State v Bradley Cooper 4-13-11

KellyCrash · Apr 13, 2011

From Twitter:

stevengauck Steven Gauck
Det Young sitting next to Jr, helping him w/ projector. Looks right at home in well of court. "NetAnalysis" doc on screen. #coopertrial

stevengauck Steven Gauck
DA Amy Fitzhugh's mother watching today. Amy introduced her to CPD.I'd pick a diff trial to show off my prosecutorial prowess. #coopertrial

stevengauck Steven Gauck
Lunchtime drink specials are over. Lochmere gossip hens starting to roll in. #coopertrial

NCEast · Apr 13, 2011

gracielee said:
IIRC, he has been 'beaten down' literally, a couple times in prison, hasn't he? I wonder how the children are doing? Wonder if those adopted girls have ever begun to have any doubts about their own mother? It would be nice for them to let their mothers side of the family get to know them a bit....

I remember well that right after he ended up at the facility, within a few weeks, he was beaten by a group and taken to the hospital. He is still proclaiming an owl killed Kathleen.

ncsu95 · Apr 13, 2011

cityslick said:
This is what I don't understand about the states case. They bring up something earlier in the trial (in this case, the DBAN software) but then don't correlate that to anything, like if he had this on the pc or if FBI can determine what (if anything) wiped.

Everyone always mentions 'foundation' but it's not foundation if there's nothing that goes with the foundation.

Exactly. They have literally thrown crap against the wall throughout their whole case and then never mentioned it again. What they did with the shoes really bothers me. They spend a bunch of time pointing out the missing HT shoes. Yet they bring in a witness to testify about mica on his running shoes even though it doesn't chemically match the crimes scene. But if a juror only heard the mica part, they might think it meant something. But does that mean they now have a theory that he wore the running shoes to dump her, then changed to the missing shoes, then changed to the sandles? Or does that mean they think he cased this site prior to the murder, even though they haven't come out an suggested it? To me, it's more like "See...his shoes are missing so he must have killed her". But also "See...there was white mica on his running shoes so he must have killed her because there was also white mica at the body site even though we only tested there, his yard, and lochmere lake...but it means he must have killed her". Or "See...we took this rug...but I'll mention much later that nothing was found on the rug so you will think the rug was important". Or "See, he bought a tarp at Lowes, so he must have killed her. Please ignore that the same tarp was found in an unoppened package in the garage...he must have killed her because he bought it." The whole freaking case has been like this. Or even sneaky stuff like "How big is the fxo? It would be able to fit in your pocket, right? But please ignore that the fxo won't work without a router that is at least the size of a pizza box because the fxo is small, so it means he could hide it in his pocket...which means he must have killed her."

ncsu95 · Apr 13, 2011

NCEast said:
I will see what I can do with it today. If I am a complete and utter failure, I may take you up on it--if you will take the rest of my clutter too!

If the rest of your clutter is unopened electronics, we have a deal. :woohoo:

Palomine · Apr 13, 2011

wral WRAL NEWS in NC
#CooperTrial from 1-5pm today. Det. Chappell back on the stand. Can't record his testimony. Awaiting notes from court, will tweet updates.

cityslick · Apr 13, 2011

NCEast said:
They should use that trial in every law school in the country as to what NOT to do from both sides. Judge Ito was an idiot at times.....and remember all of those blasted sidebars? About 20 a day. Unbearable.

Remember the ME testimony?

Defense: Did you do this particular test (was supposed to do it)
ME: No
Defense: When did you plan on doing it?
ME: I don't know, now?

Camera pans to MClark, who looks like she wants to die right there.

gracielee · Apr 13, 2011

Two of the earliest court tv cases I recall were the one where the husband shot & killed his news anchor wife in rural michigan. Was her name Diane something? And then the one where the native american guy, going the wrong way in interstate, smashed into and killed the family in a car on christmas eve. wife, three little girls killed, husband seriously injured. Drunk driving case appealled and reappealed. I often wonder what the outcome was. Tried to google it, without success.

NCEast · Apr 13, 2011

gracielee said:
IIRC, he has been 'beaten down' literally, a couple times in prison, hasn't he? I wonder how the children are doing? Wonder if those adopted girls have ever begun to have any doubts about their own mother? It would be nice for them to let their mothers side of the family get to know them a bit....

I don't remember the details now but about a year ago I saw an interview with some of the kids.....they have since scattered all over the U.S. The girls were still saying that their father is innocent. I too wish their mom's side of the family had been given a chance.

ncsu95 · Apr 13, 2011

Palomine said:
the computer evidence is key because the separation agreement was NOT for Brads eyes..it was a draft between Nancy and her Lawyer
Also Brad accessed the bank account that had no online access for 2 years...maybe to make it look like Nancy accessed it!!

Key to what? It's key that he read her emails. But how is that key to showing he murdered her?

less0305 · Apr 13, 2011

I really need to limit my social media and media sites voyeurism. I get sooooooo upset with how ignorant some people truly are.:maddening:

LyndyLoo · Apr 13, 2011

cityslick said:
Where are all the other instances of arguments then? The state can't even get her friends to testify if he had a history of raising his voice to her. How do you get 'anger flared' when we have no evidence of it outside of one day?

The only explanation is that Brad's personality if interspective, he boils inside, keeps to himself, has enormous self-controls. BUT when his buttons gets pushed LOOKOUT!! Explosive and mean!!

The best way to describe it ~~ "Still Waters Run Deep"! JMOO

ETASK~ Who here knows guys or gals like that?? Different persona outside of home?? Reminds me of that song "What Goes On Behind Closed Doors" Charlie Rich song I think

NCEast · Apr 13, 2011

borndem said:
I can't see where WRAL has turned on the coverage yet. Does anybody see it?

My understanding is that there is more undercover testimony this afternoon and then it should go live.

gracielee · Apr 13, 2011

cityslick said:
February I believe, and only that one instance I believe.

I thought it was book-marked?

Coolmomof4 · Apr 13, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
I was on CTV. I started with the Kathleen Peterson case.

I was at CTV before Laci Peterson and Kathleen Petersen. I think I joined right before. I don't post much, mostly read.

ncsu95 · Apr 13, 2011

ohiogirl said:
Yes, I have been asking about that also. No one seems to know.

No, he went to the office on July 17th. He did not go on the 12th.

less0305 · Apr 13, 2011

cityslick said:
Where are all the other instances of arguments then? The state can't even get her friends to testify if he had a history of raising his voice to her. How do you get 'anger flared' when we have no evidence of it outside of one day?

Hmm, I think there was testimony that while sister was visiting she witnessed screaming obscenities at the house and the older daughter was holed up in a bedroom in a corner crying and wouldn't come out. Imagine what that house was like when there were no witnesses beyond those little children. If you'll do that in front of people and in a parking lot - do you honestly believe they sit quietly at home when they don't have an audience.

NCEast · Apr 13, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Exactly. They have literally thrown crap against the wall throughout their whole case and then never mentioned it again. What they did with the shoes really bothers me. They spend a bunch of time pointing out the missing HT shoes. Yet they bring in a witness to testify about mica on his running shoes even though it doesn't chemically match the crimes scene. But if a juror only heard the mica part, they might think it meant something. But does that mean they now have a theory that he wore the running shoes to dump her, then changed to the missing shoes, then changed to the sandles? Or does that mean they think he cased this site prior to the murder, even though they haven't come out an suggested it? To me, it's more like "See...his shoes are missing so he must have killed her". But also "See...there was white mica on his running shoes so he must have killed her because there was also white mica at the body site even though we only tested there, his yard, and lochmere lake...but it means he must have killed her". Or "See...we took this rug...but I'll mention much later that nothing was found on the rug so you will think the rug was important". Or "See, he bought a tarp at Lowes, so he must have killed her. Please ignore that the same tarp was found in an unoppened package in the garage...he must have killed her because he bought it." The whole freaking case has been like this. Or even sneaky stuff like "How big is the fxo? It would be able to fit in your pocket, right? But please ignore that the fxo won't work without a router that is at least the size of a pizza box because the fxo is small, so it means he could hide it in his pocket...which means he must have killed her."

I totally agree with you.

ncsu95 · Apr 13, 2011

NCEast said:
Your thoughts are running along the same line as my own.
I am thinking at this point in the trial, that if they find him guilty it will because of the 'horrible person he is' testimony and not from any evidence produced.
As we mentioned a couple of days ago, they will take notice of the many witnesses and various deposition testimony which makes him appear to be an SOB, whether they fully understand any of the technical aspects of the testimony or not. I am looking forward to the defense case, am sitting on the fence about how much and how long.

It would be a travesty if that is why they found him guilty. It would essentially be jury nullification.

gracielee · Apr 13, 2011

cityslick said:
Where are all the other instances of arguments then? The state can't even get her friends to testify if he had a history of raising his voice to her. How do you get 'anger flared' when we have no evidence of it outside of one day?

Two days, two separate occasions at preschool. Towards the end of May. Things were escalating.

borndem · Apr 13, 2011

NCEast said:
I remember well that right after he ended up at the facility, within a few weeks, he was beaten by a group and taken to the hospital. He is still proclaiming an owl killed Kathleen.

I'm sure PETA had a fit with that defense! I loved it -- he was a writer, you know.

State v Bradley Cooper 4-13-11

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

The face is familiar, but I can't quite remember m

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Anglophile & registered demwit

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics