State v Bradley Cooper 3.10.2011

[ncsu95]

For a brief moment (until my young son came in the room) I listened to the defense (I think) today talk about Nancy having an affair with a neighbor (John?) and him having a STD (and the wife verified it) and something about the STD test results for Nancy laying out in view in their house? What is all that about? I don't want to listen to 3 hours worth of testimony to find it.

It was part of the defenses position that she had an affair with someone that could be a suspect. They also indicated that this guy could be the younger child's father since the affair occurred around 9 months before her birth. They said the requested DNA but never received it. But back to the affair...according to the defense, the guy denied knowing them except casually, then later admitted to the affair. He also supposedly never jogged with Nancy but knew the details of her running route because he detailed them to police. They also indicated that there was a falling out of some sort between him and Nancy shortly before the murder.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Why do you think the Prosecution believes this ? The only mention I've heard of it was from Kurtz. Do you think Kurtz raised it to try and cover it before the Prosecution brings it up through testimony ?

I don't know exactly why the prosecution believes this, but it's probably the timing of the purchase (the day before Nancy is murdered). That he didn't use it is interesting, but he did purchase it and it was the day before.

Yes, I think Kurtz raised the issue to try and take the wind out of the prosecution's sails. I believe that's why they raised a bunch of things that are the prosecution's evidence.

 

[raisincharlie]

I don't know exactly why the prosecution believes this, but it's probably the timing of the purchase (the day before Nancy is murdered). That he didn't use it is interesting, but he did purchase it and it was the day before.

Yes, I think Kurtz raised the issue to try and take the wind out of the prosecution's sails. I believe that's why they raised a bunch of things that are the prosecution's evidence.

Okay, I just did not hear the prosecution say anything about a tarp Brad bought. Guess Kurtz has some reason for bringing it up. Guess we will find out. I don't put much stock in opening statements, especially when it takes three hours to deliver one.

 

[ncsu95]

Okay, I just did not hear the prosecution say anything about a tarp Brad bought. Guess Kurtz has some reason for bringing it up. Guess we will find out. I don't put much stock in opening statements, especially when it takes three hours to deliver one.

It's like the last battle in 8-mile where eminem told Clarence exactly what he was going to say about him and then he froze. I think that is what the defense is hoping.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Okay, I just did not hear the prosecution say anything about a tarp Brad bought. Guess Kurtz has some reason for bringing it up. Guess we will find out. I don't put much stock in opening statements, especially when it takes three hours to deliver one.

Note that the prosecution didn't mention lots of things. They kept everything very brief. I think they did this on purpose. They are obviously saving everything for direct testimony. I haven't a clue what they have that will be powerful, but I sure hope they've got at least something big.

The defense also mentioned no DNA found under NC's fingernails.

As for the tire tracks...really no big deal on that. It was a subdivision in development...lots of construction trucks. I'm sure Brad never drove off the asphalt there--he didn't have to. He could have stopped without getting any of his tires off the paved area and walked a very short way and dumped the body. Her body was off the side of that cul-de-sac, maybe 10 ft or so down the little embankment there.

 

[panthera]

I don't know exactly why the prosecution believes this, but it's probably the timing of the purchase (the day before Nancy is murdered). That he didn't use it is interesting, but he did purchase it and it was the day before.

Yes, I think Kurtz raised the issue to try and take the wind out of the prosecution's sails. I believe that's why they raised a bunch of things that are the prosecution's evidence.

I agree about the timing of the purchase. The fact he didn't support her painting project, restricted her "allowance", etc. - so this overtly generous purchase doesn't go along with past behavior. MOO

 

[ncsu95]

There was no construction going on in that cul-de-sac at that time. The road was in, but none of the lots were being developed. And I guess it depends where the tracks are. If they are just off the pavement right at the drainage pond, that would be a huge coincidence.

 

[raisincharlie]

SG - add in it was muddy in that area when Nancy was found - kind of hard to get meaningful impressions of tracks, just shoes, let alone tire tracks. Mud tends to fill in the tread patterns. The prosecution has pointed that (muddy conditions) out with every witness they called so far (except Duncan).

 

[ncsu95]

I agree about the timing of the purchase. The fact he didn't support her painting project, restricted her "allowance", etc. - so this overtly generous purchase doesn't go along with past behavior. MOO

But the tarp wasn't used. So who cares that it was purchased the day before. If he bought it because he planned to kill her, then why didn't he use it?

 

[ncsu95]

SG - add in it was muddy in that area when Nancy was found - kind of hard to get meaningful impressions of tracks, just shoes, let alone tire tracks. Mud tends to fill in the tread patterns. The prosecution has pointed that (muddy conditions) out with every witness they called so far (except Duncan).

It wasn't the tread that the defense pointed out. It was the tire width. The tire track was too wide to have come from one of the Cooper vehicles (according to the defense attorney).

 

[raisincharlie]

It wasn't the tread that the defense pointed out. It was the tire width. The tire track was too wide to have come from one of the Cooper vehicles (according to the defense attorney).

Keep in mind my mindset - a defense attorney giving an opening statement is not evidence. Until I hear from witnesses with expertise in the field in question, then I will have an answer. An opening statement is in no way the reality. Kurtz also said LE did not collect information about shoes of those folks who were at that scene - we learned today from a real witness - what Kurtz said was not true, information was collected and measurements and photos as well.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm not arguing that it is evidence. As I said in my post, I assume the defense has evidence to back up their claims. If they don't, they will lose credibility with the jury. I'm just wanting to have a discussion on what was presented. We've had many discussions on everything in the past...and none of that was evidence either. But I was hoping to have some discussion on what the defense brought up during their opening. I found it compelling.

 

[SleuthyGal]

They brought up lots of compelling things in their opening, yes. How much of it is true remains to be seen. They don't have to answer everything they brought up. I mean they should, but there's no rule that they must. They want to get their ideas out there to the jury. They're trying to create an impression. Jurors were not taking notes during the defense opening. They may not remember large portions of what was mentioned, but they may well have come away with an impression, which is what the defense wants.

 

[cygnusx1]

If the dude who saw the van turn around to follow her sticks with Kildaire Farm Rd as the road he saw her running on, he could be easily discredited. Kildaire Farm Rd has no cycling lanes. Lochmere Dr does however.

 

[raisincharlie]

I'm not arguing that it is evidence. As I said in my post, I assume the defense has evidence to back up their claims. If they don't, they will lose credibility with the jury. I'm just wanting to have a discussion on what was presented. We've had many discussions on everything in the past...and none of that was evidence either. But I was hoping to have some discussion on what the defense brought up during their opening. I found it compelling.

That's fine but you said the defense said the tire width does not match up with the Cooper vehicles - at this point we don't even know if in fact there were or weren't tire tracks there at the scene. I don't find it compelling, anymore than I find the DAs opening compelling. It all remains unproven at this point. This is trial time - when the questions get answered. I will simply wait for it.

One fact I know as a result of actual testimony is that LE did indeed collect data from shoes worn by EMS personnel, pictures were taken and measurements made. I also now know, the volunteer firemen also provided access to their shoes that very evening I find nothing compelling in the defense saying in the opening that this was not done. Truth is, it was done.

 

[Just the Fax]

It's a ridiculous argument all the way around. Why even bring the tarp up? It wasn't used in the murder or disposal of the body. If he did this, and did this in the house, why wouldn't he have used the tarp if that is why he bought it?

The newly purchased tarp would have been the obvious choice to wrap and dispose of a body.
It was obviously not used for that purpose.....hence the focus by Kurtz.

 

[CyberPro]

I have not watched the opening. I would love to, but got a plate full now.

My first thought in hearing that it was 2 hours long is... "Methinks thou dost protest too much."

Especially true in light of hearing SG say that the jury was zoning out.

I might be wrong, but I have to think that they have some pretty solid evidence we have yet to hear, or perhaps even know about as the result of a hint.

BTW, does anyone know if there is a way to see a witness list?

 

[BrownRice]

I'm into the 2nd hour right now of listening to the defense and I think Kurtz is doing a great job. Obviously needs to back it up, but is making some good points. I lived in NC when this happened and followed it closely - here and in the local media. I have always thought BC was guilty, but if I didn't know a lot about the case, listening to this guy, I would be thinking he might get off. This is going to be an interesting case!

 

[johnfear]

I think Kurtz is going to pull out folks that had been working there the day previous who were not on the Deputy's report. (Contractors, neighbors, etc. who would have obviously had shoe prints down there. I think that part was a setup and I've seen him in court on numerous occasions.) What I think he really did to damage things will concern Young, the blackberry and the affair.

That is the person who will end up in the SODDI position at this point.

To the DA's credit, I think they either A) are making the best case they have and lost some theory on the phone data at the midnight hour OR B) they HAVE some crucial piece of evidence that the defense does not realize is in there. Wake County is very "rabbit hunt" oriented. The team they have in there could go either way.

My personal opinion on this, living in this area and having watched multiple cases in this realm unfold over the years is that they pulled the trigger to soon and while they have the right guy, they don't have what they need for a conviction. We'll see how that unfolds. I think something would have slipped in the "SW" fights and appeals that have gone on that would have indicated Brad Cooper's guilt. Given the level of investigation we are dealing with and the area we are in (Triangle,NC) and the seriousness that is leveled on these acts of violence (sometimes domestic, sometimes not) you would have thought they would have done everything by the book from the get-go. I still think Kurtz would not play the crime scene problem, 16 folks watching her jog by on Sat, and the erasing Data if they were not true or at least somewhat believable.

The rest of his opener was simply outlining what is true: These were people, this is their life together. This is their together. This is normal life with its stresses and problems.

Also, I don't think the Cary community could deny that those cliques do exist and they are much more turbulent than anything you see on television.

I divorced someone several years ago and the madness he is describing with how those folks get involved and influenced (and in turn INFLUENCE) situations involving children is ridiculous. He still could have killed her, but that part about those women twisting things and the men involved twisting things is true. It gets stressful. And it really is amazing how what would not ordinarily be a clique becomes one quickly. Outsiders get ostracized and don't even realize it because they were part of the clique the day before.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Given Willoughby's slowww record to allow arrest, I am having trouble imagining him pulling the trigger too quickly in this case (this is the guy who waited 3+ yrs for Young and 5 years for Ann Miller).