State v Bradley Cooper 3-21-2011

DogWood · Mar 21, 2011

I might add that I don't remember the testimony about the earring the same way as stated in WRAL's last update.

NCEast · Mar 21, 2011

DogWood said:
I might add that I don't remember the testimony about the earring the same way as stated in WRAL's last update.

You are right, the print update got it wrong about the earring.

SleuthyGal · Mar 21, 2011

WRAL got it incorrect. Testimony is that CCBI agent removed one earring because it was about to fall out and they didn't want to lose it. Testimony from Butts last week was that only one earring was in her ear when he examined the body and then he removed that 2nd earring. So if I understand correctly, CCBI had/has one earring and the M.E. had the other earring.

DogWood · Mar 21, 2011

NCEast said:
You are right, the print update got it wrong about the earring.

Thanks! I read that and went huh?

What I remember him saying is that the earring was about ready to come out so they removed it before they transported her. Correct?

SleuthyGal · Mar 21, 2011

Soooo...a random attacker did not remove NC's diamond earrings but instead took shoes, socks, shorts. And in a huge coinky dink, NC left her diamond necklace at home (the one she always wore) and it ended up in Brad's desk.

riggghhhht.

RaleighNC · Mar 21, 2011

If it happened the way WRAL is reporting- the detective asked BC about doing on "interview" with detectives on 7/14/2008 (prior to NC's body being discovered) - it would have been very obvious to me that this was no longer about finding Nancy.

On that same note, if Brad's reaction was that he was not going to do this because he had "not been charged with anything (at that time)" - well - then THAT is the telling part. It tells me he EXPECTS to be charged and EXPECTS to be at the police station answering questions or doing an interview at some time in the future.

Might be a slight difference - but I am paying more attention to the subtleties behind the action, rather than the action itself.

ohiogirl · Mar 21, 2011

So, this morning's testimony regarding the black tank top, since I didn't get to hear all of it, what was the significance?

WilkesNC · Mar 21, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Soooo...a random attacker did not remove NC's diamond earrings but instead took shoes, socks, shorts. And in a huge coinky dink, NC left her diamond necklace at home (the one she always wore) and it ended up in Brad's desk.

riggghhhht.

NC's running partner said in her testimony that NC NEVER wore necklace while jogging

raisincharlie · Mar 21, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Welcome CaryCanuck! Do you (being from the land of Canadia) remove your shoes before entering your home? I understand this is the province of Canadians (per H Kurtz opening statements). :wink:

Doesn't that make you wonder why Brad didn't hand over Nancy's flip flops for the K-9 officer ? I mean they should have been right there at the door entrance given they always took their shoes off before entering the house right...

SleuthyGal · Mar 21, 2011

WilkesNC said:
NC's running partner said in her testimony that NC NEVER wore necklace while jogging

That was not CC's testimony. Her testimony was that she didn't recall if NC wore her necklace while running or not.

gorealtors · Mar 21, 2011

ohiogirl said:
So, this morning's testimony regarding the black tank top, since I didn't get to hear all of it, what was the significance?

I interpreted it as just a rabbit trail on the part of the defense to plant the seed she could have been wearing it and her "attacker" tore it from her body.:innocent:

SleuthyGal · Mar 21, 2011

Re: the blank tank (as well as the shoe)

The state is showing that CPD DID look at possible evidence found by citizens and they collected this evidence to see if it was related to NC missing. This is to counter Kurtz saying that CPD didn't look for evidence.

WolfpackWoman · Mar 21, 2011

^^That's ridiculous. The defense didn't introduce the testimony about the black tank top, and only asked one follow up question.

Maja · Mar 21, 2011

What in the world is BC writing?

TigerBalm · Mar 21, 2011

WilkesNC said:
NC's running partner said in her testimony that NC NEVER wore necklace while jogging

If you are speaking of CC, my memory of her testimony is that she didn't recall if Nancy ever worn a necklace. It wasn't something she made note of either way.

Maja · Mar 21, 2011

Was there standing water in the ditch? If so, was it ever dragged for evidence (i.e. shoes/shorts/shirt)?

SleuthyGal · Mar 21, 2011

Maja said:
What in the world is BC writing?

"All work and no play makes Jack ... errr Brad a very dull boy."

Over and over and over.

Ala Jack Nicholson in 'The Shining.'

FullDisclosure · Mar 21, 2011

gorealtors said:
I interpreted it as just a rabbit trail on the part of the defense to plant the seed she could have been wearing it and her "attacker" tore it from her body.:innocent:

Um....it was introduced into evidence by the prosecution.

ohiogirl · Mar 21, 2011

FullDisclosure said:
Except that it was put into evidence by the prosecution...

I think that was the point Sleuthygal was making. jmo

Lori59 · Mar 21, 2011

SleuthyGal said:
Re: the blank tank (as well as the shoe)

The state is showing that CPD DID look at possible evidence found by citizens and they collected this evidence to see if it was related to NC missing. This is to counter Kurtz saying that CPD didn't look for evidence.

Yes, the state put on that officer this morning, in my opinion to discredit the defense. They showed they even followed up calls about toilet paper in the first days of Nancy missing.

State v Bradley Cooper 3-21-2011

New Member

Active Member

Former Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

Active Member

Former Member

Racing Doesn't Lie

Former Member

Active Member

Former Member

Inactive

Seeker of Truth

Pray for all the missing and innocent people whose

Seeker of Truth

Former Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics