State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

[SleuthyGal]

It's possible Brad was trying to hide the actual dress...or maybe he thought she was wearing a black dress.

He knew exactly what dress Nancy was wearing. He laundered it (on purpose). And then he gave it to the police after he laundered it. He only pretended he couldn't find it. I doubt anyone called him to remind him which dress it was (like DD's friend). He KNEW.

 

[johnfear]

The clapping was from her husband, Craig.



She was the first up because the prosecution is presenting witnesses in a specific order and since she threw the party the night before she was the first one called. Important? As important as any witness. Bright eyed? She looked sad at many points.



She remembered a few things on it, but she didn't remember every item on the list. Would you have preferred she make items up or just tell the truth? The truth is that she didn't recall the list in granular detail. The items she remembered she said. BTW, the two items she mentioned *were* in fact on that list! That was covered during custody hearing testimony by others.

Bright eyed as in the Jury, not the witness.

If you really found the list creepy, you would be able to characterize what you found creepy. I don't need her to make it up. I need her to draw a defense objection 'cause she says: It was like he was preparing for life and she was not a part of it "list" or it had things on it that no parent would ever think of in a divorce situation.

I am still waiting for (and hoping this is all based on) a single or double or triple nuke.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I need her to draw a defense objection

Then you need to take that matter up with the defense AND the judge! She said what she said. The judge could have excluded those comments. He didn't.

 

[johnfear]

Then you need to take that matter up with the defense AND the judge! She said what she said. The judge could have excluded those comments. He didn't.

RIGHT! But she didn't say anything that made me go....oh, well, what we have here is the foundation for murder. However, now that I look at her one more time, she may be setting the stage for something with the long email parlays (like proof he was snooping, etc)

I do think Brad is a weirdo though. That certainly doesn't help his cause. (This IS based DD's testimony)

I swear I thought ABC14 said it was her clapping.

Night.

 

[SleuthyGal]

But she didn't say anything that made me go....oh, well, what we have here is the foundation for murder.

It would be highly unusual for a witness who isn't privy to the computer forensic results, isn't privy to the VOIP or phone analysis, isn't privy to any physical evidence to suddenly become THE foundation that proves murder. She is one link in a chain--she is one witness who is providing context about the victim's state of mind, the general state of things during different time periods, she is providing information about the victim and to a lesser extent, some behavior/anecdotal info about the defendant. This witness is not intended to be the AHA! witness. Nor could she be.

I truly think we're going to have to wait for the ENTIRE prosecution case to be revealed to get the full picture. It may not just be ONE thing that provides proof...it may be a bunch of smaller things that when added up are hard (if not nearly impossible) to explain away as mere coinky-dink.

And yes, you will see that the prosecution asks every one of Nancy's friends if they intended their emails to be sent to Brad. Why? Because Brad was SECRETLY getting a copy of every email sent to Nancy. The way they establish this fact is to bring up the intent of each sender of email, confirm that they only sent it to Nancy, and then later through a computer forensic examiner witness prove that Brad was accessing Nancy's email secretly!

 

[cygnusx1]

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

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.

 

[SleuthyGal]

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.

Why didn't he tell his children the news about their mother? Why did he leave it up to the inlaws (this was before custody changed to them). The fact is that communication is 90% NONverbal and 10% verbal. We humans are programmed to notice and recognize nonverbal cues. Some people are more adept than others at doing so. 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.

 

[ncsu95]

It would be highly unusual for a witness who isn't privy to the computer forensic results, isn't privy to the VOIP or phone analysis, isn't privy to any physical evidence to suddenly become THE foundation that proves murder. She is one link in a chain--she is one witness who is providing context about the victim's state of mind, the general state of things during different time periods, she is providing information about the victim and to a lesser extent, some behavior/anecdotal info about the defendant. This witness is not intended to be the AHA! witness. Nor could she be.

I truly think we're going to have to wait for the ENTIRE prosecution case to be revealed to get the full picture. It may not just be ONE thing that provides proof...it may be a bunch of smaller things that when added up are hard (if not nearly impossible) to explain away as mere coinky-dink.

And yes, you will see that the prosecution asks every one of Nancy's friends if they intended their emails to be sent to Brad. Why? Because Brad was SECRETLY getting a copy of every email sent to Nancy. The way they establish this fact is to bring up the intent of each sender of email, confirm that they only sent it to Nancy, and then later through a computer forensic examiner witness prove that Brad was accessing Nancy's email secretly!

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.

 

[ncsu95]

Why didn't he tell his children the news about their mother? Why did he leave it up to the inlaws (this was before custody changed to them). The fact is that communication is 90% NONverbal and 10% verbal. We humans are programmed to notice and recognize nonverbal cues. Some people are more adept than others at doing so. 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.

Come on now. The only people that have commented about Brad's mannerisms after the disappearance are her friends and law enforcement, which had him as suspect #1 immediately. I'm not saying they weren't correct, but they obviously were biased to some extent.

 

[otto]

Then you need to take that matter up with the defense AND the judge! She said what she said. The judge could have excluded those comments. He didn't.

But you have to agree that the best time to hit the jury is with first impressions, and in this case it was the droning on about the neighborhood gossip, gigglings, and I forget. The judge chose to include all the gossip, and just as well because we won't have to hear about it later or interspersed with evidence that matters.

 

[SleuthyGal]

And the defense indicated that the email account was a shared account.

I know they did.

But the email address was Nancy's nickname, not both of their names. "[email protected]"

Friends who sent email to that address were under the impression they would and intended for those emails to only go to Nancy.

Brad had his own separate email (actually a few different email addresses). Nancy had just that one.

 

[otto]

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.

I think we've heard enough in the courtroom to know that much. The next question is how much circumstantial evidence is based on the women on the block?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Come on now. The only people that have commented about Brad's mannerisms after the disappearance are her friends and law enforcement, which had him as suspect #1 immediately. I'm not saying they weren't correct, but they obviously were biased to some extent.

No his friends made comments (and filed affidavits as well). So did his parents. One friend filed an affidavit for Nancy's side and then another one for Brad's side.

 

[otto]

Why didn't he tell his children the news about their mother? Why did he leave it up to the inlaws (this was before custody changed to them). The fact is that communication is 90% NONverbal and 10% verbal. We humans are programmed to notice and recognize nonverbal cues. Some people are more adept than others at doing so. 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.

Maybe he didn't know how to tell his young daughters what happened and was dealing with his own grief. They wouldn't be the first 2 and 4 year olds not to be told of a major event or death in the family until a little later.

It was all about how others perceived him through their version of him as the bad guy. I haven't heard anything beyond him attempting to accommodate but curtail curiosity seeking neighbors, not calling Nancy's family (perhaps hoping for the best) ... and cooperating.

 

[otto]

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.

They did say it was shared. Perhaps he set up the account for Nancy and had her password. They were husband and wife, not that unusual to have access to a home email account (unless one party was trying to hide it behind hotmail). Was Nancy's email account part of the ISP features, or did Nancy have a hotmail account. Hotmail is not usually a spousal share account (I mean, hotmail is typically an anonymous act).

 

[ncsu95]

I know they did.

But the email address was Nancy's nickname, not both of their names. "[email protected]"

Friends who sent email to that address were under the impression they would and intended for those emails to only go to Nancy.

Brad had his own separate email (actually a few different email addresses). Nancy had just that one.

I doubt that. Heck, I've got 4 or 5 email accounts. Her friends might not have known, but it sounds like the defense is going to show that Nancy knew it was a shared account. And that's all that matters.....can the defense prove it was a shared account and that Nancy knew it was a shared account.

 

[otto]

No his friends made comments (and filed affidavits as well). So did his parents. One friend filed an affidavit for Nancy's side and then another one for Brad's side.

Was that the custody affidavit back and forth?

 

[ncsu95]

No his friends made comments (and filed affidavits as well). So did his parents. One friend filed an affidavit for Nancy's side and then another one for Brad's side.

I honestly don't remember them (although I'm sure I read them). Did they indicate he acted strangely or out of the norm (norm here being the norm for Brad)?

 

[otto]

I doubt that. Heck, I've got 4 or 5 email accounts. Her friends might not have known, but it sounds like the defense is going to show that Nancy knew it was a shared account. And that's all that matters.....can the defense prove it was a shared account and that Nancy knew it was a shared account.

If Brad set up the computers, and helped Nancy with an account (which seems likely since she acted dependant on Brad even though they previously worked together), then he would automatically know her password. If he didn't access this information until the divorce was initiated ... it shows he respected her privacy and let her have the account for friends until he strongly suspected that he did not have all the information. Then, he accessed the account and obtained the divorce documents.

I keep coming back to the fact that Nancy was out getting a bit drunk with friends until midnight while her husband was looking after the children. In the morning, he got drinks for the children and started with the laundry. She went out for a run. It sounds like that was a typical Saturday.

 

[otto]

When did Brad first contact a divorce lawyer?