State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011

ncsu95 · Mar 18, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Man oh man Cummings effed that up.

Now that I see how easy it would have been to elicit testimony that supported the 'dead before 7am' scenario.

I'd fire Cummings, if I could. (some of my tax dollars are paying for him).

Food digestion is probably not an exact science though...someone a page or 2 back referenced a murder where rice was found in the stomach where the person was killed 6 hours after eating it. So it could probably be refuted somehow. But Coomings (can we call him that since he calls her Cupper) definitely effed up big time.

panthera · Mar 18, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Pinning themselves down to a TOD at/around 12:30am - 1am is a big mistake. The point is they don't know, so why limit the time span so specifically? That forces them to suggest Nancy stopped eating earlier than she may have. Again, I don't see the point of that.

He killed her sometime between 12:30am and (probably) 4am when he was up with the lights on.

With the timeline for the "onion" to pass through her digestive system, it seems likely she could have been killed around 1:00am. As for her possibly vomiting, that also seems likely, imo, if her food intake was only some lemon cake and avocado salad combined with beer and wine. :sick: Just thinking of that combination is nauseating! I believe what the state is trying to prove is she was killed by her jealous, enraged husband shortly after returning home from the party, therefore the timeline. However, the biggest problem they may have is if they cannot prove he placed the call to his cellphone while on the way to the store and it didn't actually come from someone at the home. MOO

panthera · Mar 18, 2011

Just the Fax said:
Stupid move to try to pinpoint a TOD (up to 1AM) when the hard evidence does not back you up. All he had to do was give the jury the scenario of 4AM, where Brad's own words make that very plausible.

However, stretching it to 4:00am wouldn't have been as effective for "motive". MOO

ncsu95 · Mar 18, 2011

panthera said:
With the timeline for the "onion" to pass through her digestive system, it seems likely she could have been killed around 1:00am. As for her possibly vomiting, that also seems likely, imo, if her food intake was only some lemon cake and avocado salad combined with beer and wine. :sick: Just thinking of that combination is nauseating! I believe what the state is trying to prove is she was killed by her jealous, enraged husband shortly after returning home from the party, therefore the timeline. However, the biggest problem they may have is if they cannot prove he placed the call to his cellphone while on the way to the store and it didn't actually come from someone at the home. MOO

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Since the onion was still in her system, you are saying its logical should could have been killed at 1:00 since it was not digested, right? But there was no alcohol or other food in her stomach at that time, so it was either already digested or she threw it up. If it was already digested and no alcohol was found, it would mean she stopped eating and drinking very early (which goes against the current testimony). If she threw up the contents, then she threw up everything except the onion, which wouldn't be logical...and would be too convenient giving that the onion would be one of the lasts things to fully digest.

SleuthyGal · Mar 18, 2011

panthera said:
With the timeline for the "onion" to pass through her digestive system, it seems likely she could have been killed around 1:00am. As for her possibly vomiting, that also seems likely, imo, if her food intake was only some lemon cake and avocado salad combined with beer and wine. :sick: Just thinking of that combination is nauseating! I believe what the state is trying to prove is she was killed by her jealous, enraged husband shortly after returning home from the party, therefore the timeline. However, the biggest problem they may have is if they cannot prove he placed the call to his cellphone while on the way to the store and it didn't actually come from someone at the home. MOO

The testimony has Nancy eating a fairly wide variety of foods: pita chips w/hummus, ribs, avocado salad, some lemon cake and I'm sure there were other things she nibbled on. And then wine and later beer. She didn't claim to be feeling nauseous at the party. It was a potluck so the wide range of foodstuffs is exactly what one would expect.

With an estimated TOD at 1am and knowing it takes upwards of 3.5 hrs for onion to pass through the stomach, Nancy would have had to have stopped eating at 9:30pm or 10pm. She left after midnight.

The VOIP calls may prove to be another non-starter if they can't prove he DID spoof those calls. Being 'able to' spoof the calls doesn't prove that he did do it (even though I believe he did).

panthera · Mar 18, 2011

ncsu95 said:
I'm not sure I understand your logic. Since the onion was still in her system, you are saying its logical should could have been killed at 1:00 since it was not digested, right? But there was no alcohol or other food in her stomach at that time, so it was either already digested or she threw it up. If it was already digested and no alcohol was found, it would mean she stopped eating and drinking very early (which goes against the current testimony). If she threw up the contents, then she threw up everything except the onion, which wouldn't be logical...and would be too convenient giving that the onion would be one of the lasts things to fully digest.

Considering the food she ate (nothing heavy) and if the digestion time for the onion is approximately four hours, isn't it possible she could have eaten at 6:30-7:30pm (according to Donna Lopez) -- or do I have the timeline wrong and was she actually observed eating later into the evening? I also think it is possible she could have vomited, especially with the combination of beer and wine, with no solid food (nibbling at a variety of somewhat light foods). MOO

panthera · Mar 18, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
The testimony has Nancy eating a fairly wide variety of foods: pita chips w/hummus, ribs, avocado salad, some lemon cake and I'm sure there were other things she nibbled on. And then wine and later beer. She didn't claim to be feeling nauseous at the party. It was a potluck so the wide range of foodstuffs is exactly what one would expect.

With an estimated TOD at 1am and knowing it takes upwards of 3.5 hrs for onion to pass through the stomach, Nancy would have had to have stopped eating at 9:30pm or 10pm. She left after midnight.

The VOIP calls may prove to be another non-starter if they can't prove he DID spoof those calls. Being 'able to' spoof the calls doesn't prove that he did do it (even though I believe he did).

My understanding so far is that Brad's landline phone didn't have the technology to make an automated call - at least according to his attorney. I believe this is one of the biggest problems that the State will need to prove. MOO

otto · Mar 18, 2011

ncsu95 said:
Food digestion is probably not an exact science though...someone a page or 2 back referenced a murder where rice was found in the stomach where the person was killed 6 hours after eating it. So it could probably be refuted somehow. But Coomings (can we call him that since he calls her Cupper) definitely effed up big time.

I've read that stomach contents is a very unreliable method for determining time of death because it is variable and dependent on many individual factors.

per_curiam · Mar 18, 2011

I haven't caught up to the last pages here, yet.

About Nancy's possibly vomiting: Lots of questions, and remember, I don't live, eat and sleep this stuff, so I might sound stupid...

If I were strangled, I think I might vomit somewhere in the process.

After I died, I'm sure I'd lose control of my bowels and bladder, b/c that's easy enough to do when I'm alive, and I'm not trying to be funny, b/c radiation tmts. did that to me. She had Crohn's disease and alcohol was not on the list of things to consume, but she over-consumed it. Doesn't everything "lose control" (bowels, bladder, vomiting) once you are dead?

If she died in that house, there must have been bodily fluids from the death. They could've been on the bedding, floor, clothing. Would the K9 dog be able to smell that after the floors were cleaned, after the clothes were washed?

As to the poor delivery of Cummings (his lack of peppy style)...don't they notice things like that (the prosecution team) and try to get someone else who is better at this? Can't they at least be tipped off that WS people are discussing that? Might put him in a higher gear!

Also, remember when Brad went to the HT and it appeared that a shirt collar was sticking out of his jacket, but wasn't it missing on the other trip?

And shoes. Did he wear the same shoes in each trip to HT, in the video?

What did someone mean about "Gary Rentz is breaking my heart" today? Was he crying or what?

Thanks.

SleuthyGal · Mar 18, 2011

My understanding so far is that Brad's landline phone didn't have the technology to make an automated call - at least according to his attorney. I believe this is one of the biggest problems that the State will need to prove.

Yes but Brad *had* a Cisco system in his home and he could have used it to do something to spoof the calls and switch the phones around. He had the technology and the knowledge. Even if he didn't have the VOIP system plugged in on 7/11, he very well could have the morning of 7/12.

The Vtech phones are just wireless phones. It's the underlying VOIP software that controls what one can do in the way of spoofing calls (not the phone itself).

dcnc · Mar 18, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
I'm disappointed too.

They need to put some 'aha!' evidence on and they haven't yet. There are small snippets of possibility that were hinted at, but nothing big yet.

The problem is that many people have a short attention span these days and you have to hit 'em hard with something compelling. All of this 'well he could have' is fine, I suppose, but no one can convict on what might be. They need something more definitive and it hasn't come up yet and they're heading into week #3.

Just checking to see if I have this right - Discovery laws in NC ensure defense would know about any 'aha' evidence, correct? If there was real slam dunk evidence why would the defense let their client go to trial? (I hope that there is aha evidence b/c I've always leaned toward the Brad did it theory)

RaleighNC · Mar 18, 2011

Almost any fax machine can be hooked up to a POTS line and make a delayed call. So too can most computer modems.... So while his vtech PHONE may not have had that capability (and really - why would a phone have that capability? you use that for talking and that requires 2 people...) certainly other devices that use a standard PHONE line do have that functionality.

While I would never admit to this to certain people... we used to set up the office fax machine to dial annoying people in the middle of the night. Knowing it would try three times separated by about 10 minutes...

Just long enough for them to go back to sleep...

One item I'd like to know about the license plate issue. Where the plate was crooked - and where the "normal" spot behind the plate was exposed, what it dirtier or cleaner than the rest of the license plate area? If it was - then it would be much easier to say that it had recently become askew.

Lori59 · Mar 18, 2011

Wondering if the change of shoes seen in the HT videos are due to the muddy spot where NC body was found. That would mean he did dump the body between trips.... Had to go home to change shoes so muddy shoes wouldn't be seen by somebody.

SleuthinNC · Mar 18, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Yes but Brad *had* a Cisco system in his home and he could have used it to do something to spoof the calls and switch the phones around. He had the technology and the knowledge. Even if he didn't have the VOIP system plugged in on 7/11, he very well could have the morning of 7/12.

The Vtech phones are just wireless phones. It's the underlying VOIP software that controls what one can do in the way of spoofing calls (not the phone itself).

But a big point you are missing is that the VoIP call would still need to travel over a network to get to the cell phone. It is traveling over multiple networks, different types of networks, different carriers, etc. It is not as simple as 'Oh here's an IP Phone, I'm going to slap it on this network and spoof a call"

SleuthinNC · Mar 18, 2011

RaleighNC said:
Almost any fax machine can be hooked up to a POTS line and make a delayed call. So too can most computer modems.... So while his vtech PHONE may not have had that capability (and really - why would a phone have that capability? you use that for talking and that requires 2 people...) certainly other devices that use a standard PHONE line do have that functionality.

While I would never admit to this to certain people... we used to set up the office fax machine to dial annoying people in the middle of the night. Knowing it would try three times separated by about 10 minutes... Just long enough for them to go back to sleep...

One item I'd like to know about the license plate issue. Where the plate was crooked - and where the "normal" spot behind the plate was exposed, what it dirtier or cleaner than the rest of the license plate area? If it was - then it would be much easier to say that it had recently become askew.

Now this makes a LOT more sense than all the VoIP hoodoo-voodoo that is floating around. This would be easy, VoIP spoof REALLY hard and REALLY easily traceable.

panthera · Mar 18, 2011

Lori59 said:
Wondering if the change of shoes seen in the HT videos are due to the muddy spot where NC body was found. That would mean he did dump the body between trips.... Had to go home to change shoes so muddy shoes wouldn't be seen by somebody.

Wouldn't the mud have been transferred into the car, even if he put the shoes in the trunk? I agree, it does sound possible, however it's still not a "smoking gun". MOO

SleuthyGal · Mar 18, 2011

SleuthinNC said:
But a big point you are missing is that the VoIP call would still need to travel over a network to get to the cell phone. It is traveling over multiple networks, different types of networks, different carriers, etc. It is not as simple as 'Oh here's an IP Phone, I'm going to slap it on this network and spoof a call"

I don't know exactly what it takes to spoof a VOIP call, and I don't know the Cisco VOIP system, but I know it's possible, and I know Brad certainly had the knowledge to do it. Now that doesn't mean the prosecution will be able to prove he did it...but I'm sure they'll try as best they can to make that suggestion and offer ways it can be done.

SleuthyGal · Mar 18, 2011

panthera said:
Wouldn't the mud have been transferred into the car, even if he put the shoes in the trunk? I agree, it does sound possible, however it's still not a "smoking gun". MOO

If he took off the shoes, placed them in a plastic grocery bag, and then put them in the car before stepping foot into the car, no the mud would not have transferred to carpet fibers, unless the bag was open and he wasn't careful.

raisincharlie · Mar 18, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
The testimony has Nancy eating a fairly wide variety of foods: pita chips w/hummus, ribs, avocado salad, some lemon cake and I'm sure there were other things she nibbled on. And then wine and later beer. She didn't claim to be feeling nauseous at the party. It was a potluck so the wide range of foodstuffs is exactly what one would expect.

With an estimated TOD at 1am and knowing it takes upwards of 3.5 hrs for onion to pass through the stomach, Nancy would have had to have stopped eating at 9:30pm or 10pm. She left after midnight.

The VOIP calls may prove to be another non-starter if they can't prove he DID spoof those calls. Being 'able to' spoof the calls doesn't prove that he did do it (even though I believe he did).

If the call is proven to have been instigated through VOIP - what other explanation can one draw ? Seriously, why would anyone do that, what possible explanation could be provided to justify it on a day when one's spouse "goes missing" ?

I agree, Cummings is no Perry Mason and Butts is no Quincy but typically, ME's and their testimony are just one more piece of the puzzle, not the end all to the puzzle. Butts' testimony provides a range of time in which things could have happened, I did not expect, nor would I have believed a pinpoint time from him, but the range given clearly covers the prosecution theory. He also explained the caffine presence. This in particular was an issue the defense was counting on using to show Nancy was supposedly alive and had a cup of coffee - not necessarily true according to Butts.

In defense of the prosecution, they have laid a very good foundation on several points so far. The question is can they tie it together correctly with upcoming testimony ? Considering there have been 14 witnesses out of 100 plus and only 1 of 4 undercovers to testify, I'm not ready to throw in the towel and say the prosecution has bumbled nor that they have nothing but could'ave or should'ave.

Cheyenne130 · Mar 18, 2011

RaleighNC said:
Almost any fax machine can be hooked up to a POTS line and make a delayed call. So too can most computer modems.... So while his vtech PHONE may not have had that capability (and really - why would a phone have that capability? you use that for talking and that requires 2 people...) certainly other devices that use a standard PHONE line do have that functionality.

While I would never admit to this to certain people... we used to set up the office fax machine to dial annoying people in the middle of the night. Knowing it would try three times separated by about 10 minutes... Just long enough for them to go back to sleep...

One item I'd like to know about the license plate issue. Where the plate was crooked - and where the "normal" spot behind the plate was exposed, what it dirtier or cleaner than the rest of the license plate area? If it was - then it would be much easier to say that it had recently become askew.

I had thought about a fax machine too. If the number it calls is busy, it will redial after a set time. That could be an explanation of the call to his cell phone before the first store run. He may have tested it to make sure it was going to work. But I've not heard anything about them having a fax machine or any other device to fax.

State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011

Active Member

Retired WS Staff

Retired WS Staff

Active Member

Former Member

Retired WS Staff

Retired WS Staff

Verified Expert

New Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Retired WS Staff

Former Member

Former Member

Racing Doesn't Lie

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics