State v Bradley Cooper - March 22, 2011

[LyndyLoo]

Believe NC was last seen minutes in to 7/12 and found the evening of 7/14.

TY....Bottomline is she was really only missing less than 48 hours...and as for that hair..I think it was a stray hair that floated there when put in the trunk..(No death banding).. I also agree he did this in the dead of the night..kids in bed sleeping...then dumped like garbage half dressed...

Speculations..Brad did this when nancy was sleeping ..from behind..then carried her to trunk of car..likely had it in the garage...then re-coinoitered the vehicles to put her car in garage.....Also dont think Nancy had ever been in the trunk of Brad's vehicle..as ot appears they lived completely separate lives!!!

Gas spillage as an excuse to clean trunk is a ruse..Gas would have been evident when looked at..vaccum and wiping would NOT remove that Odor! No Way Jose!!

 

[ncsu95]

I know most people posting here are in the 100% guilty box. As I've said, I'm clearly on the fence. My issue is that looking at Brad's story with an unbiased view (I don't feel I have a bias in this case), I honestly haven't seen anything yet where the explanation was unreasonable. I know most of you are completely opposite...but that's my view and opinion. It doesn't mean I believe what is being said. But I can see how things happened as he said they did. Now I keep waiting for the prosecution to show me something that makes it impossible for his story to be true. And that just hasn't happened yet. And I'm not talking about her friends views of what he usually does or never does. They didn't live with him and only heard Nancy's view. So those things were said with bias. I just need something to make me go feel he said wasn't possible.

 

[RaleighNC]

She was snacking and drinking at a party until just after midnight (it can't be said that she stopped eating at 7 or 10), and there was nothing in her stomach except some onion remains (normally takes longer to digest). Her alcohol level (0.6) wasn't high (after 6 beer/wine drinks) but could be consistent with naturally produced alcohol from decomposition. She should have had a higher alcohol level after that many drinks.

I haven't seen anything to suggest that she was murdered as soon as she arrived at home, and the door to her being murdered at around 7:30 am seems to still be wide open.

I am thinking you mean .06....


And - SG - about the 4 AM TOD thought on your parts - WHERE do you think the murder occurred?

I ask this because I am not sure I have seen anything that would indicate that there was any sort of struggle in the bedroom (where she would have been sleeping I assume at 4 AM after coming in at midnight and being a bit tipsy) and instead things seem to focus on the entry foyer.

Would have been dangerous to kill her upstairs so close to the children and how do you time it? And how do you not leave SOME evidence - esp on the mattress? You thinking he lured her out of bed somehow?

the BAC fits with 4AM, as does the digestion - but I don't think that allows him enough time to do the TONS of laundry, scrubbing of floors, arranging of the garage, etc prior to 6ish - and again - that time increases risk that someone would be up and moving about in the neighborhood.

I am not sure I have a fully developed theory of my own yet - but it would be interesting to try to come up with one and then compare it to the one the prosecution paints.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Trials usually don't have a WOW factor to them, especially if you know all the evidence before hand.

This isn't Perry Mason!

Murder cases are more like puzzles, each piece of evidence by itself might not mean so much but when you put it all together it does. It will be the prosecutors job in closing to put all those little pieces together for the jury, in a nice detailed way.

Hopefully ADA Fitzhugh will be doing the closing for the state!

Indeed//most cases are totally circimstantial..and they are like mosaic's ..when their is No direct evidence..Pros. always has to BUILD their evidence to outline the circumstances..and rule out that there was no one else who would or could hae done this.....Have seen many convictions in these circumstances....Actually..IF someone saw it..that would be slam dunk..IF someone had a video of it...thats a slam dunk....I guess we have to be patient...its reallllly hard when you have a ADA who is sloooooow, and boring....(Sorry Mr. Cummings )

 

[SleuthyGal]

I just need something to make me go feel he said wasn't possible.

I'm not sure Brad said anything that wasn't *possible.* He described himself in a way that others did not believe (and found laughable), but to a stranger who doesn't know anything about the Coopers, you'd have no way of determining that.

So it's going to come down not to Brad's statements (except where he shows he lied and contradicted himself with his other statements) but to evidence that links him to the murder itself.

I'd say ANY computer searching for Fielding Dr area, from before Nancy's body being found, even if it's a month before, would look highly hinky. Yes, anything closest to 7/11 or 7/12 @ 6am would rank the highest, but I wouldn't exclude the week before if there was such a search found in the computer cache.

 

[SleuthyGal]

And - SG - about the 4 AM TOD thought on your parts - WHERE do you think the murder occurred?

I am thinking he snuck into the MBR and, while she was asleep, attacked her in bed. I think she woke up in time to understand that he was killing her. I think she scratched him, trying to get his hands or arms off of her (neck scratches). But she was no match for him. The guy is 6'4" tall and very strong (or at least was at that time).

As for evidence from her death (or after her death), I think he cleaned that MBR and the MBR bathroom, and probably washed Nancy's sheets. He washed the floors upstairs, not just downstairs. He washed the stair steps. It wasn't only the foyer area that got Brad's special cleaning services.

ETA: Obviously I don't agree with the prosecution theory that she was attacked as soon as she came home. I believe Brad is much sneakier than that. I think he had already decided he was going to kill her but he was biding his time.

 

[gorealtors]

Perhaps they also have evidence that Brad researched death by strangulation on his computer as well. Since it takes minutes to perform before the person dies, he might have researched it to make sure the deed got done.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm not sure Brad said anything that wasn't *possible.* He described himself in a way that others did not believe (and found laughable), but to a stranger who doesn't know anything about the Coopers, you'd have no way of determining that.

So it's going to come down not to Brad's statements (except where he shows he lied and contradicted himself with his other statements) but to evidence that links him to the murder itself.

I'd say ANY computer searching for Fielding Dr area, from before Nancy's body being found, even if it's a month before, would look highly hinky. Yes, anything closest to 7/11 or 7/12 @ 6am would rank the highest, but I wouldn't exclude the week before if there was such a search found in the computer cache.

Heck, if the prosecution could bring in one of his friends or coworkers that could say he said he never did laundry (or whatever), that would be more believable than her friends. I honestly believe his lack of household duties is highly exaggerated. I just simply don't believe it. I doubt very seriously she did his laundry at all...so we know he at least did that (and I think there was testimony to this as well). So saying he never does laundry is just not true. So is it unreasonable for him to help out with the laundry that morning given the extreme backup of laundry from her trip? It's not like she did it that week (give the amount that was allegedly done by Brad). And it was his first non-work day since they got back. How is that unreasonable?

 

[BrownRice]

I know most people posting here are in the 100% guilty box. As I've said, I'm clearly on the fence. My issue is that looking at Brad's story with an unbiased view (I don't feel I have a bias in this case), I honestly haven't seen anything yet where the explanation was unreasonable. I know most of you are completely opposite...but that's my view and opinion. It doesn't mean I believe what is being said. But I can see how things happened as he said they did. Now I keep waiting for the prosecution to show me something that makes it impossible for his story to be true. And that just hasn't happened yet. And I'm not talking about her friends views of what he usually does or never does. They didn't live with him and only heard Nancy's view. So those things were said with bias. I just need something to make me go feel he said wasn't possible.

I'm exactly where you are. On the fence. Not sure if guilty or just very unlucky. Need/want more information if I was a juror.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I know most people posting here are in the 100% guilty box. As I've said, I'm clearly on the fence. My issue is that looking at Brad's story with an unbiased view (I don't feel I have a bias in this case), I honestly haven't seen anything yet where the explanation was unreasonable. I know most of you are completely opposite...but that's my view and opinion. It doesn't mean I believe what is being said. But I can see how things happened as he said they did. Now I keep waiting for the prosecution to show me something that makes it impossible for his story to be true. And that just hasn't happened yet. And I'm not talking about her friends views of what he usually does or never does. They didn't live with him and only heard Nancy's view. So those things were said with bias. I just need something to make me go feel he said wasn't possible.

I agree with you 100%

 

[luckyme]

I know most people posting here are in the 100% guilty box. As I've said, I'm clearly on the fence. My issue is that looking at Brad's story with an unbiased view (I don't feel I have a bias in this case), I honestly haven't seen anything yet where the explanation was unreasonable. I know most of you are completely opposite...but that's my view and opinion. It doesn't mean I believe what is being said. But I can see how things happened as he said they did. Now I keep waiting for the prosecution to show me something that makes it impossible for his story to be true. And that just hasn't happened yet. And I'm not talking about her friends views of what he usually does or never does. They didn't live with him and only heard Nancy's view. So those things were said with bias. I just need something to make me go feel he said wasn't possible.

Im on the fence too! Just waiting! I believe he probably did it but i need some proof.

 

[NCEast]

Perhaps they also have evidence that Brad researched death by strangulation on his computer as well. Since it takes minutes to perform before the person dies, he might have researched it to make sure the deed got done.

I'm all for them finding computer evidence and I hope that's where the prosecution will finally start making progress. But we have to remember that this guy was very smart with gadgets, including computers. I can see him performing searches, but did he have the ability to totally obscure/erase/delete those searches from the hard drive(s) so that the crime lab guys could absolutely not detect it? I am just thinking out loud here but if he was so meticulous about cleaning up the house in the early morning hours and getting rid of all evidence I am thinking he did the same thing with the computers......

 

[SleuthyGal]

if the prosecution could bring in one of his friends or coworkers that could say he said he never did laundry

Both Clea & Mike Morwick (friends of Brad as well as Nancy) submitted affidavits. Take a look at those. Nancy considered Clea Morwick to be more Brad's friend (or at least she liked him). See what they have to say about that. Not sure a coworker of Brad's could testify about laundry. How the heck would they have seen it?

 

[luckyme]

Both Clea & Mike Morwick (friends of Brad as well as Nancy) submitted affidavits. Take a look at those. Nancy considered Clea Morwick to be more Brad's friend (or at least she liked him). See what they have to say about that. Not sure a coworker of Brad's could testify about laundry. How the heck would they have seen it?

so then nancy was really never a cleaning fanatic?

 

[ncsu95]

I'm all for them finding computer evidence and I hope that's where the prosecution will finally start making progress. But we have to remember that this guy was very smart with gadgets, including computers. I can see him performing searches, but did he have the ability to totally obscure/erase/delete those searches from the hard drive(s) so that the crime lab guys could absolutely not detect it? I am just thinking out loud here but if he was so meticulous about cleaning up the house in the early morning hours and getting rid of all evidence I am thinking he did the same thing with the computers......

I doubt very seriously they find any search results that will amount to anything. Heck, all the browsers now include private browsing options that don't keep a record of anything on the computer. You think he wasn't smart enough to know computer searches would be checked?

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm all for them finding computer evidence and I hope that's where the prosecution will finally start making progress. But we have to remember that this guy was very smart with gadgets, including computers. I can see him performing searches, but did he have the ability to totally obscure/erase/delete those searches from the hard drive(s) so that the crime lab guys could absolutely not detect it? I am just thinking out loud here but if he was so meticulous about cleaning up the house in the early morning hours and getting rid of all evidence I am thinking he did the same thing with the computers......

Kurtz has been telegraphing to us that there are incriminating computer searches found on Brad's PCs. First it was the hulabaloo about the eMachine (which turned out to be one of his rabbit holes). And he's asked police prosecution witnesses about computer hacking and network hacking at least once that I recall (and likely more than once). He also announced (Jury was out) that he intends to call an expert who will testify about computer searches and evidence being tampered. I don't think the courtroom cameras were on at this time. So, I believe the DA has something and yes, I believe Brad may have thought he got everything erased, but the FBI has better tools and more knowledge than 'ole gadgeteer Brad.

The only way to ensure that your computer isn't found to have been searching for a place to dump a body is to: completely destroy the computer in a fire to the point where the hard drive is gone. Or remove the hard drive and dump it in the middle of the ocean. Or...don't do a search like that in the first place on any computer that can be tied to you in any way at any time.

 

[CyberPro]

Yes, I tried watching the live feed of the trial. I lasted 30 minutes. I won't watch any more of that. It was a horrible as sitting in a classroom on a hot day with a boring monologue teacher putting you to sleep with the drone of the voice. Don't they have a class for lawyers to learn what NOT to do?

Yesterday I was high on morphine. Today I'm back to normal, on no pain drugs. I have no excuse to sleep through that testimony.

Glad to hear you are pain free at the moment! Still praying for you.

OT, but you are very descriptive. It brought back a strong memory of my 9th grade math teacher. The room had several windows, a few skylights and florescent lights. On normal days, she would have the blinds raised and light coming in the skylights, and the florescent lights would be on, but have a cloudy, overcast day and she would turn the florescent lights OFF. She had a slow, droning, nasal voice at all times, but when those lights were off on the overcast days.... it was a COMPLETE cure for insomnia. I nearly fractured my skull on my desktop my head would drop so fast.

 

[SleuthyGal]

so then nancy was really never a cleaning fanatic?

Who said Nancy was a 'cleaning fanatic' in the first place? Nancy was upset about old food left out and bugs in the house, when she came back from vacay.

 

[otto]

Okay. I was worried about you. :crazy: Seriously, that's where I am too. I think he likely did it, but haven't seen anything yet even remotely proving it.

What we heard from Nancy's mother is probably true of far too many marriages, not all of them resulting in the death of one spouse. It is very sad that Nancy felt so helpless, and that there were so few options for her without money from someone. Still, it seems quite possible that Nancy made it home safe, and even the bed (although the covers were pulled back) could have been slept in. Between stomach contents (generally unreliable) and bedcovers (regardless of what the one officer said), it looks like Nancy went to bed that night. If they got up at 4, chances are Nancy was not in a good mood, being that she would be a little hungover and tired. It even makes sense that she could have sent Brad to the store for one thing, and then another - claiming that she had no money so it was up to Brad to buy groceries. Given that they seemed to push each other's buttons, it even makes sense that Nancy would send him on two trips not one.

All the testimony about the car (grass, hair, brown stuff, clean trunk), without a time stamp, it could have happened at any time. All the evidence in the house is also coming up empty.

I wonder what the parents are thinking. I'm pretty sure Nancy's parents believe that Brad murdered her, but that is likely based on how he treated her and not solid evidence.

 

[otto]

I believe the ADA will present evidence of Brad searching on one of his computers for a place to dump Nancy's body...and I believe a map or area including Fielding Dr. will be revealed.

The defense will try and say it was the CPD or the FBI or someone in the 'hood hacked into his computer and did these searches.

That's what I am thinking we'll see in terms of 'gotcha' evidence.

Or ... they were discussing separation and selling the house, so why not look for new developments to move to. Even that doesn't mean murder.