State v Bradley Cooper - 3/25/11

[Maja]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9328978/

Humor moment...

 

[caryresident]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9328978/

Humor moment...

Yuck!

 

[borndem]

Me too. Even though her testimony was articulate, she struck me as being drugged or something while on the stand. I can't find the correct words....but something about her seemed a bit off. I hope and pray she hasn't made a mess -- even though replacing a juror with an alternate seems like an option the judge would take if necessary.

How about Stepford Wife??

 

[NCEast]

How about Stepford Wife??

Perfect!

 

[borndem]

I am having a problem hearing Kurtz!

Did his voice get so high so that only dogs can hear it now? I KNEW that would happen eventually.

We'll have to get those 3-D hearing aids, I guess. They've got 'em, too. On the TV TWO for the price of one, plus Shipping and Handling. But only if you call within the next 60 seconds. And that includes seizure time...

 

[Albert]

Cell phone records and seizure time. Text messages are not traceable and therefore they will not show a seizure time in the call records. At 6:05am on 7/12 there is a cell phone showing a seizure time of 1 second. This must have been an audio type call. To me, this implies, that the cell phone location was not unknown and this call was simply made as a cover up. However, I believe, there is also testimony that BC did not have his cell phone on the first trip to HT at 6:23am. This 6:05am call seems to be a very important discovery.

 

[Maja]

Cell phone records and seizure time. Text messages are not traceable and therefore they will not show a seizure time in the call records. At 6:05am on 7/12 there is a cell phone showing a seizure time of 1 second. This must have been an audio type call. To me, this implies, that the cell phone location was not unknown and this call was simply made as a cover up. However, I believe, there is also testimony that BC did not have his cell phone on the first trip to HT at 6:23am. This 6:05am call seems to be a very important discovery.

Would you elaborate for me? What do you surmise the 6:05am call was?

 

[happy2binNC]

Cell phone records and seizure time. Text messages are not traceable and therefore they will not show a seizure time in the call records. At 6:05am on 7/12 there is a cell phone showing a seizure time of 1 second. This must have been an audio type call. To me, this implies, that the cell phone location was not unknown and this call was simply made as a cover up. However, I believe, there is also testimony that BC did not have his cell phone on the first trip to HT at 6:23am. This 6:05am call seems to be a very important discovery.

Didn't we hear that BC didn't have the phone on the first trip to HT and had to make a call to locate it? Or am I simply confusing all the details here? If there was a call at 6:05 that was answered within that 1 sec (meaning it didn't go to voice mail), there would be no need to "locate" the phone later, right? :waitasec:

 

[Cheyenne130]

Cell phone records and seizure time. Text messages are not traceable and therefore they will not show a seizure time in the call records. At 6:05am on 7/12 there is a cell phone showing a seizure time of 1 second. This must have been an audio type call. To me, this implies, that the cell phone location was not unknown and this call was simply made as a cover up. However, I believe, there is also testimony that BC did not have his cell phone on the first trip to HT at 6:23am. This 6:05am call seems to be a very important discovery.

I don't have any notes in front of me but I think that the 6:34 call is the one Brad said he made from the home phone in order to locate his cell phone in the house. That call was zero seconds because the cell was not answered. The outgoing call at 6:37 to the Cisco offices, the 6:05 that I think lasted for 23 seconds are the two that I'm most interested in. I'm not sure that anyone has said that Brad did not have his cell phone with him on the first trip. That was something that I assumed because he found it necessary to call to locate his phone at 6:34. But he could have come in, laid it down and forgot where he put it before going out for the second HT trip.

 

[sunshine05]

It has been disappointing. Based on what they've presented, I couldn't find him "guilty" even though I'm fairly certain he killed her.

I was thinking that way too, "guilty, but not provable". I now think he is innocent. (That could change of course)

 

[sunshine05]

I'm pretty sure he said it was his office at Cisco.

I remember from his deposition he said he kept one of the girls' passports at Cisco.

 

[ncsu95]

Awwwwe..could have been indeed...but didnt I hear the kids passports were there too..I thought she couldnt go home with her mom and dad because Brad had them??? Ohh never mind..IM sure it will become more clear next week..at least I hope so..:seeya:

I don't think he had hers. I think he took the girls and then agreed to give 1 to her (so neither would have both) but she declined.

 

[less0305]

Yes.

And the reason he gave the last name Wilson is because he didn't want anyone tracking her down and asking her what Brad was like. They lived together and after a brief while broke up and Brad moved out. Jen discovered that Brad broke into her apartment and snooped around after they were finished. She promptly moved. She has lots more to tell and was interviewed by the Police related to this trial. I doubt she's being called to testify.

Thanks, I figured that had to be the case. I remembered that you had posted about the name being given out wrong - and I went back to the depo to see what he did say about her.

 

[ncsu95]

Didn't we hear that BC didn't have the phone on the first trip to HT and had to make a call to locate it? Or am I simply confusing all the details here? If there was a call at 6:05 that was answered within that 1 sec (meaning it didn't go to voice mail), there would be no need to "locate" the phone later, right? :waitasec:

He could have had it at 6:05 and then set it somewhere or left on a counter and forgot where. So he called it to hear the ring. I've done that before.

 

[JiminWilton]

So out on my afternoon walk, listening to Clark Howard and C-Span podcasts, I had this great idea...

WRAL! Hey, WRAL! Run the trial audio through that speech processor that clips out the dead space between words (and those three minute pauses between questions), burn them into MP3 files and let us download.

The last three days would take about two hours and leave us lots of time to get something productive done.

 

[ncsu95]

Things don't seem to be coming in when you expect, like the necklace. As snowshuze said, I thought it was going to be introduced right after the discussion of jewelry on the body. It wasn't. So there is still a lot of stuff that we know should be in evidence and we're still waiting for it.

What's frustrating me from the prosecution is that their case seems so scattered. They present stuff to build a foundation on it, but then move to something else without getting to the real evidence of what they built the foundation for. Like the timing of calling Mrs. Rentz. Why would they call her right after calling the people who found the body, etc., but before the medical examiner? It just seems like you want to show everything associated with the body sequentially (ie, from discovery to examination) instead of throwing in Mrs. Rentz testimony. Same thing with the at&t guy today. Now who knows how long it will be before we hear the rest of the cell story. It's just frustrating.

 

[hotpinkstef]

Onion News now reporting that juror in misconduct probe overheard saying "When does prosecution get to present their case?" #coopertrial

 

[Maja]

He could have had it at 6:05 and then set it somewhere or left on a counter and forgot where. So he called it to hear the ring. I've done that before.

I've been on hunt for my phone while I'm talking on it!!! Duuuh.

 

[ncsu95]

I've been on hunt for my phone while I'm talking on it!!! Duuuh.

I think we've all had those moments (especially us parents). My wife was frantically looking for her car keys earlier this week. She was holding them. I laughed.

 

[KellyCrash]

Just tacking on here because I had a thought about this 'Krista mom' thing. These girls were very young when their mom was killed. Two thoughts I have, first, when one is adopted, regardless of age, *usually* one eventually comes around to calling their adopted mother, mom. Second thought, I remember when I was little, back in the stoneage, on occasion calling one of my teachers 'mom', without thinking. As I said, these children were so young, I'm thinking something like 'Krista-mom', might not be as strange as it's often made out to be by some. It's not like Nancy is ever coming back to reclaim her role. And I'd bet money her family hasn't hidden all trace of her from her children. I'd guess her pictures are still around them, stories about their mom, Nancy, being told to the children, etc. When little children are hurt, or frightened, or have a NEED, who do they usually call out for? "mummy"/'mommy'. These girls were so little, so traumatized, having someone, some person to refer to as 'mommy', is that so bad? JMT

The girls have always called Krista "Krista Mum" (or is it Mom?) I saw an interview with her where she talked about it. Ever since they could talk.