State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[NCEast]

Well, I had to be out almost all day, and it appears I didn't miss much? Anything big or interesting happen at all? I read through most of the posts, but nothing really caught my attention.

We had to listen through Kurtz cross Det. Daniles without the jury present for the morning part. This was something agreed on previously. Then the jurors went to lunch from 11:30 until 1:30 to allow for more non-jury testimony and to allow for the evidence array to be set up on table for the jurors to actually see, feel, read and touch. After lunch, there was little to no streaming and Det. Dismukes was back on the stand. So the afternoon was virtually blank in every respect.

 

[NCEast]

I agree and this bothers me too. Given JA's call to the police they must have been looking at him, and we know they were, but they refuse to admit it. I think that hurts their credibility. This is not enough to put me on the fence, I think if you actually review the testimony, as opposed to the news stories or the tweets, there is a great amount of damning evidence.

But denying the obvious looks bad. Why not just put the facts out there and let the jury decide? This is not a game.

I agree that they were looking at Brad from the first few hours. Based on what JA told them and various other issues. But why they don't just admit it, get it out there and own up to it is stupid. There are few people in the world who don't know that the spouse is always a prime suspect until he/she can be ruled out. That should have been the LE officer's testimony....all of them.

 

[calgary123]

That is a huge problem for me and leads me to believe they are capable of lying and tampering with evidence.

Agree with most of your post, but you lose me at this. I doubt very much they would be stupid enough to hinge their careers on lying to convict Cooper. I also don't think they're devious in a direct or intentional manner. Saying they are capable of tampering with evidence is, quite frankly, offensive given what we have heard.

The "he was not a suspect" statements are more a term of art than black and white facts. They should have said immediately they had concerns he was involved with "something", but denied he was a "suspect". This is not true of course, they suspected him of something, but not of anything in particular. At this point he wasn't a "suspect" in the proper sense of the word. I would rather that LE just came out and say "we thought he was potentially involved with something", and stay away from the word suspect.

When they won't call him a suspect is troubling is because it is not fully accurate. I prefer a prosecution where LE is completely open, even to the point where it allows the defense to play games with words. Take the high road, let the defense grovel with definitions. They did not take the high road on the "suspect" testimony and that bothers me, but to say that leads to them being reasonably capable of fabricating evidence is a HUGE no.

 

[calgary123]

I agree that they were looking at Brad from the first few hours. Based on what JA told them and various other issues. But why they don't just admit it, get it out there and own up to it is stupid. There are few people in the world who don't know that the spouse is always a prime suspect until he/she can be ruled out. That should have been the LE officer's testimony....all of them.

You put it into words better than me. That's exactly what I think, hence the quote.

 

[Star12]

Star12!

You were in the courtroom the day of the google map presentation. Some here think nothing visually was shown. Others think there were multiple searches done and the prosecution didn't count those in this "41 second" map viewing/panning/zooming. And some others think these searches happened after the body was found.

Could you give a detailed explanation of exactly what you saw that day?

Maddy -

I have done it two or three times so far but everyone goes back to arguing about stuff that is inconsequential.

Here's my latest post about it to Cody - see above for the original posting.

Cody - it was date stamped. Time was between 1:14 and 1:15pm 7/11/08. Images from BC's work computer hard drive clone. As far as the image goes, if I took a picture of you three years ago in front of your azalea bush which you cut down a month later, and then took one today they would both be of you and be recognizable. The main roads have not changed and the distance between points x and y have not changed. The tornados changed the landscape, but the land is still there. The maps have changed superficially. Doesn't change the fact that BC manipulated that map with a closed hand icon to find Fielding Drive/Brittaby Ct. Even if he typed in his zip code.

First the agent discussed cookies and how they operate by holding images and other information so that the computer does not have to redraw images etc everytime they are accessed. He showed the open hand icon, and then the closed hand icon, and explained how you only can get the closed hand when you are manipulating the map - ie scrolling. He showed a stack of tiles of land masses and what happens to the sizes when various tiles are zoomed in on. Then he distributed the 4 tiles that were in the stack to encompass the Fielding Drive area.

Then the agent, through Kurtz, shoed Google Maps, entered the search parameter of 27518. The map of the searched area came up in street view. The agent then had K go back and change to satellite view and re-enter the zip code. He then manipulated the map, zoomed in a couple of clicks, recentered the map = and there as the dump site,

I may have gotten a couple of the steps out of order, but when all as said and done I was kind of dumbfounded. He as the calmest, most patient, clearest, most credible witness I have ever seen. Zellinger asked him about 16 times in 16 different ways, if this was done at 1:14-1:15 pm on July 11, 2008, BEFORE Nancy was killed.

That, in a nutshell, is the basics of Det. C's testimony.

Oh yes, please see FullDisclosure's explanation at the top of this page, also. FD was sitting right next to me.

Any typos please forgive as I am having major multi computer problems, and it's too late in my day to use the netbook.

 

[RaleighNC]

I agree that they were looking at Brad from the first few hours. Based on what JA told them and various other issues. But why they don't just admit it, get it out there and own up to it is stupid. There are few people in the world who don't know that the spouse is always a prime suspect until he/she can be ruled out. That should have been the LE officer's testimony....all of them.

I agree with both of you.

They should acknowledge this predisposition to look at the spouse in a missing person's case / eventual homicide. By bringing it out in the open, you admit that you are influenced by the irrefutable statistics (and then parade them out), but since you are aware of this - you take extra precaution to ensure you have looked at all other possibilities. That, to me, gives you credibility - esp on an issue that is so darn obvious to even a layman.

In the same vein - BC should have acknowledged that he and NC were in the process of separating. Him playing the devoted and distraught husband didn't do him any favors.

It's folks that lie about things that will obviously be disproved that concern me - why do it? Do you really think anyone will buy that lie?

Throw the truth out there - we're all smart enough to recognize it (as it makes sense....) and we'll appreciate your honestly. Also, you don't have to keep remembering what story you told to support the initial lie and it makes your life a whole lot easier.

So while I think CPD should acknowledge the statistics and where they look first - they could have negated worries about them look at BC ONLY (and not just first) by admitting the predisposition.

Do I think that they failed to find the killer? No. But it scores more points with the jury when you treat them like they are somewhat intelligent.

 

[otto]

I am having the same problem you are with losing credibility in the testimony of the Detectives.

The NC cell phone issue REALLY bothers me after seeing the probable cause documents, hearing Det. Dismukes conversation with HP and listening to Det. Young testify about how he was not aware of the capabilities of smartphones and the data that could be important evidence contained on them. That was a boldface lie coupled with the fact that he "mistakenly" erased the cell phone and did not notify the defense team nor mention that fact in the search warrant for the phone which was obtained AFTER he erased the phone. That is a huge problem for me and leads me to believe they are capable of lying and tampering with evidence.

I too have some issues with investigators that appear to have an agenda.

 

[NCEast]

You put it into words better than me. That's exactly what I think, hence the quote.

You included several aspects that I was thinking but didn't type. I agree that none of the law enforcement officers involved would be so quick to put their careers in jeopardy in order to frame him or make the evidence 'fit' the crime. I don't care for the cover of 'well, that was Det. So and So' and it's becoming bothersome for me too. But again, the 3 lead detectives in this were not always doing the very same thing, ie interviewing the same person, looking at the scene, looking at the supposed crime scene, taking pictures, etc. So I can understand how some of the 'blame it on the other detective' may play into it....but it has been extreme.

 

[jumpstreet]

there was no Judge in the room, but a Judge was available by phone during the questions.
If you listen to the depos after hearing the evidence it sure sounds that they knew certain questions to ask...
suicide? the area where the body was found?etc

Thanks. This was during the actual recorded depositions I believe, right? [ Attorneys could consult with the judge during their questioning, etc ].

But ultimately, the subsequent hearing conducted by the custody judge I don't recall as being public record (where both sides presented their case for custody). Ultimately, the judge ruled (prior to arrest) in favor of the R's, and all along an assumption was that she (custody judge) may/must have had insight to *some* piece of compelling evidence that wasn't public record (yet).

Now that all the prosecution's cards are on the table (at least in theory), is it reasonable to assume that the judge somehow had insight to the google bit?
[ Or, did she make the pre-arrest custody decision based on even a subset of what the prosecution has presented? ]

 

[Cheyenne130]

You included several aspects that I was thinking but didn't type. I agree that none of the law enforcement officers involved would be so quick to put their careers in jeopardy in order to frame him or make the evidence 'fit' the crime. I don't care for the cover of 'well, that was Det. So and So' and it's becoming bothersome for me too. But again, the 3 lead detectives in this were not always doing the very same thing, ie interviewing the same person, looking at the scene, looking at the supposed crime scene, taking pictures, etc. So I can understand how some of the 'blame it on the other detective' may play into it....but it has been extreme.

That could well be a brilliant defense tactic. Each detective was responsible for a different area. So if the defense knows this and purposefully asks questions of a particular detective that he knows was actually the responsibility of another detective, he can make it seem like they are all "passing the buck". I would need to see that a question asked was passed off by all. MOO

 

[sunshine05]

That could well be a brilliant defense tactic. Each detective was responsible for a different area. So if the defense knows this and purposefully asks questions of a particular detective that he knows was actually the responsibility of another detective, he can make it seem like they are all "passing the buck". I would need to see that a question asked was passed off by all. MOO

But the lead detective should have full knowledge of what all his investigators were doing. They should have had weekly (or more) meetings to discuss updates and decide what the next steps should be. If he is as unaware as he seems of what his detectives were working on, that is very concerning.

 

[NCEast]

That could well be a brilliant defense tactic. Each detective was responsible for a different area. So if the defense knows this and purposefully asks questions of a particular detective that he knows was actually the responsibility of another detective, he can make it seem like they are all "passing the buck". I would need to see that a question asked was passed off by all. MOO

I would like to see a tally as well but I don't think we'll see one.
Kurtz has already taken advantage of it with Det. Daniels,,,,,there have been many times in which Det. Daniels indicated that another detective was doing certain tasks, or wrote various supplements to the report, etc. Several times when Kurtz persisted, Det. Daniels kind of ran over him.
I don't think the detectives are doing it on purpose, perhaps in a few instances, but putting on this type of investigation is not an easy task, not even for seasoned law enforcement officers. It stands to reason that not every hand knew what the other was doing. Since Det. Daniels was the lead-lead detective, I think he should be held more accountable.

 

[Star12]

Here's the custody order. the hearing was open.

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/coopercustodyorder.pdf

 

[gritguy]

Whatever the merits of the criminal case, those who feel sorry for BC getting busted in his depo are misguided IMO.

1. Any speculation the custody judge ruled on information not available to both sides is, as far as I know speculation.
2. During the deposition, BC was represented and his lawyers could have stopped the deposition at any time if they thought something improper was going on. They could have instructed him to plead the 5th at any moment. They could have, on his behalf, been combative at least if they felt it was warranted. The fact the other side was well prepared is not much of an answer for the obvious fact that he lied - a bunch.

 

[ncsu95]

Even ignoring the whole flurry of calls on July 12th, I just focused on the three calls from the home phone to his cell phone within a 35 minute period. Two of those calls while he was in the house. What was the reason for the 6:05 and the 6:34 calls? If she really was doing laundry and really did run out of detergent, why didn't she call him while he was at the store the first time? There was no immediate need for "green juice". The youngest daughter wanted milk and she got that. The oldest daughter wasn't awake. Why the sudden realization that they needed "green juice"?

If Brad isn't guilty, then the 6:05 call was to find the cell like defense said in opening arguments. The 6:34 call would have been Nancy calling Brad. The cell phone records didn't see that call, so it would have meant he was in a dead area (no pun intended). Then she retried at 6:37.

If Brad is guilty, it would have something do do with him testing or initiating the spoofed call.

 

[ncsu95]

I don't recall three calls from his home phone to his cell. There was one to find his phone, second one alleged to have been her, and when was the third call from the house?

The 3rd one (actually was the 2nd at 6:34) didn't terminate to the cell. There was another one made at 6:37. Actually, I think this makes the likelihood of it being spoofed even more remote. That would have meant it failed (since we see the attempt on the TWC records) and then a successful call 3 minutes later. But no data usage or calls in between. So how was it re-attempted?

 

[CrimeAddict]

If the defense had some piece of evidence that proved his innocence he wouldn't be in jail right now, or on trial in this case. They certainly wouldn't sit on it waiting to spring it during the trial.

Thank you.

 

[ncsu95]

It took me 1:12 seconds but I am not familiar with the area. Knew a couple of road names...that helped. BC lived there 8 years.

Then I did an area where I live and it was 40 seconds no problem. Knowing where I wanted to go and the main road made it quick and easy.

Thanks for doing it. My point wasn't that it couldn't be done in 41 seconds. My point was that it wasn't a lot of time as you indicated. It was a very quick direct search where he didn't linger much at the end. I'm not saying he didn't do the search. I just don't believe he did it searching for a place to dump the body...only to confirm a location he already thought of.

 

[Madeleine74]

We're talking a matter of 48 hrs from the time the cops first arrived at Cooper house on 7/12 to when body was found. And then another 14 or so hrs to final confirmation of ID. Officers arrived and there was nothing to suspect yet. Nancy was missing.

Within several hrs the officers probably understood that she would not just abandon her kids and disappear. But what exactly could they know and to what end? Not much. They were gathering information. No one knew if Nancy was alive or dead at that point. Ditto the 13th.

By early evening the 14th they knew she was dead, or at least were pretty sure it was her that had been found. It's not like dead bodies are just laying around all over town, discarded off of communities. They knew the odds. And yes, at that point Cooper was a person of interest and coming into the crosshairs. That's just the way it is. They begin with the person closest to the victim and see if that person can be excluded. Brad never was able to be excluded.

I don't know exactly what script people think cops follow, but real life just isn't like NCIS or CSI or NYPD or JAG or any of the cop shows out there. Humans make mistakes. They make assumptions. Sometimes they're wrong; sometimes they're right. Just like there's no perfect crime, there's no perfect cop.

I believe most cops are decent and honest people; I don't have a basis for believing otherwise. Obviously others have a great mistrust and think many cops and detectives are devious, conniving and only sometimes tell the truth. And a few think anyone involved in any law enforcement or crime solving related position is in a huge conspiracy to put everyone away for life.

 

[sunshine05]

Thank you.

Again, guilt is to be proven, not innocence. And some people would believe that NC made that call at 6:40 according to all records.