State v. Bradley Cooper 03/16/11

[Toadlily]

GOLO is a good cross section of the area....kinda like the jurors.
If you took a straw poll over there, betcha Cooper walks (at least based on testimony to date)

I think that a lot of the folks commenting on GOLO really haven't read that much about the case. They probably read the articles that WRAL puts up and that's about it. Folks on here are typically a lot more invested in the case. They've read the court docs, search warrants etc.

I joined WS after doing a Google search on Nancy Cooper and coming up with a link here. I believe it was possibly even before she had been found. I came across missing flyers when I was walking my dog around Lake Johnson and wanted to know more.

I will say that I immediately thought that BC did it. Let's be honest, he's not very likable and he certainly has a motive. (and this was before I'd read all the affidavits.)

And even though I am probably 80% sure that he did it, I watch and hope like hell that he did do it. Because if for whatever reason he didn't do this, then I feel absolutely horrible for the guy. He lost his kids and his life.

So I watch and knit hoping to find that he is guilty because otherwise I feel terrible what he's having to go through. I'm still on the fence about it all. I'd feel better if there was something more concrete and more scientific to prove this.

But back to the GOLO thing--you have to take a lot of the posters on there with a grain of salt. The most vociferous "Brad is innocent" one is wildcat who I am pretty sure says that about every murder trial to get folks amped up. I believe that during the Matthew Silliman case, he was on GOLO saying that they should be freed when they turn 18 as they are minors etc.

 

[Cheyenne130]

But... even with less than a casual interest a guy might notice what his wife was wearing on most excercise activities.

IIRC BC said that he did not SEE NC leave that AM. He said he was in his office and heard NC say she needed a t-shirt, then say "never mind" and shortly afterward heard the door shut. OK, the normal assumption here is she found a shirt, then left.... what gets him in a bit of a quandry here is he said "She usually wears a sports bra", but CC testified that she did not ever run in this.... still some wiggle room. He could say that she wore the bra under the shirt, but CC would only see the shirt.

CC did say that she wore a sports bra so she was aware. She said that she never ran in just a sports bra. She always wore a T-shirt. And you are correct that Brad did testify that she yelled upstairs to him asking about a specific T-shirt and then yelled back nevermind, I found it so he should have indicated that she wore a t-shirt and more specifically the one she was looking for. (I do find it hard to believe that she would be asking him where her shirt was or that she wouldn't just wear a different one. I found that exchange to be hard to accept as true.)

 

[ncsu95]

I know, right...we should all be able to try, convict and execute our neighbors because we don't like them.

Like it or not those GOLO people are all too familiar with the culture of this area and that group. Not everyone here is discussing possibilities...they have already found him guilty and have no interest in real evidence. It is a sad representation of the human condition.

Correct. It's probably 80-90% people that are 100% convinced of his guilt, 1% that believes he's innocent, and 9-19% that are on the fence and want to hear the evidence before making up their mind.

What gets frustrating is that I almost feel apologetic for questioning testimony or theories presented because of the reaction that it gets.

 

[ncsu95]

I find opposing viewpoints refreshing in a sense. It makes me relook at some things that I might have taken for granted. I saw an article from one of the area news sources (triangle something?) that indicated that Brad was asked what Nancy was wearing when he answered about the sports bra. If true, that sheds a whole different light on what we were told today. If not, it just makes it EVEN WORSE that we can't hear it with our own hears. I prefer truth to speculation.

Exactly...it sucks we can't hear this testimony. But the reactions over a tweet, without the context of what was actually asked is ridiculous. If (and I'm not saying this happened) Nancy regularly ran in a sports bra, and if she actually did ask him to throw down a t-shirt then said never mind, it's possible he answered that because it was what he believe she wore. We have very little context about what sports bras she has, what she typically ran in (other than the testimony from CC who didn't always run with NC).

 

[Cheyenne130]

Correct. It's probably 80-90% people that are 100% convinced of his guilt, 1% that believes he's innocent, and 9-19% that are on the fence and want to hear the evidence before making up their mind.

What gets frustrating is that I almost feel apologetic for questioning testimony or theories presented because of the reaction that it gets.

Please keep questioning. If the questions are sincere (and I believe that yours are) I find it helpful in maintaining a balance and searching for the truth. I'm no longer on the fence and so far nothing has moved me back on, but I would be happy to get back up there or move to the other side if something is presented that shows the defendant in a different light.

 

[CyberPro]

CC did say that she wore a sports bra so she was aware. She said that she never ran in just a sports bra. She always wore a T-shirt. And you are correct that Brad did testify that she yelled upstairs to him asking about a specific T-shirt and then yelled back nevermind, I found it so he should have indicated that she wore a t-shirt and more specifically the one she was looking for. (I do find it hard to believe that she would be asking him where her shirt was or that she wouldn't just wear a different one. I found that exchange to be hard to accept as true.)

OK, this just now occurred to me (a little slow sometimes) but I am trying to put myself in a position like BC, but be innocent.

NC goes out for a run, and never comes back. She does not have money, keys(?), car. She has been missing for a while, a couple of days at this point and people have been out searching for her. A body is found, and they have identified her via dental records.... I would think she might have been hit by a car or something, but so far as we have heard, he did not ask WHAT HAPPENED?? - How it happened? What is UP with that??

 

[ncsu95]

OK, this just now occurred to me (a little slow sometimes) but I am trying to put myself in a position like BC, but be innocent.

NC goes out for a run, and never comes back. She does not have money, keys(?), car. She has been missing for a while, a couple of days at this point and people have been out searching for her. A body is found, and they have identified her via dental records.... I would think she might have been hit by a car or something, but so far as we have heard, he did not ask WHAT HAPPENED?? - How it happened? What is UP with that??

We have no idea what he asked because we couldn't hear the freaking testimony :banghead:

 

[calgary123]

What was brought up in the cross? I had to take a call during the testimony.

In direct, many points were "scored". It looked good for the prosecution. They went through the lengthy training of the dog, how it was trained, how it learned to detect specific odors, that it can distinguish human odors, etc etc. The dog had extensive initial training. Then they talk that the dog has 2 training sessions per month to keep his skills and training up.

The testimony then goes, despite the dog trying and trying, it could only get Nancy's scent inside the house, but not outside the doors. While not said directly, the implication, and what I took this to mean, is that Nancy must not have left the house from either the front or back door that morning.

This seems like another "small piece" of the puzzle until the cross.

In direct the officer said he showed up at the scene 12-14 hours after she was reported to have gone running. In cross, he admits his notes said 14 hours after. This seems like a small score, but then....

Defense asks, out of all those training sessions, what's the longest time delay from a track being made to the dog being tasked to follow it.

The answer? 7 hours.

Boom. No more questions.

I still think he did it, but the direct exam was misleading and the prosection really dropped the ball here. Their job is to seek the truth, and they put misleading evidence forward knowing full well there was more to the story.

This is also the highlight for the defense so far. Lots of other points for the prosecution scored today but a stunt like this makes me more critical of the evidence.

 

[otto]

I find it very interesting that Brad inquired whether Nancy had been at the gym at 2:45 pm, and that automatically registered as her having been there. That's very odd, and I have to wonder if Brad knew that an inquiry would translate into it looking like she had been there. That is something that looks like forethought and planning.

 

[rwesafe]

Correct. It's probably 80-90% people that are 100% convinced of his guilt, 1% that believes he's innocent, and 9-19% that are on the fence and want to hear the evidence before making up their mind.

What gets frustrating is that I almost feel apologetic for questioning testimony or theories presented because of the reaction that it gets.

It is frustrating...but I don't feel apologetic. The testimony has been questionable. If you look at the GOLO comments from 2 years ago to now, you will see that we are not the only ones that question the validity of statements made or actions taken based on what was known at the time. There will not come a day in my life that I feel apprehensive about voicing INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. It is the way it should be. I don't fault those with differing opinions...unitl they say that I am not entitled to mine...that is controlling and we all know how they feel about that :crazy:

 

[CrimeAddict]

OK, this just now occurred to me (a little slow sometimes) but I am trying to put myself in a position like BC, but be innocent.

NC goes out for a run, and never comes back. She does not have money, keys(?), car. She has been missing for a while, a couple of days at this point and people have been out searching for her. A body is found, and they have identified her via dental records.... I would think she might have been hit by a car or something, but so far as we have heard, he did not ask WHAT HAPPENED?? - How it happened? What is UP with that??

That kind of viewpoint makes sense, because if it was a normal person whose spouse was missing one would only imagine how worried they would be even if it was someone who you are no longer in love with but at this point they were roomates and she was the mother of his children, you'd think any "reasonable person" would be concerned, even distraught. I know we don't know how each individual would act in any situation but even a little emotion and confusion, even hysteria would be expected.

 

[johnfear]

Maybe Brad should just walk over to the deputy and put handcuffs on himself, and surrender.

But that wouldn't be any fun.

I had an appt. today, earlier. Just spent forever catching up to this page, and now there's no way to find out what's going on in the courtroom (as of now).

I'm taking a nap then.

Hope things are okay with you. I know we don't know each other, but wanted to let you know I was sending you positive vibes.

 

[Cheyenne130]

In direct, many points were "scored". It looked good for the prosecution. They went through the lengthy training of the dog, how it was trained, how it learned to detect specific odors, that it can distinguish human odors, etc etc. The dog had extensive initial training. Then they talk that the dog has 2 training sessions per month to keep his skills and training up.

The testimony then goes, despite the dog trying and trying, it could only get Nancy's scent inside the house, but not outside the doors. While not said directly, the implication, and what I took this to mean, is that Nancy must not have left the house from either door that morning.

This seems like another "small piece" of the puzzle until the cross.

In direct the officer said he showed up at the scene 12-14 hours after she was reported to have gone running. In cross, he admits his notes said 14 hours after. This seems like a small score, but then....

Defense asks, out of all those training sessions, what's the longest time delay from a track being made to the dog being tasked to follow it.

The answer? 7 hours.

Boom. No more questions.

I still think he did it, but the direct exam was misleading and the prosection really dropped the ball here.

This is also the highlight for the defense so far.

I can't agree that the prosecution side of it was misleading. This was testimony that we actually got to hear so we didn't have to rely on someone omitting parts because they personally didn't find them relevant. The officer started out explaining that this one was not "clean" (my word, not his) because so many people had been in the area. He indicated that a recent article worn would have been more ideal. He indicated that Nancy's scent was strongest in the house. If those listening inferred that he meant that she never left the house, that was on them. I didn't get that impression from him.

I did feel that the defense finally did a decent job and didn't ask too many questions which would then elicit/allow the person on the stand to make the defense look even weaker.

 

[ncsu95]

In direct, many points were "scored". It looked good for the prosecution. They went through the lengthy training of the dog, how it was trained, how it learned to detect specific odors, that it can distinguish human odors, etc etc. The dog had extensive initial training. Then they talk that the dog has 2 training sessions per month to keep his skills and training up.

The testimony then goes, despite the dog trying and trying, it could only get Nancy's scent inside the house, but not outside the doors. While not said directly, the implication, and what I took this to mean, is that Nancy must not have left the house from either the front or back door that morning.

This seems like another "small piece" of the puzzle until the cross.

In direct the officer said he showed up at the scene 12-14 hours after she was reported to have gone running. In cross, he admits his notes said 14 hours after. This seems like a small score, but then....

Defense asks, out of all those training sessions, what's the longest time delay from a track being made to the dog being tasked to follow it.

The answer? 7 hours.

Boom. No more questions.

I still think he did it, but the direct exam was misleading and the prosection really dropped the ball here. Their job is to seek the truth, and they put misleading evidence forward knowing full well there was more to the story.

This is also the highlight for the defense so far. Lots of other points for the prosecution scored today but a stunt like this makes me more critical of the evidence.

Thank you. I was really curious about how long scent will last since we know she walked home from the Duncans house after midnight. So some of her scent would have been there depending on how long it lasts.

 

[otto]

How about a bunch of those incense sticks?

For some reason, I envision sticks that are about 2 feet in length that could be used in a child's game from long ago ... don't remember the name of the game (something rolls along the sticks ... something like that). The sticks were with 3 wooden ducks, so it sounds like a bit of a display of ducks with two sticks. It sounds like the sticks could be the murder weapon and that may have been an altercation near the front door.

 

[chicoliving]

Keep GOLO at GOLO. Discuss the trial but don't discuss these other places. Twitter is just fine.

 

[Cheyenne130]

For some reason, I envision sticks that are about 2 feet in length that could be used in a child's game from long ago ... don't remember the name of the game (something rolls along the sticks ... something like that). The sticks were with 3 wooden ducks, so it sounds like a bit of a display of ducks with two sticks. It sounds like the sticks could be the murder weapon and that may have been an altercation near the front door.

We know that she had her cell phone at the party. We know that her cell phone was found in the drawer in the foyer. I would love to know if that's where she always kept her phone.

 

[jumpstreet]

I find it very interesting that Brad inquired whether Nancy had been at the gym at 2:45 pm, and that automatically registered as her having been there. That's very odd, and I have to wonder if Brad knew that an inquiry would translate into it looking like she had been there. That is something that looks like forethought and planning.

I've been thinking about this one too... Here's what the article said-

"Dismukes said Brad Cooper also told him that Nancy Cooper's membership card had been swiped at her gym, Life Time Fitness, at 2:45 p.m. The detective later found out that an employee had entered her name to see if she checked in, which registered as a check-in but was generated by him inquiring".

Reading it, it's not 100% clear that the him (bolded) refers to Brad... or the LTF employee that did the check.

Theory: LTF employee knew/heard there was searching going on (this was 7/12), and decided just to check their system 'on a whim' for any access. [ Didn't know the query would register as a 'check-in' somehow ]

Later (somehow), Brad finds out (directly or indirectly), that LFT system shows a check-in @ 2:45, and so relays this information.

LE then later finds out that it wasn't a real check-in, but just a query.
---

Other theories to explain this seem weak- e.g. Brad himself made the query, and knew it would end up showing as a check-in. [ wouldn't make much sense... and the risk wouldn't justify any potential benefit ]. I rather think this part might not have been pre-planned or anything, but somehow made itself available, and went from there.

 

[CyberPro]

Thank you. I was really curious about how long scent will last since we know she walked home from the Duncans house after midnight. So some of her scent would have been there depending on how long it lasts.

See my previous posts. The scent will last much longer than 14 hours!

Now, the book I read was especially about Search and Rescue dogs, not K9 officers that are likely trained for Search and other things. I think that it is most likely that the K9 is a trained drug dog, but can search for missing persons, articles and will likely take down a bad guy.... kind of a "swiss army" K9....

 

[Coolmomof4]

I lived in Cary for 10 years also. We're in GA now, but visit our friends and family in Cary/Apex often. It is surreal that this happened right there, where I grew up.