Brad Cooper April 1st Weekend

[sunshine05]

In video number 7 towards the end (it's after the 50 minute time mark) he does say that when he arrived at the party Nancy complained that she had spilled wine on her dress.

Okay, I just went back and found that again. It was actually on the 8th tape near the beginning and it was Alice who asked, "is that when she told you she spilled something on her dress?" then Brad answered "yes, she spilled wine". So that is how I got the idea is was "something" instead of wine. Sorry about that.

Hmmm....so what was the oily substance? Spot remover maybe?

 

[water_dancing]

I really think the undigested onion is huge.

I completely disagree.

The ME stated that it was "something that appeared to be an onion". If he was sure it wasan onion, it would have been stated as such.

The ME stated that a TOD after 7AM was not out of the question. If this onion was huge than he would not have been able to come to that conclusion.

 

[Just the Fax]

Brad could have cleaned the garage up, but when they returned 10 or 12 of their toys could easily get thrown back over in the unpacking of the car from their vacation. I am not saying it is the case, but it is possible when you consider just 10 or 12 toys were over there. As for the ducks and candle sticks, I am not at all sure that is concrete proof of homicide in the foyer.

I don't think the 10-12 items he talked about were 'small" toys.
In addition to the swimming pool, he mentioned things they would use outside in the cul de sac...I assumed scooters, tricycles, plastic playhouse, ect.

BTW, nothing we have seen yet is "concrete proof" of a murder.
It's all the little things that are beginning to be pieced together.

 

[Just the Fax]

I completely disagree.

The ME stated that it was "something that appeared to be an onion". If he was sure it wasan onion, it would have been stated as such.

The ME stated that a TOD after 7AM was not out of the question. If this onion was huge than he would not have been able to come to that conclusion.

It was obviously something solid.
Anyway you look at it, it would be digested by 7AM

 

[Just the Fax]

Okay, I just went back and found that again. It was actually on the 8th tape near the beginning and it was Alice who asked, "is that when she told you she spilled something on her dress?" then Brad answered "yes, she spilled wine". So that is how I got the idea is was "something" instead of wine. Sorry about that.

Hmmm....so what was the oily substance? Spot remover maybe?

Thanks for your correction.
Oily substance could have been a small spot of salad dressing? The SBI never said where it was or how large a 'spot' it was. After drinking all night at a party, I would find it very likely she dripped something small on her dress before 12AM.

 

[sunshine05]

So here is a question, how do we know that he read the emails? I don't recall where that info came from.

Good question. I'm going to have to go back and find that article again.

 

[Amster]

Thanks for your correction.
Oily substance could have been a small spot of salad dressing? The SBI never said where it was or how large a 'spot' it was. After drinking all night at a party, I would find it very likely she dripped something small on her dress before 12AM.

How much did she have to drink? Was the ME able to test her BAC??

 

[Just the Fax]

How much did she have to drink? Was the ME able to test her BAC??

ME said alcohol level was skewed by byproduct of decomposition.

Witnesses said she drank multiple glasses of wine and numerous beers.

 

[Cheyenne130]

How much did she have to drink? Was the ME able to test her BAC??

According to the ME testimony as I remember it, he tested some fluid but not blood. There was not enough blood to do a BAC. There were two clots that the ME sent off to the lab along with the SAK in the event that other testing was needed.

 

[Just the Fax]

" Toxicological screens on fluid obtained at autopsy revealed an ethanol concentration of
60 mg/dL which could be the result of decomposition"

Autopsy report on BAC

 

[cody100]

I don't think the 10-12 items he talked about were 'small" toys.
In addition to the swimming pool, he mentioned things they would use outside in the cul de sac...I assumed scooters, tricycles, plastic playhouse, ect.

BTW, nothing we have seen yet is "concrete proof" of a murder.
It's all the little things that are beginning to be pieced together.

I honestly did not remember what the items were. I am glad to hear that nothing seen so far is concrete proof of a murder. Seems to be that some have already convicted him based on incomplete facts. I will wait for the remainder of the evidence. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

[Amster]

Thanks for the BAC info....

 

[water_dancing]

Nancy was angry about the kitchen and the playroom having bugs, according to testimony from Nancy's friends and according to Brad's testimony on his deposition. BRAD spent a lot of time cleaning the front foyer and the stairs and the hardwood floors upstairs.

I don't believe that there were bugs in the playroom. If there were, I'm sure she would have called the bug man earlier, either over the weekend and left a message or 1st thing Monday morning. She didn't.

I also think that if there were she would have definitely mentioned it to the bug man when she did speak to him on the phone. She didn't.

I can't believe that with it being the kids playroom that she won't have addressed with the exterminator.

My take on BC's cleaning of the hardwoods that morning follows a similar thread. He cleaned to floors to make sure all the ants were gone. If you look at the pictures, the hardwood is dark and the floors in the bathroom are light. It would be harder to see ants on the hardwood so the whole thing would need to be cleaned.

 

[Just the Fax]

I honestly did not remember what the items were. I am glad to hear that nothing seen so far is concrete proof of a murder. Seems to be that some have already convicted him based on incomplete facts. I will wait for the remainder of the evidence. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I personally have no doubt he did it.
However, I would vote NG at this point.
I too will wait for the remainder of the evidence.

 

[DogWood]

OK. I did go back and listen to part of DD's testimony. She mentions pita chips & hummus (now known as pumice, lol) and guacamole and chips.

 

[johnfear]

Good question. I'm going to have to go back and find that article again.

It's in an odd part of one of the S/W (maybe for the Compact Flash card? or a phone) and I believe it is outlined in the probable cause portion sort of off-handedly. It could even be the later warrant that has the various google account/Adventures of Brad information.

I will dig around. It does state either that he accessed or read her emails. I am guessing at the times...but I think two times were earlier in the day and one time was later in the day. (NO, third time was the 10:30 or 10:13 PM one)

I wonder if they checked to see if he "monitored" her emails between Saturday at noon and when her body was found? (sorry for the K and B questament.) That would be BIG. Monitor, monitor, monitor, STOP.

 

[Just the Fax]

OK. I did go back and listen to part of DD's testimony. She mentions pita chips & hummus (now known as pumice, lol) and guacamole and chips.

If she did regurgitate like Mr Cummings suggested, that would be quite a mess to clean up.:drink:

 

[water_dancing]

I wonder what was in her last e-mails that Brad read Friday night?
Could have lit the fuse?

I've been wondering this too. I want to see what the FBI testifies about this.

I was wondering when the RE agent was on the stand if he was going to say he emailed her that info on Friday but he didn't. He still could have.

The other I was wondering if it could be is a paternity issue.

 

[cityslick]

I personally have no doubt he did it.
However, I would vote NG at this point.
I too will wait for the remainder of the evidence.

From my point of view, if the state can prove it more likely than not that he faked the morning call and they have damming evidence from the computer (any computer activity in the early hours of the 12th) should be enough to convict. If the defense brings experts that make it seem unlikely that he faked the calls, and all you got from the computer is google searches from weeks prior of fielding drive, then I don't see how you convict him. At that point, disregarding any other evidence, to me they would not have proven that she did not leave the house at 7am.

 

[cody100]

I personally have no doubt he did it.
However, I would vote NG at this point.
I too will wait for the remainder of the evidence.

That is interesting that you have no doubt he did it, but you would vote NG so far. I have heard that from others too. Is there some reason you would vote NG right now?