State v Bradley Cooper 03/31/11

[SleuthSayer]

Have you considered some statements are similar because the victim, Nancy, told each of these friends what was going on with her? Think Nancy might use similar language? Think Nancy might be consistent in how she communicated to her friends? Nancy is sharing her words and thoughts and fears with all of us, through her friends, who were direct witnesses to what Nancy was thinking, and saying. Some of these statements are Nancy's words. Nancy would like to tell you herself, but ummm....she's dead, and this is the best she can do to get her story to the court.

I believe that they were relaying what she told them. However, it has been my experience from seeing some friends go through divorce that when a marriage fails, there is her version of what happened, his version of what happened, and then the truth. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Of course there are some cases where the fault is totally one sided, but I think that is probably rare.

In fact it is often the case that when a spouse is having an affair, he/she ends up demonizing the victim spouse. He/she paints the spouse as having been a terrible marriage partner from the beginning and heaps all of the fault on the spouse. This is called blame-shifting and it is a method that the guilty party uses in rationalizing their own guilt for having the affair. It's a way of justifying the affair in their own minds and to their friends. "He/she was a terrible husband/wife, so he/she drove me to the affair."

Now, I am not in any way suggesting that this is what was going on in Brad/Nancy's case, but just pointing out that from experience sometimes the person who is being portrayed as the demon is actually the victim. That's just what cheaters do. (google "infidelity blame shifting" to read more on that.)

That's why I would rather see the testimony of the friends (both Nancy's and Brad's) limited to things that those friends had personally witnessed. I just think that neither spouse that is going through a separation/divorce is particularly reliable for getting the straight story out of.

 

[jumpstreet]

[... respectfully snipped ... ]
Their evidence is non-existent and the mistakes made in this case means he will likely walk.

[...]

If he does walk this time around, can't the state just re-indict and try him again later (e.g. after finding some more evidence or something)? Not sure what the NC rules are on that one...

 

[borndem]

Back to the earrings again. Perhaps they were CZ and Nancy didn't know it.

I knew someone once who had the most beautiful engagement ring I have ever seen in my life. When she divorced, she tried to sell the ring and found out it was CZ. The setting was worthy of the diamonds she thought it held. Boy, was she hopping mad.

OTOH, my husband prefers quality diamonds that are small (3/4-1 karat). I am more gaudy than that, and when we were engaged, I asked for a 3-4 karat CZ solitaire in a 14 or 18 karat gold setting. He was horrified, and I received a real diamond, complete with papers about how wonderful it was -- it was graded every way possible.

I was not hopping mad, of course, but I sure didn't get my bargain gaudy fix!

Now finally to my point. Would it make a difference if the earrings were CZ? Could the killer have left them there, knowing they were practically worthless, but taken the diamond necklace because it was worth a pretty penny?

BBM -

Bingo - You've got it -- the killer certainly did take the necklace with him!

 

[SleuthyGal]

Step up. Call the cops BEFORE someone gets killed. Call anyone. You think I am accusing them of framing him? No. I am accusing them of exactly what I said...doing nothing. They didn't step up for her, but I'm to assume they watched it happen, in 2008? With all the resources available in this area?

You're kidding, right? Please admit you are totally joking. Because otherwise? This assumption is scary, wrong, scary and...did I mention scary?

Do you honestly think people can force a friend to do something? Another adult? Do you think Nancy's friends could just call the police and tell them they are worried and they should investigate Brad (before anything ever happened?). Seriously?

You think the prosecution, in presenting witnesses and eliciting testimony in court, is "guessing."

oh my.

 

[gracielee]

Step up. Call the cops BEFORE someone gets killed. Call anyone. You think I am accusing them of framing him? No. I am accusing them of exactly what I said...doing nothing. They didn't step up for her, but I'm to assume they watched it happen, in 2008? With all the resources available in this area?

I don't think anyone framed him. I think they assumed he did it and I was positing a theory that maybe it wasn't him. I wasn't there. I don't know. I am purely guessing.

Which at this point is exactly what the prosecution is doing.

You call the cops BEFORE someone gets killed and they say 'there's nothing we can do because nobody's been hurt'. Words to that effect. Believe me, I've tried it in the past.

I did read your second scenario. Still processing it, cause you knocked the wind out of me with the first. Have to think about it some more. I tend to think the murder happened earlier than you though. It's hard for me to comprehend the brutality of strangulation, will say that. The sheer strength it takes to strangle someone. Something I've never contemplated, because it's something I know I could never do, physically I mean.

 

[gracielee]

:liar:

Exactly!


:rollercoaster:

 

[ncsu95]

Yikes..I just looked up Cisco IP Phones..They are truly something else!!..Its not a wonder LE wanted to get their hands on that phone!!

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6844/index.html

They're so complicated and so invasive and so helpful for people doing what Brad needed to do for his job and whatever else he cared to use it for!! JMO

His phones couldn't do all that. They weren't video phones.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I believe that they were relaying what she told them. However, it has been my experience from seeing some friends go through divorce that when a marriage fails, there is her version of what happened, his version of what happened, and then the truth. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Of course there are some cases where the fault is totally one sided, but I think that is probably rare.

In fact it is often the case that when a spouse is having an affair, he/she ends up demonizing the victim spouse. He/she paints the spouse as having been a terrible marriage partner from the beginning and heaps all of the fault on the spouse. This is called blame-shifting and it is a method that the guilty party uses in rationalizing their own guilt for having the affair. It's a way of justifying the affair in their own minds and to their friends. "He/she was a terrible husband/wife, so he/she drove me to the affair."

Now, I am not in any way suggesting that this is what was going on in Brad/Nancy's case, but just pointing out that from experience sometimes the person who is being portrayed as the demon is actually the victim. That's just what cheaters do. (google "infidelity blame shifting" to read more on that.)

That's why I would rather see the testimony of the friends (both Nancy's and Brad's) limited to things that those friends had personally witnessed. I just think that neither spouse that is going through a separation/divorce is particularly reliable for getting the straight story out of.

You're equating a murder to a separation/divorce? Witnesses are on the stand, under oath, to tell the truth. They are offering what they know, what they were told, which provides state of mind of the VICTIM. The judge is applying the law to allow these statements in.

The main victim in this case is the deceased.

I realize you have had experiences with other people and divorces and all of that, but this... is not that. This is not a divorce.

A woman was murdered. Two little girls had their mother taken from them, forever. A divorce would have been a much happier outcome for Nancy and everyone who loved her, don't you think?

 

[Lori59]

You know, if I can shift this discussion back to Nancy for a second...I actually joined this site because of her case. She seems to be to be such a great person. Moving to another country, having her children, she was a young and active lady by all accounts. She had GREAT friends, stayed in shape, tried for years to repair a doomed marriage, loved her family, was a very active mom with her children, helped others and seemed to be liked on the spot by those who met her in all circles. It is just a tragedy that someone that seemed to live life to it's fullest and kept keeping on, was taken at such a young age.

 

[jumpstreet]

[... respectfully snipped ... ]

He choked and killed her. Then he put her in the trunk and drove BACK to Harris Teeter. He didn't dump her then. He dumped her a little later in the morning. He put the television up and turned it on so the kids would stay in their room and he drove off with NC in the trunk. This is why she was so close to the road. He backed her up and slung/carried/rolled/dropped her.

[...]

Interesting theory - thanks for sharing JF... Only thought is the later in the day it gets (especially after sun-up), the more likely someone in the discovery site neighborhood would have seen the BMW coming and going. [ I'm still amazed no one did... no one walking their dog in the AM... no one looking out their window, etc... well, at least no one we've heard from ... yet... maybe tomorrow... ]

 

[gracielee]

Well, I happen to still think he did it too. So, I'm hoping they've got the evidence to roll out too.

Your points are great ones. It's a lot of why I don't buy the counter narrative. They seriously abduct her in a van, strip her like that and then dump her so close? That seems unlikely.

I don't know the credibility of the eyewitnesses either. The fact is that Lochmere is very popular for exercise as you probably know and as you point out even early in the morning there's a reasonable amount of foot traffic (and bike!). For years I ran and biked there and all the associated roads. When the case came down, I didn't recognize Nancy. I wasn't in the neighborhood when she went missing but I certainly was there that time of day many, many times.

And you see women running together, alone, with or without dogs, etc., etc.

Abduction is always possible, but it seems unlikely to me for some of the very reasons you point out.

I'm not throwing in the towel either. The case isn't over until it is over and I have no feel for how the jury sees any of this either of course.

And so convient, running/abductions, I mean. Now all these lying cheating husbands will be encouraging their wives to go running early in the morning when the Hawaiian, Hispanic, Mormon van-drivers/riders are out prowling. :waitasec:

 

[jumpstreet]

Yikes..I just looked up Cisco IP Phones..They are truly something else!!..Its not a wonder LE wanted to get their hands on that phone!!

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6844/index.html

They're so complicated and so invasive and so helpful for people doing what Brad needed to do for his job and whatever else he cared to use it for!! JMO

His phones couldn't do all that. They weren't video phones.

Looks like possibly a description for a softphone... (pc based).

 

[johnfear]

Interesting theory - thanks for sharing JF... Only thought is the later in the day it gets (especially after sun-up), the more likely someone in the discovery site neighborhood would have seen the BMW coming and going. [ I'm still amazed no one did... no one walking their dog in the AM... no one looking out their window, etc... well, at least no one we've heard from ... yet... maybe tomorrow... ]

That's also why I am so stuck on 2nd degree murder (despite the strangulation) in this case. I can't even make felony murder stick. I kept thinking they might go with felony stalking (but she stayed) or felony assault (but they can't find it) and make the resulting murder stronger.

Drives me bonkers.

 

[gritguy]

-snipped-

I'm glad you'll be able to provide some of your experiences/perspective, having tried court cases. I got my J.D. from Google University and CourtTV--an impressive combination, no? :biggrin: :wink: :waitasec:

You guys have a much better command of the case than I do. I'm turning here for reference on what's happening. I did watch a lot when I got home. Particularly I began with, though they are not evidence or argument, the opening statements to see the outline of things.

I expected, in my opinion, the prosecution to lay out points more forcefully and really bang home some key things. I was surprised when the ADA said there are things that "don't quite add up." You're sending the guy to jail - they need to totally add up! Well, I was never a district attorney but those I had the pleasure to work with would have you leaving an offering in the plate when the last word of the opening finally evaporated - they really got you fired up about the injustice you were there to address.

The DA approach here to me has really spent a lot of time on showing Brad to be an all around bad guy liar, in the opinion of many people. I think they've got him on being a liar. That's consistent with the opening, but it leaves me thinking yes, yes but give me the evidence he actually did it, most particularly the telling points that paint his activity as inconsistent with normal routines but consistent with what would have been necessary to cover up the murder.

That's just an opinion. I've seen comments here that the defense cross has been annoying - I'd like to watch some of that.

 

[gracielee]

Johnfear,

I've wondered a scenario like that too. A scenario where the call was not spoofed and she could have had coffee. Given Brad claims a child was up at 4 or so, I figure that is either true or cover for activity at the house around that time that he worried people might have noticed (lights, noise whatever). So, the murder would be then or later.

The idea of murder when she arrived home runs into the phone call and caffeine obstacles.

The ME said the caffeine could be up to 24 hours earlier. So the caffeine doesn't really trouble me. Diet coke after coming home that night too. I'm always thirsty after a night of drinking. Still waiting on the generated phone call evidence.

 

[gritguy]

And so convient, running/abductions, I mean. Now all these lying cheating husbands will be encouraging their wives to go running early in the morning when the Hawaiian, Hispanic, Mormon van-drivers/riders are out prowling. :waitasec:

Lochmere always seemed to me pretty safe in the a.m. Friendly people out and enough that as pointed out by SG it'd be hard to make an abduction without a witness. At night, it got a bit more sketchy.

When I first came back to Raleigh, I got an apartment at The Park which sounds nice and backs up to Lochmere (and is across the street from the subject HT), but it had its adventures in tenants.

 

[ncsu95]

What did you think about the defense attorneys putting a picture of NC on their website claiming it was proof that she didn't always wear the necklace when the other friend proved to them that she did in fact have the necklace on in that picture? That to me is a lie.

You couldn't see the necklace in the picture. How does that make it a lie?

 

[gritguy]

The ME said the caffeine could be up to 24 hours earlier. So the caffeine doesn't really trouble me. Diet coke after coming home that night too. I'm always thirsty after a night of drinking. Still waiting on the generated phone call evidence.

Agree. The defense will kick it out there, but there is nothing to say she didn't grab a diet coke (or tea or something) when she got home, or even that she was killed during an early morning argument. It's consistent with the defense narrative that she went running but certainly does not prove it.

 

[gracielee]

You guys have a much better command of the case than I do. I'm turning here for reference on what's happening. I did watch a lot when I got home. Particularly I began with, though they are not evidence or argument, the opening statements to see the outline of things.

I expected, in my opinion, the prosecution to lay out points more forcefully and really bang home some key things. I was surprised when the ADA said there are things that "don't quite add up." You're sending the guy to jail - they need to totally add up! Well, I was never a district attorney but those I had the pleasure to work with would have you leaving an offering in the plate when the last word of the opening finally evaporated - they really got you fired up about the injustice you were there to address.

The DA approach here to me has really spent a lot of time on showing Brad to be an all around bad guy liar, in the opinion of many people. I think they've got him on being a liar. That's consistent with the opening, but it leaves me thinking yes, yes but give me the evidence he actually did it, most particularly the telling points that paint his activity as inconsistent with normal routines but consistent with what would have been necessary to cover up the murder.

That's just an opinion. I've seen comments here that the defense cross has been annoying - I'd like to watch some of that.

Just a suggestion for you, watch, IIRC, the deposition video number 7. Six or seven, but I think it was seven. Where Brad describes the events of July 11/12 in detail, in his own words, under oath. Very interesting IMO.

 

[water_dancing]

If he does walk this time around, can't the state just re-indict and try him again later (e.g. after finding some more evidence or something)? Not sure what the NC rules are on that one...

In general, no. It is a violation of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution protection AKA double jeopardy.