time...even swimming when on vacation. As well HP testified she had it on at the pool that afternoon.. I think if I were on the Prosecution team that I might mention it but not give it too much weight....

 

[metafizik]

I agree. That google map search demanded more in-depth scutiny and I'm frustrated we didn't get it. The "tampering" issue, to me, took over the discussion yet no one offered a concrete conclusion related to the authenticity of the google map search files. The rest is merely diversion. You either believe in a conspiracy to frame him or that the police can be sloppy and those updates were normal Cisco security updates, etc that happen everyday while connected to your corporate workplaces intranet.

I realize that the jury didn't hear the defense computer forensics expert but we did. His testimony about identical timestamps on all of the files related to the alledged google search is rather clear and damning because if the search was legitimate there is no way that could happen. I believe Jay Ward also mentioned the identical time stamps although I am not sure if the jury heard that. Jay also described how easy it was to boot up using any of a number of Live Linux CD's to manipulate the files on the laptop's hard drive. There would be no Windows logs of this activity. There is no doubt in my mind that someone tampered with that laptop and I don't think it was BC either. The whole investigation and case as presented by the prosecution has a very fishy smell about it and that is putting it nicely.

 

[sunshine05]

The police investigation couldn't have been any worse. I can't even think of one thing they did right.

The wiped blackberry that appears to have been done intentionally. And things surrounding it like Young claiming he wiped it in August when that was shown to be false. Not getting a search warrant until after it was already wiped. I believe someone higher up told him to do this and I hope it comes out some day.

The activity on the computer when they should have been following protocol. If it had been properly secured, the evidence retrieval would have been clean.

From things I have read, in other cases where forensic computer evidence is important, typically the court appoints a neutral party to examine it, one that both sides agree to and the whole thing is filmed. (that would have been the right way to handle this evidence).

Investigators drinking soda and not wearing booties while searching for evidence in the home.

Waiting too long to get a good bug analysis.

Believing every word the friends told them from the beginning.

Even if BC is guilty (you know I think he is innocent), all of these things added up ruined the credibility of the state's case. The prosecutors are probably as frustrated at this as we are.

 

[RaleighNative]

Any predictions on the verdict?

I would not be surprised if they come back with a Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder.

The jury is fed up and impatient at this point. If that jury is split, they are not going to want to deliberate for weeks on end. And the judge gave them a compromise option.

I'm really hoping for a NG verdict, but a compromise verdict would not surprise me.

 

[unc70]

The ability to spoof calls was testified to by Cisco witness way back..listed 10 ways it can be done...But what they did not hear was that brad used that device 10PM night of July11th,2008...But it has been shown Brad had access to that very equipment and was the last know possesser of that router which used that FXO card...

I think I got that right :waitasec:

Your conclusion would have reasonable in the simpler networks 20-30 years ago, but nearly all the assumptions/facts about proving identity of hardware, systems, or anything else are no longer valid in today's virtual environment, and "All realities are virtual".

Much of my interest in this case is that our legal institutions are woefully prepared for a world where more and more of our lives happen in electronic "virtual" worlds rather than in the physical "real" world.

At first, MAC addresses were statically implemented in the hardware device itself and not easily changed. Now they mean almost nothing as far of proving the identity of a device. Remember JW showing how to break into the wireless network. One of the steps was to change the MAC on his laptop to one already in use on that net, and thus impersonate this other system.

The simplistic LAN/WAN world where your local network at various levels reflected the hardware devices physically connected to the LAN or maybe the wireless router is not the networking environment today for many, including BC. We now have Virtual LANS, dynamic MAC assignment, and increasing complex networks and systems, themselves implemented in virtual hardware (e.g. VMware) making it nearly impossible to track an instantiation to specific hardware at a particular time in the past.

When BC took his laptop from his office and the Cisco LAN to his home and its network, he then used the VPN to rejoin the VLAN at Cisco. This opens up lots of possible explanations for almost anything you first see.

We need some of our Cisco experts here to help wade through the possibilites, and we might not know enough to sort things out.

(By the time this posts to the thread, maybe the Cisco gurus will have sorted this out one way or the other. Or included even more complexity.)

 

[CarolinaTitan]

I realize that the jury didn't hear the defense computer forensics expert but we did. His testimony about identical timestamps on all of the files related to the alledged google search is rather clear and damning because if the search was legitimate there is no way that could happen. I believe Jay Ward also mentioned the identical time stamps although I am not sure if the jury heard that. Jay also described how easy it was to boot up using any of a number of Live Linux CD's to manipulate the files on the laptop's hard drive. There would be no Windows logs of this activity. There is no doubt in my mind that someone tampered with that laptop and I don't think it was BC either. The whole investigation and case as presented by the prosecution has a very fishy smell about it and that is putting it nicely.

So you believe that there was a conspiracy in the DA's office to frame BC with the google map search. Wow. Note I left out the CPD because they couldn't unlock a cellphone without screwing it up...clearly no expertise. So are you saying the FBI guy from Durham did it? Quite a charge.

 

[ncsu95]

If I were the prosecution I would cocentrate on a few things:

1) Brad's inconsistances as found in his deposition
I would probably focus on this too.
2) Brad and Nancy's marital state, the separation agreement
But how do you explain no contact with the attorney for a couple of months? How do you explain plans with the Hillers on the 12th?
3) Brad's controlled and controlling nature
Defense will probably point out all of the testimony showing Brad wasn't controlling including all the nights out, weekend without the kids, vacations with her family without him, vacation with another dad and no spouses.
4) Nancy's lack of trust in Brad (Hiding articles in the car, sleeping with her clothes on)
5) Nancy's calling the Real estate person about the urgency of getting out asap
6) Brad's odd behaviour on July 12, trips to store, cleaning, not actively looking for Nancy until much later
His behavior really wasn't that odd.
7) Brad's shoes disappearing
Defense will probably point out that those shoes could be seen in the HT video. No mud on the white part at the bottom. No mud being tracked in. CPD didn't have a SW for them until October. Didn't look for the ducks either
8) Nancy's shoes she always wore still at home
There is that "always" word again. She didn't wear them in the previous race she was in...those shoes are missing
9) The sports bra Brad somehow knew she had on
conflicting testimony from the detectives about this questioning. And the missing black/red shorts were never found either
10) The earrings still on her body
Proving what?
11) The search of the Fielding Dr. area on July 11 (with the matching mica on his shoes)
Defense will point out computer tampering and lack of procedure by CPD with that computer. They will point out that soil expert indicated the soil on the running shoes did not chemically match the soil at the body location site. Also, no other sites tested except the Cupper yard and Lake Lochmere
12) The router that is missing from Cisco used to spoof the call, indicating Brad had in fact used it to spoof the call at 6:40
Defense will point out that Brad said in the chat that he would exchange the 3825 with the one he had already ordered. Detective Daniels testified they had no evidence the call was spoofed.
13) The fact Brad never got Nancy money July 11 or 12
14) The fact the body did not appear to have been in any type of a struggle
Yet the prosecutions theory is there was a struggle in the foyer. Not sure why no sign of struggle makes BC look more guilty than anyone else. It's not like she would have stood there and let him do it.
15) The fact that no credible witness saw her in the daylight hours July 12
Jury will have to determine credibility. Defense showed how the timeline fit for most of the witnesses to have seen the same person
16) July 11 they were in hate mode
yet had plans to play games with the Hillers on the 12th.
17) Cell phone data
What data? The tower data? The same tower data that showed her calls on the 11th pinging off all 3 towers within minutes of each other?
18) Computer data, Brad reading NC emails without her knowledge
No evidence of murder. No evidence presented that he read anything damaging on the 11th like people thought either.
19) Brad saying he went to sleep around 9:30 but computer activity shows he accessed the computer at least 4x between 10:00 and 12:00
Some of those were on the blackjack. Very possible to be in bed doing that. Even if he was on the computer, it doesn't indicate he killed her.
20) Garage door open at 6:45 (unusual)
Actually, it matches what he told police and also what he said in the deposition. He said for the 2nd trip, he went out the garage door (hence the change of shoes) to take out the trash. So garage door was up because he went to HT.
21) All of a sudden Brad's car can fit in the garage on July 12 when it had not been able to for a few years
There was testimony that he cleaned the garage while she was gone. JA even pointed out that you still couldn't park a car in ther, but acknowledged he said he cleaned the garage. And the car could not have been parked in the garage as it was photographed on the 12th. As the detective pointed out, a couple of things would have to be moved first. I simply don't believe he moved everything, pulled the car in to load the body, then later moved a couple of items back in the way. If this was done to make it look cluttered, it would have taken less than a minute to make it look really cluttered.
22) Brad's trunk clean and the rest of the car a disaster
SBI testified it was not as clean as CPD made it out to be. They called it "soiled" I believe
23) Brad lied about why he was late for work on Friday morning, he said he helped NC with children when in fact he was in Lowes....
Being at Lowe's doesn't mean he didn't help NC with the children. He wasn't at Lowes until 9:30. It's very likely he helped NC with the kids that morning since he wasn't actually at Lowes until 9:30.

I am sure there are more but off the top of my head these are the points I would highlight if I was on the prosecution team. As they are going last these items should stick in the jury's head for a time.

See my comments in red above.

 

[sunshine05]

Any predictions on the verdict?

I would not be surprised if they come back with a Guilty of 2nd Degree Murder.

The jury is fed up and impatient at this point. If that jury is split, they are not going to want to deliberate for weeks on end. And the judge gave them a compromise option.

I'm really hoping for a NG verdict, but a compromise verdict would not surprise me.

I think it has to be NG if the jury follows the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. But I've been surprised before by verdicts.

 

[otto]

Videos from today are now posted on wral

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9517204/

I went back to watch Kurtz's reaction when Coomings said no more rebuttal witnesses. It was genuine shock. But I couldn't help but watch KL and HP giggling with each other again during this time. I've never really paid attention to it even though it has been mentioned in here. It just seems like such an odd time to be telling jokes to each other.

The giggling and chatting really stands out as odd.

 

[sunshine05]

So you believe that there was a conspiracy in the DA's office to frame BC with the google map search. Wow. Note I left out the CPD because they couldn't unlock a cellphone without screwing it up...clearly no expertise. So are you saying the FBI guy from Durham did it? Quite a charge.

Why do you jump to this conclusion from that post? Nothing was mentioned about who was responsible for the computer tampering, but if you saw GM's proof testimony, it is pretty evident *something* happened with that computer, beyond normal updates.

The reason I am suspicious of police is because we know they destroyed police evidence with the blackberry? Why would we think the computer should be any different? (Still not saying it was them, but someone messed with it).