State v Bradley Cooper 3.14 .2011 - 3.?.??

[SleuthinNC]

Wouldn't he also know how to get into his own voice mail?

Not necessarily. If he didn't use the voicemail on the actual phone it is very possible that he was not familiar with the procedures to use it. He could simply use the phone hardware to answer calls to a work phone or google voice number or something similar and his voicemail would be recorded on those accounts and not on the actual phone itself. Not too far fetched.

 

[jmflu]

Not necessarily. If he didn't use the voicemail on the actual phone it is very possible that he was not familiar with the procedures to use it. He could simply use the phone hardware to answer calls to a work phone or google voice number or something similar and his voicemail would be recorded on those accounts and not on the actual phone itself. Not too far fetched.

But this was his line of work. He was not just a layman; he did this for a living. I find it hard to believe he would know how to perform the most complex of tasks but not the least.

 

[ncsu95]

I spent much of Sunday reading all of the documents in this case again. When I put it all together at one time rather than just reading it in bits and pieces over time, it is easy to see that the tension had been building and building. It was bound to come to a head sooner or later, IMO.

Brad was the odd guy out seemingly by his own choice. Everyone seemed to become fast friends while Brad was busy with his own interests. I do have to say that the Masters program could not have been easy, so I can understand why a lot of time had to have been spent on acquiring his Masters Degree. BUT, in the quest for more earning potential, he seemed to drift away from his family. It almost seems as if he no longer could relate to them, or even cared to try.

I do see Brad as a very disciplined man and one who likes to be in control. He also seems to me to be a very selfish man. I read the Separation Agreement again Sunday. I honestly believe that agreement caused Brad to decide that no matter what he had to do, he certainly wasn't going to lose so much of what he had worked for in a divorce. There was a slow boil going and it finally came to a head that night after the party. I think Brad lay in wait for Nancy with the lights off, and he killed her.

I think that the undercover FBI agents have a good idea what happened to Nancy when she came home that night. LE has a good idea what happened to Nancy that night. What we have heard to date is setting the stage for the evidence the Prosecution will present. So far, all that has been done is an introduction to Nancy as a person and her life with Brad. With the evidence we will be introduced to Nancy, the victim.

Brad has relied heavily on the phone calls that Saturday morning to attempt to prove Nancy was alive and went running. If there is a 'smoking gun' in this case, it will be that the phone calls were staged by Brad and it will be proven that they were. That is just my speculation. Brad is an intelligent man, but has no common sense, IMO. He went to such great lenghts to 'stage' and attempt to outsmart LE that he forgot that if HE could think it up, then so could LE and the FBI. I think the phone call staging will be his undoing.

Sorry for the long post. I wanted to put my two cents worth in.

Time will tell, and I cannot wait! Nancy, her babies, her family, and friends deserve justice.

I thought that Nancy pushed Brad to do the MBA so he could increase his income. I might be misremembering that, but I thought was discussed at some point.

I do think this whole thing will come down to those calls. If they prove Brad somehow made them, he's guilty. If they prove he didn't, he's not.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Not necessarily. If he didn't use the voicemail on the actual phone it is very possible that he was not familiar with the procedures to use it.

His own attorney stated he checked his VM, though he didn't specify which VM system he checked.

He would be laughed out of Cisco if he attempted to claim he didn't know how to check VM on a device he had access to/possession of. Sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell test. Even if he had never tried checking VM before, he could easily figure it out. BTW, VM is one of the components of a VOIP system. Not only would he know how to use them, he would also know how to design them!

 

[Cheyenne130]

But this was his line of work. He was not just a layman; he did this for a living. I find it hard to believe he would know how to perform the most complex of tasks but not the least.

I have to agree. IT people are very "gadget" oriented. I can't believe that he wouldn't be able to perform a task so simple in terms of IT knowledge.

 

[CyberPro]

If you can cope with someone being sent to jail based on circumstantial evidence then more power to you. I personally could not. If I was having an affair with a neighbor who might own the same lot of twine and hack saw that my hubby and I bought a month prior to my death...I would hope that both of them would be investigated

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Take, as an example, the Laci Peterson case. This was the one in, California, I think, West Coast anyway, not to be confused with the Peterson case in Durham.

They never found a real smoking gun on Scott Peterson, but there was plenty of evidence and no doubt in my mind that he was guilty. Or perhaps a better way to say it was as I told my wife "If he is NOT guilty of this crime, he could give lessons on how to LOOK guilty." Now that I think about it, there are a few other parallels to this case. There was a "mysterious van" seen in the area that had carpet in the back. Someone walking a dog claimed to have seen Laci in a park that morning. In fact, the defense threw such a smoke screen in search of a SODDI defense that it mainly made them a laughing stock. "Be sure to keep a sharp eye out for that roving band of Hawaiian Mormons who are kidnapping pregnant women."

 

[SleuthyGal]

I thought that Nancy pushed Brad to do the MBA so he could increase his income. I might be misremembering that, but I thought was discussed at some point.

You misremembered. He said Nancy was 'supportive' of his doing the MBA because it would allow him to move up in the company and increase his earning potential. However, she didn't 'push' him to do it. It was his idea.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I think they have tried to show that she exaggerates and wasn't afraid of him.

On the other hand, what if she was afraid of Brad and wanted others to know just what kind of person he was/is? What if Nancy did want to her friends to know the circumstances in which she and the girls lived just in case something did happen to her?

Neither you nor I have the answer to that one. We just have our own opinions of what we have heard from Nancy's friends. Donna Lopez (sp?) seemed to be afraid FOR Nancy and she had just met her.

MOO

 

[otto]

The Canadian he was talking about is Nancy. He was saying Nancy might have mistaken his Scottish humor as hitting on her.

Thanks for explaining that! I suspect that Nancy knew the difference between being hit on and some guy joking (even if the guy was Scottish), but I also have to wonder if there was some sort of head game going on with everyone in the clique seeing who could entice someone else's spouse.

 

[ncsu95]

It appears you just don't understand the definition of circumstantial evidence even though I provided the definition. Seriously, what you are saying is that the only way you can 'cope' with someone being sent to jail is if there is DIRECT evidence? That means if there is no eyewitness, no confession, and/or no videotape of the crime, the person shouldn't have to go to jail? Because everything else...is 'circumstantial' evidence. That is the definition.

DNA? circumstantial

Fingerprints? circumstantial

Blood? circumstantial

Computer searches? circumstantial

Ballistics / bullet matching? circumstantial

Defendent having the exact same weapon as the murder weapon? circumstantial

Fibers, hair, and other trace evidence linking the suspect to the crime scene and/or the victim? circumstantial


Courts every day in this country convict people of crimes on those and additional circumstantial evidence.

Depends on if there is reasonable doubt or not. If the defense provides reasonable doubt in a circumstantial case, I would have a hard time convicting.

 

[otto]

I have to agree. IT people are very "gadget" oriented. I can't believe that he wouldn't be able to perform a task so simple in terms of IT knowledge.

That's quite a generalization! Some IT people have so much electronic gadgetry in their heads they prefer not to bother with the optional gadgetry.

 

[cygnusx1]

I agree with was dumb. But I guess he had no choice except to willingly give up custody of his kids.

Which again would have been seen as a guilty act. "See he doesn't even care to fight for his children!"

 

[jmflu]

Depends on if there is reasonable doubt or not. If the defense provides reasonable doubt in a circumstantial case, I would have a hard time convicting.

I am curious...if they found Nancy's hair or blood in his trunk, which is circumstantial evidence, would you still believe there was reasonable doubt?

 

[Cheyenne130]

Thanks for explaining that! I suspect that Nancy knew the difference between being hit on and some guy joking (even if the guy was Scottish), but I also have to wonder if there was some sort of head game going on with everyone in the clique seeing who could entice someone else's spouse.

I watched a friend of mine "hit on" a female friend at a party one night. He was definitely inebriated. He doesn't remember it at all other than others telling him about it (and HE was the one repulsed by it when he was told!) I can see that it happened and I can see him honestly testifying in court that he never hit on her. It happens.

 

[SleuthinNC]

But this was his line of work. He was not just a layman; he did this for a living. I find it hard to believe he would know how to perform the most complex of tasks but not the least.

the two really have very little to do with each other.

 

[otto]

I watched a friend of mine "hit on" a female friend at a party one night. He was definitely inebriated. He doesn't remember it at all other than others telling him about it (and HE was the one repulsed by it when he was told!) I can see that it happened and I can see him honestly testifying in court that he never hit on her. It happens.

He admitted today that there are portions of the party that he simply doesn't remember because he was drunk. It makes sense that being drunk and forgetting happened more often.

 

[CyberPro]

I have seen some posts about the MBA.

I am taking classes for an MBA right now. Due to my frequent travel, I am taking them on-line, but it is the same content. If anything, I think the courses are perhaps more difficult, because you do not have the ability to ask an instant, direct question of the instructor.

The classes are time consuming, but by no means indicate that you cannot spend time with your family. I sometimes have assignments due, like the papers I had to submit on Sunday. I took a few hours on Sunday afternoon to write them, but I am not "that hermit who hangs out in Dad's office".

I am also an IT Geek, and I can tell you that almost all IT folks that I know, especially those that have a CISSP like BC understand technology well. The CISSP is not for the faint of heart. I know a person who is very sharp on networking, and he has failed the test 3 times.

Even if someone like this does not "know" how to check things like a call history or VM, a few minutes of effort will be done to understand it. Unless BC was a REALLY rare breed, the clock on the VCR was NOT flashing 12:00.

 

[Cheyenne130]

That's quite a generalization! Some IT people have so much electronic gadgetry in their heads they prefer not to bother with the optional gadgetry.

That's assuming that VM in his line of work is optional. Being in IT I will admit to some generalizations based on experience, my own and other IT I work with.

 

[SleuthyGal]

That's assuming that VM in his line of work is optional. Being in IT I will admit to some generalizations based on experience, my own and other IT I work with.

There is no VOIP system that does not have voicemail as a main feature of it. And certainly Cisco's VOIP is a commercial system and it has it. In fact, my company uses it, and I can assure you that it definitely has integrated VM, along with some nifty features. I have a consumer grade VOIP system at home (actually 2 of them) and both have VM as well.

 

[ncsu95]

Sorry, but I have to disagree here. Take, as an example, the Laci Peterson case. This was the one in, California, I think, West Coast anyway, not to be confused with the Peterson case in Durham.

They never found a real smoking gun on Scott Peterson, but there was plenty of evidence and no doubt in my mind that he was guilty. Or perhaps a better way to say it was as I told my wife "If he is NOT guilty of this crime, he could give lessons on how to LOOK guilty." Now that I think about it, there are a few other parallels to this case. There was a "mysterious van" seen in the area that had carpet in the back. Someone walking a dog claimed to have seen Laci in a park that morning. In fact, the defense threw such a smoke screen in search of a SODDI defense that it mainly made them a laughing stock. "Be sure to keep a sharp eye out for that roving band of Hawaiian Mormons who are kidnapping pregnant women."

Her body showed up where he "went fishing" that day. If someone can place Brad on Fielding Dr, then I can agree he is guilty. Peterson said he went fishing in SF that day.