State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011

ncsu95 · Mar 18, 2011

snowshuze said:
Dude.

Look at the WHOLE picture.

I am looking at the whole picture, without any pre-conceived decision about his guilt. If he didn't originate the call from the landline to his cell phone, then he didn't kill her.

CyberPro · Mar 18, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Yeah, he just screwed up. Unless he can show Nancy didn't eat after 7:00 PM, he has to show that Nancy vomited. Or her body would have had food in her stomach if she was killed when she got home. So the lack of alcohol in her system and the lack of food would indicate she wasn't killed when she got home.

I feel sure there will be testimony about what she had to eat or drink at the party. I know they found what could be onion. Onion takes a long time to digest, but I know of at least one case in NC where the victim ate chicken and rice for dinner, and was killed at least 6 hours after eating it, but there was still rice in the stomach. This caused a lot of consternation during the trial, because rice usually digrests very quickly. No explaination was ever accepted about why it had not digested, but it tended to point to him having been killed earlier than believed, which could have implicated his wife in the murder.

DogWood · Mar 18, 2011

raisincharlie said:
Thanks DogWood. So the judge did verbally tell the jury to disregard Kurtz's accusation of changing stories.

YW!

I can almost see the look on his face when Kurtz said that.

snowshuze · Mar 18, 2011

raisincharlie said:
Based on the digestion times and the ME identifying it in her stomach, and if you believe Brad that she went running at 7am - she had to have ate onion sometime after 3 am at the earliest. Maybe she had an onion sandwich with her morning coffee (tongue firmly in cheek)..:crazy:

Well...there's your barf evidence.

:rocker:

dgfred · Mar 18, 2011

CyberPro said:
This might be just his style, but it might be camoflage too. Never underestimate a country boy. That slow drawl might be to throw someone off guard about how much smarter they are, then before they know it they have been backed into a tight corner. Given BC's apparent appreciation for his own intelligence... this would be a perfect weapon for him.

Yeah, playing dumb sure works some of the time. But I'd rather have a 'cracker-jack', 'sharp as a tack' prosecutor any day to convict. Maybe they are trying to lure BC into testifying.

SleuthinNC · Mar 18, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Huh? Not if the assault wasn't planned. If someone saw someone jogging by and decided to grab them, that wouldn't have been planned. If it wasn't BC, it wasn't a planned murder.

I wouldn't agree that BC was the only person who could have planned to murder NC. Most likely? Maybe? But I would not say absolutely.

DogWood · Mar 18, 2011

snowshuze said:
Well...there's your barf evidence.

:rocker:

:floorlaugh:

Good one!

Cheyenne130 · Mar 18, 2011

dgfred said:
Wouldn't it seem if she had time to change clothes after the party she wasn't killed immediately upon returning? BC wouldn't have thrown her dress in the hamper IMO, and he would have known it was green, and it wouldn't have been there when the police showed up. 4am is looking more and more likely if so IMO.

That's assuming that she did change clothes. I'm not sure that I can assume that she did or didn't. Since all the laundry was washed, all evidence of what she did with her clothes the night before is gone except that one picture showing the dress sticking out under that laundry basket.

dgfred · Mar 18, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
That's assuming that she did change clothes. I'm not sure that I can assume that she did or didn't. Since all the laundry was washed, all evidence of what she did with her clothes the night before is gone except that one picture showing the dress sticking out under that laundry basket.

But why (if he killed her when she walked in the door) would the dress be thrown in the hamper? He wouldn't have done that while re-dressing her, and he wouldn't have just left it there IMO.

Cheyenne130 · Mar 18, 2011

dgfred said:
Wouldn't it seem if she had time to change clothes after the party she wasn't killed immediately upon returning? BC wouldn't have thrown her dress in the hamper IMO, and he would have known it was green, and it wouldn't have been there when the police showed up. 4am is looking more and more likely if so IMO.

Why do you say he wouldn't throw it the hamper?

ncsu95 · Mar 18, 2011

CyberPro said:
I feel sure there will be testimony about what she had to eat or drink at the party. I know they found what could be onion. Onion takes a long time to digest, but I know of at least one case in NC where the victim ate chicken and rice for dinner, and was killed at least 6 hours after eating it, but there was still rice in the stomach. This caused a lot of consternation during the trial, because rice usually digrests very quickly. No explaination was ever accepted about why it had not digested, but it tended to point to him having been killed earlier than believed, which could have implicated his wife in the murder.

It looks like raw onions are a lot harder to digest than cooked onions. These would have been raw being in a salad or dip.

Cheyenne130 · Mar 18, 2011

dgfred said:
But why (if he killed her when she walked in the door) would the dress be thrown in the hamper? He wouldn't have done that while re-dressing her, and he wouldn't have just left it there IMO.

He couldn't get rid of it. He had no way of knowing who remembered the dress and worse yet, if anyone had taken a picture at the party. He couldn't hide it and risk having it found leading to definite suspicion. He had to take his chances on hiding it without looking like he was hiding it, if you go on the possibility that he killed Nancy.

ncsu95 · Mar 18, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
Why do you say he wouldn't throw it the hamper?

Because it would have been evidence? And the suggestion is he cleaned it to hide bodily fluids from the murder. So I imagine he would have done something with it while cleaning up the crime scene instead of throwing it in a dirty clothes hamper.

raisincharlie · Mar 18, 2011

dgfred said:
Since the dress was in the hamper, and assuming he didn't see it there or put it there himself... maybe she was killed in the middle of the night- like 4am after changing clothes.

But then why would he have washed it???

To cover the fact it wasn't stained at the party? Brad seems to be the only one who knew her dress was stained and wet at the party...

dgfred · Mar 18, 2011

Cheyenne130 said:
Why do you say he wouldn't throw it the hamper?

Because.... ncsu answered already.

snowshuze · Mar 18, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Because it would have been evidence? And the suggestion is he cleaned it to hide bodily fluids from the murder. So I imagine he would have done something with it while cleaning up the crime scene instead of throwing it in a dirty clothes hamper.

IIRC, Brad DID produce it for CPD, and it had been washed.

raisincharlie · Mar 18, 2011

snowshuze said:
Well...there's your barf evidence.

:rocker:

Another hypothetical since I am very good at them - what if vomit was found in the jogging bra Nancy was found in or on the underside of the key table in the foyer or even in the vase where the bamboo sticks were located on Friday ?

dgfred · Mar 18, 2011

raisincharlie said:
To cover the fact it wasn't stained at the party? Brad seems to be the only one who knew her dress was stained and wet at the party...

I'm missing your point... but I don't know anything about the 'stained and wet' part.

So did he claim to wash it because it was stained and wet from the party?

snowshuze · Mar 18, 2011

raisincharlie said:
Another hypothetical since I am very good at them - what if vomit was found in the jogging bra Nancy was found in or on the underside of the key table in the foyer or even in the vase where the bamboo sticks were located on Friday ?

Any crime lab peeps on the states witness list?

RaleighNC · Mar 18, 2011

I am willing to bet that she could have vomited while struggling / being strangled. The trachea is in front of the esophagus - so you can cut off airflow (and carotid arterial flow) without closing the esophagus.

But if that happened and she had eaten and drunk as much as is stated - and there was thrashing around - you'd think there would have been something on the walls that you could not get out. (unless they had really good scrubbable paint there) vomit seems to stain ANYTHING it comes in contact with.

And not to be gross - but when people die - many sphincters that usually hold things in, relax. Death is usually pretty messy.

I can't imagine BC had enough cleaning skills to perfectly sanitize that entire area.

That would be my smoking gun - vomit in the foyer.

State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

Racing Doesn't Lie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Racing Doesn't Lie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics