State v Bradley Cooper - 3/28/11

[sunshine05]

I have to say I'm intrigued that most of you here are positive BC did this and I have to wonder why some people feel so strongly. I didn't follow this case from the beginning. I really only started looking into it when the trial started so maybe that's the difference. I didn't have 2 years of media influence putting the idea in my head he was guilty.

It seems like those in the "guilty" category are angry about others trying to be objective about the evidence and I wish I could understand that. I have a science background, worked as a chemist for many years and I think it's my instinct to look at everything with an open mind and scrutinize everything as thoroughly as possible.

I've always been against the death penalty because I have always felt that someone could be wrongly convicted and over the years with the ability to test for DNA, many capital cases have been overturned.

I just wish we could discuss the evidence without all of the snide remarks, sideways laughing icons, etc. toward people who are trying to analyze the evidence. Wouldn't it be the most awful thing to convict an innocent man? I don't think anyone here is of the ABB opinion, although we have been accused of it. I have an open mind and if I saw something convincing, it would make this case a lot easier for me. I haven't seen any "evidence" yet that can't easily be explained away. Really, I haven't seen any incriminating evidence at all. Which is why I struggle to understand how so many of you can feel so positive he is guilty.

 

[sunshine05]

LIE by omission....not telling the detective. What would be the big deal for him to say ..yeah after helping Nancy, I was late but stopped by Lowes. He blamed Nancy for his being late.....so he was aware of what he did that morning. The detective found the receipt...that is how he knew Brad went, not by Brad. So he lied by omission to me and I hope we find out why he felt the need to lie about that purchase. I'm sure there is more for them to bring this into the trial. We shall see either way soon.

I don't know. If I was suspected of murder, I don't know if I would volunteer that I purchased a drop cloth the day before, even if it was completely innocent. It doesn't sound good....just look at all the posts flying around about it here.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Following up on what SleuthyGal said, I think it is helpful for them to see how a presentation comes across to normal people who have not seen all the evidence. Someone here pointing out that they missed a point because we were left confused would certainly help them to clear up a point. (I used "point" too many times in that sentence but I'm sure you get the point.) It's not bad to monitor and adjust but remember that we know more than the jurors.

I think it's important for the ADAs to be aware of how they come across and who has the better presentation skills (Amy & Boz) and who does not. I think they've lived with the case for 2+ yrs and they need to remember that the jury needs things to be as simple and as clear as possible.

 

[Lori59]

That was me!

I am occasionally smart...and other times...not so much. :waitasec:

That was a great point. I hadn't thought of that but with her being found in the jogging bra and Brad's sayin she went jogging.....again....devil in the details! Why wasn't she wearing her ponytail and cap?

 

[lib's mom]

Maybe he forgot he went. It was a quick trip. It's not like he was trying to hide it. The receipt was on the floor of his vehicle. He had plenty of time to get rid of the receipt if he was trying to hide it. It wasn't used, so why does it matter?

It matters because he never mentioned it. His beer run to Lowes Food before the barbeque would have been a quick trip I would imagine, and he didn't forget that one.

Then almost 3 months later in custody depositions he is asked about errands on 7/11, he hedges his bets and says (paraphrasing) "maybe. It's possible. I don't remember." He knows good and well were he was that Friday and he knows better than to turn Alice Stubbs loose on that information, on camera.

Brad is many things, but stupid he is not.

 

[Lori59]

I don't know. If I was suspected of murder, I don't know if I would volunteer that I purchased a drop cloth the day before, even if it was completely innocent. It doesn't sound good....just look at all the posts flying around about it here.

I know but he went into details about helping Nancy with kids and being late for work...If it was innocently purchased for her painting jobs..what's the big deal? I think it says something...:twocents:

 

[SleuthyGal]

That was a great point. I hadn't thought of that but with her being found in the jogging bra and Brad's sayin she went jogging.....again....devil in the details! Why wasn't she wearing her ponytail and cap?

Well those who believe the random Lochmere jogger attackers du-jour took Nancy's Tshirt, shorts, socks and two shoes (apparently 2 left shoes at that), will also add in any ponytail holder and BB cap to the souvenir mix. It's all so very, very innocent, you see.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I have to say I'm intrigued that most of you here are positive BC did this and I have to wonder why some people feel so strongly. I didn't follow this case from the beginning. I really only started looking into it when the trial started so maybe that's the difference. I didn't have 2 years of media influence putting the idea in my head he was guilty.

It seems like those in the "guilty" category are angry about others trying to be objective about the evidence and I wish I could understand that. I have a science background, worked as a chemist for many years and I think it's my instinct to look at everything with an open mind and scrutinize everything as thoroughly as possible.

I've always been against the death penalty because I have always felt that someone could be wrongly convicted and over the years with the ability to test for DNA, many capital cases have been overturned.

I just wish we could discuss the evidence without all of the snide remarks, sideways laughing icons, etc. toward people who are trying to analyze the evidence. Wouldn't it be the most awful thing to convict an innocent man? I don't think anyone here is of the ABB opinion, although we have been accused of it. I have an open mind and if I saw something convincing, it would make this case a lot easier for me. I haven't seen anything convincing yet that can't easily be explained away.

I agree. I too am interested in the case as a whole and what has and has not been presented so far. I haven't seen anything that clearly points to guilt or innocence. I also feel there is a lot of ganging up against anybody who points out something that goes against the "Brad did it" theory.

We have a justice system for a reason and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. As of yet they have not proven their case in my mind. That doesn't make me ABB it makes me pro-justice system.

 

[jmflu]

I have to say I'm intrigued that most of you here are positive BC did this and I have to wonder why some people feel so strongly. I didn't follow this case from the beginning. I really only started looking into it when the trial started so maybe that's the difference. I didn't have 2 years of media influence putting the idea in my head he was guilty.

It seems like those in the "guilty" category are angry about others trying to be objective about the evidence and I wish I could understand that. I have a science background, worked as a chemist for many years and I think it's my instinct to look at everything with an open mind and scrutinize everything as thoroughly as possible.

I've always been against the death penalty because I have always felt that someone could be wrongly convicted and over the years with the ability to test for DNA, many capital cases have been overturned.

I just wish we could discuss the evidence without all of the snide remarks, sideways laughing icons, etc. toward people who are trying to analyze the evidence. Wouldn't it be the most awful thing to convict an innocent man? I don't think anyone here is of the ABB opinion, although we have been accused of it. I have an open mind and if I saw something convincing, it would make this case a lot easier for me. I haven't seen anything convincing yet that can't easily be explained away.

Really? Wow, that blows me away...how can anyone easily explain away his naming the one thing she was wearing?! You don't think that was an amazing coinkeydink that instead of asking if it was Nancy, he immediately pointed out the one undergarment she was wearing, instead of something, say, that one would wear on the outside?

No one wants an innocent man to go to jail. But an innocent woman died, and it isn't right to list her fallacies as if she were responsible for her own death. And they aren't even proven to be true.

No one wants to be put in TO or banned. But you'll also see no interaction with comments made in a hateful vein towards Nancy. She was popular and well-liked, a lot more so than her jerk of a husband.

Justice for Nancy and peace to all.

 

[CrimeAddict]

Sooooo...

let's see.

We have:

- Brad lying about cell phone call log/ability to access
- Brad not mentioning his trip to Lowe's and instead saying his wife/daughters made him late for work
- Brad not mentioning the additional calls on his cell phone
- Brad placing himself at home when the 2 calls from HOME to BC cell were made
- Brad's disappearing shoes that were seen on video 7/11/08
- Brad wearing different shoes, 17 min apart, at Harris Teeter
- Brad wearing winter type pullover zipped all the way up in 70 degree humid July weather (and sweating/wiping his forehead).
- Nancy's missing running shoes (two LEFT shoes from different pairs were missing)
- Brad's cell phone in Mommy's purse after he was arrested

Thank you for pulling all that out. I have not been able to watch anything due to buffering today, was a rough day for my obsession.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I have to say I'm intrigued that most of you here are positive BC did this and I have to wonder why some people feel so strongly. I didn't follow this case from the beginning. I really only started looking into it when the trial started so maybe that's the difference. I didn't have 2 years of media influence putting the idea in my head he was guilty.

It seems like those in the "guilty" category are angry about others trying to be objective about the evidence and I wish I could understand that. I have a science background, worked as a chemist for many years and I think it's my instinct to look at everything with an open mind and scrutinize everything as thoroughly as possible.

I've always been against the death penalty because I have always felt that someone could be wrongly convicted and over the years with the ability to test for DNA, many capital cases have been overturned.

I just wish we could discuss the evidence without all of the snide remarks, sideways laughing icons, etc. toward people who are trying to analyze the evidence. Wouldn't it be the most awful thing to convict an innocent man? I don't think anyone here is of the ABB opinion, although we have been accused of it. I have an open mind and if I saw something convincing, it would make this case a lot easier for me. I haven't seen any "evidence" yet that can't easily be explained away. Really, I haven't seen any incriminating evidence at all. Which is why I struggle to understand how so many of you can feel so positive he is guilty.

I'm in the camp of "inclinded to believe he is guilty" but "not convinced". There are a lot of things against him that don't prove guilt but are also not the actions/words of an innocent man. There are a lot of inconsistencies in what he has said and that is not the characteristic of an innocent man. I know that NC was murdered and I know that it happened on July 12th, 2008. That narrows it down and her husband is definitely a likely suspect. So far there is nothing to change my mind to knock him off the #1 spot. MOO

 

[cityslick]

I have to say I'm intrigued that most of you here are positive BC did this and I have to wonder why some people feel so strongly. I didn't follow this case from the beginning. I really only started looking into it when the trial started so maybe that's the difference. I didn't have 2 years of media influence putting the idea in my head he was guilty.

It seems like those in the "guilty" category are angry about others trying to be objective about the evidence and I wish I could understand that. I have a science background, worked as a chemist for many years and I think it's my instinct to look at everything with an open mind and scrutinize everything as thoroughly as possible.

I've always been against the death penalty because I have always felt that someone could be wrongly convicted and over the years with the ability to test for DNA, many capital cases have been overturned.

I just wish we could discuss the evidence without all of the snide remarks, sideways laughing icons, etc. toward people who are trying to analyze the evidence. Wouldn't it be the most awful thing to convict an innocent man? I don't think anyone here is of the ABB opinion, although we have been accused of it. I have an open mind and if I saw something convincing, it would make this case a lot easier for me. I haven't seen any "evidence" yet that can't easily be explained away. Really, I haven't seen any incriminating evidence at all. Which is why I struggle to understand how so many of you can feel so positive he is guilty.

I have to agree. It's ok to have a difference of opinion, there is no need to be condesending. I don't appreciate being called an ABB because I didnt want the guy to burn at the stake from day one

 

[borndem]

I agree with the drop cloth NOT being suspicious ON ITS OWN - as they were doing painting on Wallsburg Court in order to get the house ready for sale. It would make sense to buy some supplies.

HOWEVER....

I do find it suspicious that the running late on Friday was attributed to spending time with or helping Nancy and the kids and not the Lowes trip. And driving to Lowes, buying something, then on to work took TIME.

Being evasive about the trip, making himself look like doting husband and not saying what really took the time is an unnecessary diversion / untruth. If he did it FOR HER - i.e. "I picked up a drop cloth so Nancy could continue painting our house to ready it for sale" - I would buy that. however, I believe at that time he was telling police they were in the process of reconciling?

Evasive. And usually when folks lie or evade telling the truth about SIMPLE things, there's bigger things hiding behind them.

And the other thing - if you always tell the truth - it's easy to remember. Much conflicting data - as one lie almost always leads to another and that is what trips people up - they simply can't remember the complexity of the ruse they have created.

BBM - Very good point. In a situation where you decide to lie, you then have to keep lying to bolster-up the initial lie. Usually when you're in a spot like this, you get nervous and embellish with more lies and detail to make it sound "natural." Baffle 'em with BS. And I don't think it matters how glib your lies are -- they will chase you down and there you are.

It's just human to do this. Have you ever caught a child in a spot like this (children are terrible liars -- it's a learned craft, you know), and you can just see it..on their faces, in their fidgets (as I think we saw in the depos with BC). And arrogance just make one bolder....

The old web is getting more tangled by the minute.

 

[kellyroll]

I don't know. If I was suspected of murder, I don't know if I would volunteer that I purchased a drop cloth the day before, even if it was completely innocent. It doesn't sound good....just look at all the posts flying around about it here.

But purposely not mentioning it sounds worse. :twocents:

 

[SleuthyGal]

I can understand waiting for all the evidence to see how it fits together and if it fits together. It is very natural in circumstantial cases to (try to) explain the innocence and normalcy of each and every item submitted as evidence. Only when taken together as a whole can a picture emerge. Sure, each item or behavioral oddity can be a mere coincidence. At some point one starts to question just how much coincidence can befall one person within a short period of time.

And...add in that person's lies and then you start to wonder what's really going on.

What I don't understand is when some facts presented in court through submission of state's evidence or through witness testimony are restated incorrectly or even stated completely opposite, during discussions. I don't understand when most every witness is seen as lying on the stand. I don't see how that can logically be occurring. Perhaps I'm naive in that I think witnesses are being truthful, but I have no reason to believe they are not.

 

[jmflu]

People who are on the fence are not ABBs! They have been great contributors to the discussion. Fair-minded in most cases! No one's talking about fencers, golly. They see points on both sides.

 

[sunshine05]

I'm in the camp of "inclinded to believe he is guilty" but "not convinced". There are a lot of things against him that don't prove guilt but are also not the actions/words of an innocent man. There are a lot of inconsistencies in what he has said and that is not the characteristic of an innocent man. I know that NC was murdered and I know that it happened on July 12th, 2008. That narrows it down and her husband is definitely a likely suspect. So far there is nothing to change my mind to knock him off the #1 spot. MOO

See, but I'm not seeing all the inconsistencies. Maybe I'm missing something but I assure you I am not biased. I want whoever did this to pay but we have to be certain we have the right person.

I find more inconsistencies with the prosecution witnesses and CPD protocols of handling evidence than I do with BC and that doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Tipstaff]

If Brad really stopped by Lowe's for the purpose of doing something to help Nancy, he would have exploited it by using it as another example of how great a husband he was.

People who are on the fence are not ABBs! They have been great contributors to the discussion. Fair-minded in most cases! No one's talking about fencers, golly. They see points on both sides.

And this ladies and gentlemen is what make this the best board to read! Love it, love it. Long time lurker here and this board has always offered opinions on both sides.

 

[jmflu]

Isn't there an actual thread on the inconsistencies?

 

[kellyroll]

Isn't there an actual thread on the inconsistencies?

Great idea!