State v Bradley Cooper 5-3-11

[momto3kids]

RKAB gave us insight about BC early on.
1st post is living with him, 2nd post is her thoughts on what occured thru a private PM she sent me and gave permission to post, which I did back in 2008. This helped me understand some of why he does/says the things he does.

Just me again...I see that a couple of people have asked why BC and I broke up. He was not cheating on me (that I knew of) but who knows?? To be honest, I truly could not deal with the emotional rollercoaster of being with him...the ups, the downs, the pouting, the sulking, the threats, the belittling...ask him what's wrong and get a snarky "nothing", have him pout for a week and then he suddenly erupts with a month's worth of things. The comments and the belittling ("you know you can never do better than me", "you know this is the best relationship you've ever been in", "you know you could never get someone who can afford the life you want like I can", "no one will ever love you like I do", "you'll never leave me, you know how good you have it with me", "you look like ***** in that", "that makes you look fat", "no one will ever look at you in that", etc.). It took a huge toll on me personally, my self esteem, my being.

I am not a materialistic person. He wanted everything that made him look like he could afford all, even if he couldn't. He always wanted the car that made everyone look, the clothes that everyone always complimented him on, the physique, the everything. He just needed to look like he always had it all. I don't care about material items, I want my friends and my family and laughs and that was so far from his mind. Me me me.....it became unbearable.

There were other issues as well but these were some of the issues and I just couldn't take it. For a time, I couldn't leave it either because I had come to believe that he was right. Here was an attractive man telling me these things. Maybe I couldn't do better, maybe this was it. Thank god for my friends and my family to have finally convinced me that I could get out of it, that I did deserve better and that the things that he had tried to push into my head and control me with were untrue. It has been a long hard road away from that time and even now, the unhealthy aspects of that relationship still haunt me.

 

[gracielee]

If they have to go to retrial, would the same ADAs prosecute again? I am not totally opposed to a retrial, although I'm hoping for a big, fat guilty sometime this week. However, a retrial would give Boz some much needed time to firm up his technology issues. And maybe Cummings will have retired by then. I think the female ADA was ok but when it's all said and done I think they could have presented their case without her altogether.

The Menendez Bros. were retried with a new prosecution team. I'd guess a new team here too. I like Boz, not too wild about the other two though.

 

[sunshine05]

Well if there is a hung jury/retrial, there are 2 things I want to see:

1. Have some expert witness during the prosecutions case in chief that can explain the invalid timestamps, missing cookie, and changed watermark. Just give some reasonable explanation and do it before the defense can even mention tampering.

2. Do a video demonstration of the ways that BC could have spoofed the call that didn't require him to manually initiate something remotely. Show that he could have set something up that injected delay and allowed for it. Also show how that same call doesn't leave any forensic evidence on anything.

Do those 2 things and you have a pretty freaking solid case. Oh, and ignore all the desperate housewife crap and don't ever mention the necklace and/or ducks again.

I agree, except I would still want to see proof that he did spoof the call, not just how he could have done it.

 

[CrimeAddict]

And you'd like a conviction based on speculation where a possible router is??

That is one thing I noticed about the prosecution's closing today--they still didn't give a believable story. Cummings stated "we don't know when she died." They still didn't pinpoint time of death, location, how it happened, why it happened. If they can't tell us what happened when they're ARGUING their case, how can there possibly be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Absolutely convinced?

It really doesn't matter the exact time she died.. she died.
They told us what happened- she was strangled.

 

[gbay]

Did you notice the difference between the two pictures he showed of the dusty empty space. What appears to be a blow dryer is in one of the pictures but not in the other. There is absolutely no telling what might have made that shelf dusty in some areas and not in others. The shelf above has some clean/dusty spots too. Not big enough to be a router tho.

I thought one picture showed the top of the desk. Looked like something large had been sitting there for awhile...lots of dust around.

 

[less0305]

And how is the defense supposed to track down a router at Cisco? Or a pair of shoes Young can't even positively identify?

I think Brad could have identified the shoes. They were his. He got rid of them that day - so I'm sure he knew which ones they were.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

It really doesn't matter the exact time she died.. she died.
They told us what happened- she was strangled.

But it should matter. They should be able to prove to you when it happened and where it happened, and why that ties to Brad Cooper. But they have not.

 

[momto3kids]

I asked RKAB:
Did he loose his apples over her talking back to him at the BBQ when he finally tried to socialize which he is not known to do?"

She answered:
I definately don't think he slept on it. IMO, he went home and grumbled and festered about it and was really really angry when she got home. It would probably start with him making snide comments that, if they were already in "hate" mode, she was probably defensive in her speech back to him (and I would be).
I don't think he meant to kill her initially but I think he got to a point where he had seriously injured her and that he thought if he DIDN'T kill her, he'd be in serious trouble when she was able to escape and tell someone. I don't think he would have laid in wait for her to come home, you know, with a shoelace in hand that he had decided earlier that he would strangle her with. I think he finally lost total control.

He would have been absolutely LIVID at being corrected in front of other people at the BBQ. They were probably already on edge if they had been fighting earlier in the day and anything at all that was coming out of her mouth, he was getting more and more agitated by it. He would be storing each and every word in the little backpack in his mind to bring out later to use against her. He wouldn't say anything at the time of the BBQ but later on, he would regurgitate all of it and start a fight. That was his way. Sulk and pout and then when a fight does start, typically with his little snarky comments, he rolls out everything that he's been holding in.

 

[gracielee]

BTW, for those who want a do-over, a new trial with new prosecutors, consider that the evidence is not going to change.

NC's phone is not going to magically regain all the lost data. That 3825 router? Not going to be found. Brad's shoes from 7/12/08 HT trip #1? Still discarded wherever he threw them. There isn't going to be any additional physical evidence on NC's body, there isn't going to be a different cause of death, nor a different time estimate of death. That Google search on Brad's computer? That's not going away either. Brad's lies? Will stay lies in perpetuity on that video depo. Rosemary Zednick will still be a woman who thought she saw Nancy wearing an iPod and thought Nancy was hit by a car and discarded off of Fielding Dr.

It is what it is. The evidence is what it is. It's not going to change.

I think a retrial could be streamlined, and IMO, there is more evidence to be had from Cisco. JMO

 

[sunshine05]

I never said anything about a conviction based on where the router is.

What I said is I disagree with your statement that there had to be a log left somewhere. There was a log on the TWC records. The only other place that there would be one would be in the call server records in the router which we don't have.

Wait. I thought if he did it through the router call server he would have to be close by, not at HT?

 

[Cheyenne130]

And how is the defense supposed to track down a router at Cisco? Or a pair of shoes Young can't even positively identify?

Cisco did the job of tracking down the router at Cisco. It's not there. Brad is the last person known to have had it. He had it in January. He has no record of returning it. Where are the emails saying, "Hey, I got my new router in and returned yours to the lab."? And the shoes? Are you suggesting that his mom would not have turned everything upside down looking for those shoes? The police asked for them way back in the beginning. Where are they?

 

[NCEast]

And how is the defense supposed to track down a router at Cisco? Or a pair of shoes Young can't even positively identify?

I have a feeling after this trial is over and done, that there will be tighter security at Cisco with respect to their inventory and where it is at all times.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Well if there is a hung jury/retrial, there are 2 things I want to see:

1. Have some expert witness during the prosecutions case in chief that can explain the invalid timestamps, missing cookie, and changed watermark. Just give some reasonable explanation and do it before the defense can even mention tampering.

Actually, that brings up another point about where the prosecution blew the case. The only "expert" that the jury saw on the computer stuff was JW. Instead of trying to discredit him with the low-blow Facebook stuff, they could have put someone's high school kid up on the stand to do a Google search and then show that the cached files are in fact .bmp files and not .cur files, which JW claimed they would be. That would have proved he wasn't much of an expert without looking like an fool for digging up his FB page.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Wait. I thought if he did it through the router call server he would have to be close by, not at HT?

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Cisco did the job of tracking down the router at Cisco. It's not there. Brad is the last person known to have had it. He had it in January. He has no record of returning it. Where are the emails saying, "Hey, I got my new router in and returned yours to the lab."? And the shoes? Are you suggesting that his mom would not have turned everything upside down looking for those shoes? The police asked for them way back in the beginning. Where are they?

They checked one guy's inventory last Monday. And it conflicted with a report out of Chicago, that said "hey, we got this router in September of 2008." Same serial number.

And I don't count after BC is arrested as "way back in the beginning." Because he was no longer capable of complying with their requests. And frankly, I doubt he would want to.

 

[Madeleine74]

If he walks free it won't surprise me in the least to hear, down the road, that another 'spouse' of his goes missing and is found dead. That smirk, that complete lack of empathy for a dead Nancy, who was strangled so cruelly, that painted a picture far more grim. The jury may have been looking right at him to see his reaction during those 3 min. And what they saw may have made a very clear impression on them. I know it made an impression on me.

Do I think he committed this murder? Oh yes. Do I think he's capable of doing it again if he gets away with this one? Yep.

 

[ncsu95]

I thought when Boz put all the equipment up on the stand line up and then showed the dusty empty space in his office was very effective. It not only was a visual of the missing piece of equipment but it also showcased the complex techy evidence, along with showing Brad is a smarty pants with this stuff.......making him very capable of spoofing.

That was good...but then turned around and was quite silly by showing pictures of boxes and pointing out an antenna behind one of them.

 

[CarolinaTitan]

I might be misreading your post but when I plug in 27518 and zoom once, Fielding Drive is still so tiny I can't tell a thing. If I zoom in enough to actually be able to see anything, Fielding Drive is no longer on my screen. Maybe it was different in 2008?

I think it depends on you monitor/screen size and resolution. I'll admit, I'm on a 23" widescreen and the current construction area is very apparent. We'll never know if BC used a monitor at work connected to his T43p (14" screen roughly) like many people do. My point is that it drew my attention pretty quickly without knowing the street name. I don't believe 41 secs means anything. Could it not be possible he didn't want to linger over a dump site at work very long? Did someone come by his desk and he quit his browser?

 

[SleuthinNC]

None of it matters to me anymore after hearing that Brad entered his bank accounts and other personal places before and after--within moments--of that Google search. That hit me hard, I had not heard that before, and any mysteries surrounded the Google search pretty much disappeared for me after hearing that today.

If they simply changed the system date in the registry everything from the original date say July 14th now becomes July 11th.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Actually, that brings up another point about where the prosecution blew the case. The only "expert" that the jury saw on the computer stuff was JW. Instead of trying to discredit him with the low-blow Facebook stuff, they could have put someone's high school kid up on the stand to do a Google search and then show that the cached files are in fact .bmp files and not .cur files, which JW claimed they would be. That would have proved he wasn't much of an expert without looking like an fool for digging up his FB page.

That's not true. That's the only "expert" that we saw. The prosecution had two that we did not get to see but the jury did. They also saw all of their exhibits which we did not get to see.