State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

[SleuthyGal]

They did say it was shared. Perhaps he set up the account for Nancy and had her password.

He might have had her password at one time. However, he was having her email FORWARDED to his own email address (secretly) and reading it from that account.

 

[otto]

He might have had her password at one time. However, he was having her email FORWARDED to his own email address (secretly) and reading it from that account.

If it's a shared account, that makes sense. People with more than one email address usually foward everything to one ... makes it easier to deal with. What caused him to forward the mail in April 2008 (they'd been married and living in NC for 8 years)?

 

[cygnusx1]

Why didn't he tell his children the news about their mother?

He didn't think it the right time? He didn't have the courage? He didn't know how? He thought they were too young?

There were reports in the news that Nancy's sister was dressing like Nancy in the presence of the kids back in Canada? Why was that? Because they thought it was too psychologically damaging for the kids to just be without their mother so they tried to make her look familiar to the children.

Why did he leave it up to the inlaws (this was before custody changed to them).

They beat him to the punch? They were in town before she was found as I recall. They would have been among the first to have been told the news when she was found. They could have been with the kids at the time they received the news and told them right away. I don't recall when the kids were told in relation to the time line.

So it wasn't just Brad's actions (or lack of) that caused suspicion--it was his mannerisms, how he presented himself, what he communicated or didn't communicate that when observed by people who knew him very well raised some red flags.

By people who had already assumed the worst. People who had already been swayed as to what kind of man Brad was; HER friends. Were Brad's friends interpreting his actions/inaction thusly? I don't know, I haven't heard how his friends reacted. I do know that one friend was assumed on this forum to be an accomplice or knew more than he let on making it into a conspiracy. So any reports from his friends that he was emotional would have been discounted anyway.

Like I said. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. And anybody who deigned to provide any explanation for Brad's action/inaction was assumed to be a friend of Brad or Brad himself.

 

[otto]

By people who had already assumed the worst. People who had already been swayed as to what kind of man Brad was; HER friends. Were Brad's friends interpreting his actions/inaction thusly? I don't know, I haven't heard how his friends reacted. I do know that one friend was assumed on this forum to be an accomplice or knew more than he let on making it into a conspiracy. So any reports from his friends that he was emotional would have been discounted anyway.

Like I said. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. And anybody who deigned to provide any explanation for Brad's action/inaction was assumed to be a friend of Brad or Brad himself.

What has been surprising so far is that it appears the prosecutor (female) relied on neighborhood gossip to develop a theory about what happened. If she was putting her strongest witness first, then she was weak. In a chess game, the pawn goes first.

Brad is looking like the target of the neighborhood gossip ladies so far ... I guess the VOIP will be the nuke?

 

[jmflu]

I agree. He knew he was not welcome at any memorial for Nancy. Why would anyone expect him to show up ... more gossip?

Um... because he loved his wife and was emotionally destroyed that someone murdered her?! If I was innocent and loved my spouse there's nothing that would keep me from remembering them in any manner that was possible!

 

[jmflu]

And if he had, every action would have been scrutinized. If he cried, many on here would say it was faked. If he showed no emotion, well, then he obviously doesn't care. This man is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

An innocent person who truly cared about their spouse who was murdered wouldn't give a damn about what people thought. They'd care about the spouse who was murdered!!

Put aside Brad for a moment. Think of someone YOU love very much. That person is murdered. Wouldn't you want to be at their memorials?! Even if some thought you might have done it?

 

[jmflu]

And the defense indicated that the email account was a shared account. So I imagine they will show their were emails in that account that were intended for, sent to, and responded to (or originated by) Brad. Maybe they can't show that...but they brought it up during their opening.

My household has a shared Roadrunner account with separate email addresses. Brad's email was not included on the list and he had no business accessing her private emails.

 

[otto]

If he loved his wife and learned that she was murdered, would he really want to subject himself and his young daughters to a gaggle that believed he murdered his wife? If he was innocent of his wife's disappearance and murder and he loved his children, would it really be okay for neighbors to be phoning endlessly trying to manage his children?

I think Brad didn't have an opportunity to remember his wife because his neighbors, police and family were micromanaging the situation to take away his children and paint him as the culprit by lunch on the day she disappeared. Even if he did stage the calls from his home to his cell phone ... that happened after the murder - not exactly premeditation and first degree murder.

 

[jmflu]

If he loved his wife and learned that she was murdered, would he really want to subject himself and his young daughters to a gaggle that believed he murdered his wife?

So you're saying, otto, that if your spouse was murdered, what other people thought would keep you from their memorial?

 

[jmflu]

I think Brad didn't have an opportunity to remember his wife because his neighbors, police and family were micromanaging the situation to take away his children and paint him as the culprit by lunch on the day she disappeared. Even if he did stage the calls from his home to his cell phone ... that happened after the murder - not exactly premeditation and first degree murder.

Yes... it was everyone's fault but Brad's. Might as well discount what every single person thought of Brad, what was normal for him, the way he treated his wife, the reasons people who knew them both instantly thought he could have done this. It was all their fault.

 

[BrownRice]

Regarding the emails, I think it's very clear Nancy had the assumption of privacy if she was using this address with her divorce attorney.

Regarding the memorial service, please give me a break. Your wife is dead - you don't care what your catty, gossipy neighbors are saying. You go with your kids (maybe or maybe not), hold your head high, and grieve for the loss of your spouse.

I do have to say though, the DA better have some good evidence because I think it's looking kinda good for Brad right now.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I got the impression with the witness Diana D. that they are laying the groundwork. There was nothing that she said that was really for truth but to give a short of snapshot of the marriage. I thought her testimony made both Coopers look bad in terms of what most people think about when asked to describe a "perfect parent" or "perfect partner".

My impression of the defense yesterday is that they are sort of on the incompetent side. They gave up their right to address the jury last prior to deliberations to introduce that water bill???? The only point I felt they made with that is that Brad was pretty incompetent and inconsiderate to continually pay the bill late and to the point of letting the water be turned off. The defense scored one for the prosecution with that move as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes, another question to Diana was "what jewelery was she wearing?". The State knew what her reply would be (not remembering the necklace in particular). However, the state did make the point she was wearing diamond stud earrings. Guess what, she was wearing one diamond stud earring when she was found. To me this is huge...even bigger than the necklace. It shows she was likely killed when she returned from the party, before she got ready for bed. Was it normal for Nancy to sleep in such earrings? Wasn't it even less likely she would put them on very early Saturday am to go running and then painting? Finally, if the van of "Hispanics" did this, would they leave that (those) behind?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Yes, another question to Diana was "what jewelery was she wearing?". The State knew what her reply would be (not remembering the necklace in particular). However, the state did make the point she was wearing diamond stud earrings. Guess what, she was wearing one diamond stud earring when she was found. To me this is huge...even bigger than the necklace. It shows she was likely killed when she returned from the party, before she got ready for bed. Was it normal for Nancy to sleep in such earrings? Wasn't it even less likely she would put them on very early Saturday am to go running and then painting? Finally, if the van of "Hispanics" did this, would they leave that (those) behind?

Excellent point about the earring being left behind. I was thinking also that she was killed after she came back from the party. He had said that he was in the girls room when Nancy came home and she cracked the door to the girls room to peak in. Maybe she thought he was asleep and went to his room to take money that he had refused to give her that day?

I do believe he killed her but I don't think he planned it.

 

[Just the Fax]

I got the impression with the witness Diana D. that they are laying the groundwork. There was nothing that she said that was really for truth but to give a short of snapshot of the marriage. I thought her testimony made both Coopers look bad in terms of what most people think about when asked to describe a "perfect parent" or "perfect partner".

My impression of the defense yesterday is that they are sort of on the incompetent side. They gave up their right to address the jury last prior to deliberations to introduce that water bill???? The only point I felt they made with that is that Brad was pretty incompetent and inconsiderate to continually pay the bill late and to the point of letting the water be turned off. The defense scored one for the prosecution with that move as far as I'm concerned.

Cheyenne, I wouldn't say incompetent. I think Kurts knows for sure he will present a defense case. No way he passes on calling the multiple witnesses that claim to have seen her running. In addition, there where numerous friends of Brad that have affidavits in the civil case that can be used to counter some of the state's testimony.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Actually it looks like she wore those earrings all the time. Every picture I'm finding of her where you can see her earlobes, she is wearing diamond studs.

 

[Just the Fax]

Actually it looks like she wore those earrings all the time. Every picture I'm finding of her where you can see her earlobes, she is wearing diamond studs.

I stand corrected....just asked my wife, and she said she sometimes sleeps in hers and keeps them in several days at a time. Ok, back to why the necklace was in the desk.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Cheyenne, I wouldn't say incompetent. I think Kurts knows for sure he will present a defense case. No way he passes on calling the multiple witnesses that claim to have seen her running. In addition, there where numerous friends of Brad that have affidavits in the civil case that can be used to counter some of the state's testimony.

Oh, no doubt. I was referring specifically to introducing that water bill to discredit the testimony of Diana D. The defense was making the point that she was inferring that Brad intentionally didn't pay the water bill to cause suffering to Nancy and the girls. Diana D. told him that she didn't say that and she didn't believe there was any malice intended but he introduced the water bill anyway. To me that bill made his client look bad, not good.

 

[Just the Fax]

Oh, no doubt. I was referring specifically to introducing that water bill to discredit the testimony of Diana D. The defense was making the point that she was inferring that Brad intentionally didn't pay the water bill to cause suffering to Nancy and the girls. Diana D. told him that she didn't say that and she didn't believe there was any malice intended but he introduced the water bill anyway. To me that bill made his client look bad, not good.

The jury is going to quickly get bored with all the details of the financial stuff.
It is obvious they had financial trouble and Nancy spent more than they had.
However, I do think withholding her $300 that week because of the painting cash is important. It shows that Nancy was especially mad that day at Brad, so much so that she "hated him". That and alcohol was a recipe for a knock down, drag out fight after midnight. Unfortunately, she pushed his button so hard, he snapped and strangled her to death ....IMO.

 

[SleuthyGal]

And most diamond earrings studs have actual screws in back in which the backing is rotated into place so they don't fall out. So it's not like someone can just quickly pull out the backing--they have to be twisted around several times to bring them up the thread of the post.

Someone (like a van of hispanics) who wanted to steal diamond earrings would just rip them off her ears (tearing her ear lobes). They wouldn't leave one still in her ear and only take one, and they wouldn't likely know how to remove the backing (by twisting it counterclockwise). I believe they would grab and rip them out. There were no tears in her ears (cf autopsy report).