State v. Bradley Cooper 03/16/11

[Maja]

Recall at one point BC stating NC often wore two sports bras for extra support.

 

[jilly]

What was brought up in the cross? I had to take a call during the testimony.

That the longest training exercize the officer had ever run with the dog was for 7 hrs. Therefore, the fact that Nancy had been missing for 12-14 hrs was twice as long as what the dog had been trained for.

 

[calgary123]

I can't agree that the prosecution side of it was misleading. This was testimony that we actually got to hear so we didn't have to rely on someone omitting parts because they personally didn't find them relevant. The officer started out explaining that this one was not "clean" (my word, not his) because so many people had been in the area. He indicated that a recent article worn would have been more ideal. He indicated that Nancy's scent was strongest in the house. If those listening inferred that he meant that she never left the house, that was on them. I didn't get that impression from him.

I did feel that the defense finally did a decent job and didn't ask too many questions which would then elicit/allow the person on the stand to make the defense look even weaker.

The officer was purely professional. He did warn the jury outright that his results were not "clean" to use your word (might be right), and I thought he was the most credible witness to date. He was not pushing an agenda. I thought this was refreshing.

But the prosecutor chooses which questions to ask, and would have known how un-timely the results were. They chose not to ask directly. Check the legal and ethical requirements for prosecutors, their goal is to find the truth, not to convict.

I've seen a few defense blunders in this trial, this is the first real one for the prosecution, but it is the most significant mistake in the trial so far. It will be interesting to discuss these things more once we get a verdict and hear what the jury thought.

 

[Cheyenne130]

The officer was purely professional. He did warn the jury outright that his results were not "clean" to use your word (might be right), and I thought he was the most credible witness to date. He was not pushing an agenda. I thought this was refreshing.

But the prosecutor chooses which questions to ask, and would have known how un-timely the results were. They chose not to ask directly. Check the legal and ethical requirements for prosecutors, their goal is to find the truth, not to convict.

I've seen a few defense blunders in this trial, this is the first real one for the prosecution, but it is the most significant mistake in the trial so far. It will be interesting to discuss these things more once we get a verdict and hear what the jury thought.

Yeah, because I didn't see it as a big deal. It told me that the police did everything that they could under the circumstances. They were trying to find a live, missing person. That's what I took from the testimony. I did not feel that the prosecution was trying to "pull one over" with this witness.

 

[calgary123]

See my previous posts. The scent will last much longer than 14 hours!

Could be true, I read your posts about it. But your audiobook is not in evidence, and its author has not been called as a witness. Nor did the prosecution ask if the K9 officer knows how long scents will last. Maybe they have an expert lined up for that, I don't know.

 

[ncsu95]

See my previous posts. The scent will last much longer than 14 hours!

Now, the book I read was especially about Search and Rescue dogs, not K9 officers that are likely trained for Search and other things. I think that it is most likely that the K9 is a trained drug dog, but can search for missing persons, articles and will likely take down a bad guy.... kind of a "swiss army" K9....

Now that would have been a moment. The dog picks up her scent and goes straight to the Duncan house. That would have been a huge moment.

 

[Maja]

How is it she had to be identified by dental records? How long had she been outside again?

 

[ncsu95]

Recall at one point BC stating NC often wore two sports bras for extra support.

I know he said that, but really? It's not like she was overly endowed. Maybe I'm wrong about the need for extra support (being that I'm a guy).

 

[otto]

We know that she had her cell phone at the party. We know that her cell phone was found in the drawer in the foyer. I would love to know if that's where she always kept her phone.

An altercation, she runs for the door, and doesn't make it. That's a possibility, but I'd like to hear a little more about the injuries. I guess that is still coming. That still isn't premeditated, but we have another 6 weeks of testimony. I doubt "decorative sticks" is sticks from the field. I'm thinking they were hand crafted sticks.

 

[jilly]

Howdy Jilly:seeya:

Yep, our old pal Jason has 2 of the very best attorneys our tax money can buy.
With the trial a mere 2 months away, odd we haven't heard nary a peep from them.

Howdy to you too!

I just find it upsetting - I mean who can afford a lawyer these days and these guys get the top of the class (probably) because they are high profile cases.
Oh well..... even the best can have problems with the evidence as we've just seen in the Petit case.

 

[ncsu95]

Howdy to you too!

I just find it upsetting - I mean who can afford a lawyer these days and these guys get the top of the class (probably) because they are high profile cases.
Oh well..... even the best can have problems with the evidence as we've just seen in the Petit case.

It's probably cheaper to pay for competent representation up front (which every defendant deserves) versus paying for a 2nd trial due to appeal. Brad won't be able to appeal based on an incompetent lawyer.

 

[CyberPro]

I just did a google search and am reading about the capabilities of search dogs. Now, these are search dogs, not general K9 units or trained to search for drugs, etc.

One of the criteria is at the completion of training, they should be able to track a human when the trail is at least 24 hours old.

 

[otto]

I've been thinking about this one too... Here's what the article said-

"Dismukes said Brad Cooper also told him that Nancy Cooper's membership card had been swiped at her gym, Life Time Fitness, at 2:45 p.m. The detective later found out that an employee had entered her name to see if she checked in, which registered as a check-in but was generated by him inquiring".

Reading it, it's not 100% clear that the him (bolded) refers to Brad... or the LTF employee that did the check.

Theory: LTF employee knew/heard there was searching going on (this was 7/12), and decided just to check their system 'on a whim' for any access. [ Didn't know the query would register as a 'check-in' somehow ]

Later (somehow), Brad finds out (directly or indirectly), that LFT system shows a check-in @ 2:45, and so relays this information.

LE then later finds out that it wasn't a real check-in, but just a query.
---

Other theories to explain this seem weak- e.g. Brad himself made the query, and knew it would end up showing as a check-in. [ wouldn't make much sense... and the risk wouldn't justify any potential benefit ]. I rather think this part might not have been pre-planned or anything, but somehow made itself available, and went from there.

Thanks. So someone inquired whether Nancy had been at the gym (and it may have been an employee that made the inquiry on the computer). That inquiry registered as a "check in". Brad then learned that Nancy had checked in ... which occurred either because Brad inquired or the gym contacted him (rather than police). A little confusing. Hopefully more information will be given. If Brad made the inquiry, and then reported that she was at the gym ... and the only reason that she was checked in is because Brad inquired, then I see that as problematic. That's a glitch in the computer system at the gym. If Brad inquired, and then there was a record of Nancy checking in ... that's a little too convenient for Brad.

 

[Cheyenne130]

An altercation, she runs for the door, and doesn't make it. That's a possibility, but I'd like to hear a little more about the injuries. I guess that is still coming. That still isn't premeditated, but we have another 6 weeks of testimony. I doubt "decorative sticks" is sticks from the field. I'm thinking they were hand crafted sticks.

I was thinking more along the lines of the confrontation/attack/murder happened right there in the foyer. Her phone ended up on the floor and he threw it in the drawer. I'm only speculating that because of all the focus on items in the foyer being out of place and my personal experience with cell phones and wondering why it would be in a drawer.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Thanks. So someone inquired whether Nancy had been at the gym (and it may have been an employee that made the inquiry on the computer). That inquiry registered as a "check in". Brad then learned that Nancy had checked in ... which occurred either because Brad inquired or the gym contacted him (rather than police). A little confusing. Hopefully more information will be given. If Brad made the inquiry, and then reported that she was at the gym ... and the only reason that she was checked in is because Brad inquired, then I see that as problematic. That's a glitch in the computer system at the gym. If Brad inquired, and then there was a record of Nancy checking in ... that's a little too convenient for Brad.

Here's my problem with that. Her car was in the driveway. How did he think she got to the gym? If I turned up missing and my car was at home, that limits where I might have gone. I am positive that my husband would start out calling those that he knew I might be with. Another question that has yet to be answered; any evidence that he called her cell phone? I know it was in the drawer but would he have known that when he became concerned and started looking for her?

 

[otto]

Now that would have been a moment. The dog picks up her scent and goes straight to the Duncan house. That would have been a huge moment.

It seems to me that is one of the things that should have happened. I don't see how it could be concluded that Nancy did not leave through the front or the back door simply because the dog didn't find a scent. If the dog had the correct scent, it should have, at the very least, crossed the street to the party house.

The dog was given a shoe, and the shoe could have been unused or not worn for some time. If the dog had the shoe Nancy wore the night before, shouldn't it have at least crossed the street?

 

[otto]

I know he said that, but really? It's not like she was overly endowed. Maybe I'm wrong about the need for extra support (being that I'm a guy).

Brad might be thinking about the time around when Nancy was pregnant. She had several pregnancies and miscarriages, and 2 children.

 

[Cheyenne130]

It seems to me that is one of the things that should have happened. I don't see how it could be concluded that Nancy did not leave through the front or the back door simply because the dog didn't find a scent. If the dog had the correct scent, it should have, at the very least, crossed the street to the party house.

The dog was given a shoe, and the shoe could have been unused or not worn for some time. If the dog had the shoe Nancy wore the night before, shouldn't it have at least crossed the street?

That would make sense but that is not the shoe given to the officer for the dog to use. This is the other thing that I thought of: I can promise you that my husband has no idea what I wore last night. (He doesn't know what I'm wearing right now and we're sitting in the same room.) But he would know where to find the clothes that I was wearing the day before if asked. He wouldn't come up with a shoe that I hadn't worn for some time.

 

[CrimeAddict]

It seems to me that is one of the things that should have happened. I don't see how it could be concluded that Nancy did not leave through the front or the back door simply because the dog didn't find a scent. If the dog had the correct scent, it should have, at the very least, crossed the street to the party house.

The dog was given a shoe, and the shoe could have been unused or not worn for some time. If the dog had the shoe Nancy wore the night before, shouldn't it have at least crossed the street?

strange he gave her any old shoe. Her friends testified that she wore flip flops, I believe at least 2 friends said that she wore them at the party that night, why didn't he give the K9 the flip flop?

 

[ncsu95]

Here's my problem with that. Her car was in the driveway. How did he think she got to the gym? If I turned up missing and my car was at home, that limits where I might have gone. I am positive that my husband would start out calling those that he knew I might be with. Another question that has yet to be answered; any evidence that he called her cell phone? I know it was in the drawer but would he have known that when he became concerned and started looking for her?

If he thought she actually ran with CC, maybe it is conceivable that he though she could have ridden with her to LTF. Of course, if he did it this means nothing. If he didn't, he was grasping at straws looking at places she would typically go.