State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

[per_curiam]

There are waay too many facts and evidence that will be delivered in the trial.

Nancy Cooper did not work b/c she didn't have a "green card" (being a Canadian). She would have loved to have been able to work. She did not just lie around at home to spend money. There was a reason she could not work in the US. She knew that if she went back to Canada that she could legitimately work.

I see people making comments that are unfair, or should I say, made without knowing the facts. Yes, it is hard to know and read all the affidavits and legal whatnots of the case, but I can tell you I've read every one that's been put on the 'net.

As to DD (Ms. Duncan) who was on the stand today, she had her usual demeanor. She was a tad nervous, but who would not be, w/cameras, that scary big head of B.Cooper looking you in the face, and knowing everyone would be watching this on the media.

I have met DD in person. She's kind of "motherly", a cooking guru, family type. Nothing like the other of Nancy's group that remind me of Depserate Housewives, lol.

As an aside, I looked up the deed to DD's home today, just to see if it is still deeded to DD and her husband. LO! In Aug. 2009 (if I recall the month correctly), the house was deeded from belonging to DD *and* her husband, to just DD.

I suspect a change in the marriage?

Way back in the days of them questioning everyone, one of the interviews (on record in the legal docs) made reference to DD's husband being drunk at the party (or maybe another of their parties) and saying something to the effect of "I'd like to hit that", referring to Nancy Cooper.

It's in all the legal docs somewhere, and still in my head. (I did not socialize with any of them). IF DD and her husband have split, this would be the second for DD, not that it makes any difference.

In my opinion, there was lots of budding alcoholism in the group.

I cannot wat til more comes down on the trial, when we get to the good stuff.

I hope that they call as a witness that young woman on the trip in France, who Brad went rock climbing with, and everything else in the photos we saw. I think someone called her "Miss Fun Bags" on Websleuths! That's the woman that another of the NCSU students on the trip saw w/Brad and said he saw Brad taking off his wedding ring.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Doesn't linking it to a murder that it wasnt used to clean up stretch it a bit? Maybe he did not want her to buy the more expensive canvas drop clothes.

Except that J.A. purchased ALL the supplies. The paint, the brushes, the tape, etc. Why would Brad think (or assume) that Nancy would have purchased anything for that job when J.A. already had acquired the things needed?

 

[johnfear]

I'm rewatching her testimony now. I am saying she is proving a lot of the case for 2nd degree. Also, she is not doing well covering the over rehearsal of parts of her testimony. The emotions she is showing still ring false.

I hope they have more up their sleeve (google searches, DNA, spoof proof) but some of that would have come out in the opening...no?

 

[otto]

Except that J.A. purchased ALL the supplies. The paint, the brushes, the tape, etc. Why would Brad think (or assume) that Nancy would have purchased anything for that job when J.A. already had acquired the things needed?

The reason Nancy was doing the second job was to use up the paint that was left over from painting the first room (where she was paid). One would expect that Nancy or the friend already had a tarp and didn't need another one.

 

[ncsu95]

DD did say she was now divorced.

 

[ncsu95]

That's probably the portion I missed when I couldn't get the online feed.

Still, I don't see why he had to hang up on her. Obviously the girls needed their mother back...who could disagree with that? Surely Brad would understand the girls needed both their parents.

Do you really think it was said kindly or with sympathy? It was a nasty comment from someone that fully believed he killed her. She admitted that during her testimony. She said she was calmer than everyone else on Saturday because she already knew she was dead and he killed her.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm rewatching her testimony now. I am saying she is proving a lot of the case for 2nd degree.

What does that mean? She is one witness out of 100+.

Also, she is not doing well covering the over rehearsal of parts of her testimony. The emotions she is showing still ring false.

Rehearsal? Do you have proof that testimony was rehearsed? The emotions are what they are. She had a range of them, plus some nervousness.

I hope they have more up their sleeve (google searches, DNA, spoof proof) but some of that would have come out in the opening...no?

Not necessarily! They didn't tell us any results of testing...they didn't tell us lots of things. There is no rule that a prosecutor must disclose everything they are going to present. This team decided to keep things short/brief.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Do you really think it was said kindly or with sympathy? It was a nasty comment from someone that fully believed he killed her. She admitted that during her testimony. She said she was calmer than everyone else on Saturday because she already knew she was dead and he killed her.

I didn't hear how it was said...none of us did. The point is she said something and he hung up on her. She was talking about the children and what they went through that day. Her concern was for the children. What father wouldn't share a concern that the children were not coping well?

 

[otto]

Rehearsal? Do you have proof that testimony was rehearsed? The emotions are what they are. She had a range of them, plus some nervousness.

What was going on with not remembering the color of the dress?

 

[otto]

I didn't hear how it was said...none of us did. The point is she said something and he hung up on her. She was talking about the children and what they went through that day. Her concern was for the children. What father wouldn't share a concern that the children were not coping well?

What father wouldn't want to gather his children close to mourn as a family?

 

[SleuthyGal]

What was going on with not remembering the color of the dress?

Her testimony indicated that over time her memory of what Nancy wore that night may have been influenced by the things she learned later on. She did remember Brad specifically asking for help to find the black dress. She remembers asking if that was the color Nancy wore that night (it wasn't, but she only found that out later when she talked to another friend who was at the party and did remember). She remembered looking for a 'black' dress (per Brad's instructions). And after being reminded by a friend, when she saw the actual dress the next day or so (draped on a dining room chair in the cooper residence), she remembered it was the dress Nancy was wearing.

The point? DD wasn't paying close attention to what Nancy wore during the party. Or if she did pay attention at the time, the memory of Nancy wearing that dress has since faded today.

The other point (big point)? Brad put that dress in the laundry and washed it! He claimed it was because Nancy said she had a stain on it. Brad also referred to it as the 'black' dress. It was teal. He KNEW which dress Nancy wore to the party because he washed it! And he suddenly produced that dress the next day for the police. Hinky!

 

[per_curiam]

Thanks, NCSU05, for telling me that DD said she was now divorced. I suspected it for many reasons, did not know, though. I didn't get to watch but a few min. of seeing her testify. Yep. I suspected that a divorce was a coming. All I had to help me was going to the house deed, which told me what I thought was going on.

 

[CyberPro]

There is no rule that a prosecutor must disclose everything they are going to present. This team decided to keep things short/brief.

I have been pretty slammed @ work & school, so not much time to watch videos, but I did watch the opening statement by the ADA tonight. It was not as bad as I thought it might be. It was kind of brief, but made some important points about evidence that they plan to present.

There was also some information that I don't recall hearing before. She mentioned the phone calls the morning NC went missing, but also said that there were 2 other calls from the residence that he had not mentioned. (Perhaps testing the automated phone dialer solution?). I might have chosen a different delivery method, but one thing that she is trying to do is humanize NC. The defense is likely to dredge up every bit of dirt they can on her to try to take the shine off of her. This is normal to a degree, but it can backfire as well.

I would say the burden of proof is on the DA, if BC is innocent, they would not need to make NC look like a free spending gossip. If they resort to telling tales of misbehavior, it looks a bit less rosy for BC.

 

[CyberPro]

The point? DD wasn't paying close attention to what Nancy wore during the party. Or if she did pay attention at the time, the memory of Nancy wearing that dress has since faded today.

The other point (big point)? Brad put that dress in the laundry and washed it! He claimed it was because Nancy said she had a stain on it. Brad also referred to it as the 'black' dress. It was teal. He KNEW which dress Nancy wore to the party because he washed it! And he suddenly produced that dress the next day for the police. Hinky!

I do pretty well to remember what I was wearing yesterday! :waitasec:

I am not sure this is the case, but if BC were trying to mislead, he could have referred to a black dress, and if no one had a really clear memory, or there was someone else there wearing a black dress it might cause selective memories in some people.

 

[johnfear]

What does that mean? She is one witness out of 100+.




Rehearsal? Do you have proof that testimony was rehearsed? The emotions are what they are. She had a range of them, plus some nervousness.



Not necessarily! They didn't tell us any results of testing...they didn't tell us lots of things. There is no rule that a prosecutor must disclose everything they are going to present. This team decided to keep things short/brief.

Going backwards through the questions, yes, there is a rule about the DNA. It's called discovery. They would have had to have disclosed those results to the defense. Since neither brought it up, I am going to assume that it might be one of the items everyone was delaying at the higher level appeals hearings.

Secondly, her answers regarding the positive things about Brad were clearly rehearsed. They were repeated succinctly, pointedly and directly. Everything else she did was waning and punctuated by laughter, giggling, thought searching and/or meandering answers. I think that the prosecutor who walked her through her testimony previously stuck those points so she would seem to not have a grudge, etc. when in fact she was clapping at the arrest, hooting, hollering and possibly drunk (given, that was October after an extremely tense summer)

I know she's only one witness out of 100+, but she's had an awfully long time on the stand. Important, early, jury focused, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed time. She is an EXTREMELY weak witness. My problem with these cases involving both "important areas of town" and "domestic issues" is this: There is a lot of legwork for the police. Not just the detectives, but everyone involved on the higher end (politically, etc) and everyone who is keeping up with the details. This being a lead-off witness of sorts, and one who is laying a heckuva lot of foundation for other later and possibly more important witnesses, you need more than a lot of: I can't recall. I don't remember. I am not sure.

Also, she focused on some crazy stuff that she DID remember, as opposed to things she DID NOT remember. I know the human mind is a crazy thing. However, if someone were to say to me: My husband made a list of stuff, what do you think? 1) If that list is enough to creep me out, I am going to remember what was on it. 2) If that list is something I figure his divorce attorney might have asked for OR I assume that the guy is prepping to live separately, I forget it. I DO NOT show up at court saying it had one of the kid's colors on it and something about a will. At the very least, I give answers that characterize what was there.

I totally get that she was the victim's friend, possibly confidant and probably in close enough proximity to have had multiple contacts in the correct time frame to accurately describe the situation. But again, Nancy-colored-glasses do not provide enough foundation. In fact, her being on the stand this long serves to create holes in more important things later.

Also, one of your earlier comments was about the DA moving forward on this case and how it was served up differently. You are completely 100% correct on the other two cases. I can tell you now there is a HUGE amount of political pressure to pull cases in certain areas of town involving domestic violence in front of them when they really should not be there. I think that is a direct result of several other NC cases being dragged out (some in proper fashion, some because of slower, not poorer, investigating).

There is something hinky about this case. I don't know if it is truly that something has not played out for the defense/prosecution on the evidence front OR if it is simply that we don't have enough to see the clear picture.

And sorry for the extremely long response. SG, please understand I am not arguing with you. I am truly fascinated by all of the facets of people's opinions in life and generally more respectful. I am sure emotions will run high on this til mid April or so. I have gotten extremely interested in the legal system in the last five years because of my own interest in both the human mind and criminal cases and I am fairly shocked at how things play out in court sometimes. I truly have a love-hate relationship with this. Mainly because of the tragedy on one side, then the fascination with the technicality and the dedication required to complete the process. I rarely hone in on any particular case here, but this was local and I can (for lack of a better word) touch and feel the locale and the attitudes and the air that it happened in. It makes it something I am particularly close to, despite my lack of personal involvement with the people of the case.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I am not sure this is the case, but if BC were trying to mislead, he could have referred to a black dress, and if no one had a really clear memory, or there was someone else there wearing a black dress it might cause selective memories in some people.

That was exactly DD's testimony. Because she didn't have a clear memory of what Nancy wore at the party, when Brad said 'help us look for the 'black' dress,' and DD found out later that the dress was actually teal, she testified she felt that Brad was intentionally trying to mislead (her / the investigation). Why? Obviously buying time so he could WASH that dress! How do we know this? Because he produced the dress the next day and it had been freshly laundered (after Nancy wore it, and he said he washed it).

 

[ncsu95]

I have been pretty slammed @ work & school, so not much time to watch videos, but I did watch the opening statement by the ADA tonight. It was not as bad as I thought it might be. It was kind of brief, but made some important points about evidence that they plan to present.

There was also some information that I don't recall hearing before. She mentioned the phone calls the morning NC went missing, but also said that there were 2 other calls from the residence that he had not mentioned. (Perhaps testing the automated phone dialer solution?). I might have chosen a different delivery method, but one thing that she is trying to do is humanize NC. The defense is likely to dredge up every bit of dirt they can on her to try to take the shine off of her. This is normal to a degree, but it can backfire as well.

I would say the burden of proof is on the DA, if BC is innocent, they would not need to make NC look like a free spending gossip. If they resort to telling tales of misbehavior, it looks a bit less rosy for BC.

There were 3 calls to Brad's cell phone from the home phone. The inference from the prosecution is that he was testing the ability to autodial his phone on the first. The defense addressed this in its opening statement. The first call (according to the defense) was Brad trying to locate his cell phone. I know I do this when I can't find my phone. The other 2 were supposedly Nancy calling Brad on his way to the store to get him to pick up other things. The defense did say during opening statements (which is not evidence) that these were not voip calls. They were made from the home phone which is a standard land line.

 

[SleuthyGal]

when in fact she was clapping at the arrest

The clapping was from her husband, Craig.

Important, early, jury focused, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed time.

She was the first up because the prosecution is presenting witnesses in a specific order and since she threw the party the night before she was the first one called. Important? As important as any witness. Bright eyed? She looked sad at many points.

1) If that list is enough to creep me out, I am going to remember what was on it. 2) If that list is something I figure his divorce attorney might have asked for OR I assume that the guy is prepping to live separately, I forget it. I DO NOT show up at court saying it had one of the kid's colors on it and something about a will. At the very least, I give answers that characterize what was there.

She remembered a few things on it, but she didn't remember every item on the list. Would you have preferred she make items up or just tell the truth? The truth is that she didn't recall the list in granular detail. The items she remembered she said. BTW, the two items she mentioned *were* in fact on that list! That was covered during custody hearing testimony by others. If you're going to either assume a witness is making something up or question accuracy of what they're saying, I suggest you take the time to learn the evidence in detail. The info is right on Websleuths and it's organized and categorized quite nicely.

 

[ncsu95]

That was exactly DD's testimony. Because she didn't have a clear memory of what Nancy wore at the party, when Brad said 'help us look for the 'black' dress,' and DD found out later that the dress was actually teal, she testified she felt that Brad was intentionally trying to mislead (her / the investigation). Why? Obviously buying time so he could WASH that dress! How do we know this? Because he produced the dress the next day and it had been freshly laundered (after Nancy wore it, and he said he washed it).

I think this is a huge difference between men and women. I couldn't tell you what my wife is wearing right now unless I look up...and she's sitting 10 feet from me. But she can give you details about what her friend was wearing 2 months ago when we went to dinner. It's possible Brad was trying to hide the actual dress...or maybe he thought she was wearing a black dress. As a guy, I don't remember those things.

 

[ncsu95]

I think the "bright-eyed" comment was referring to the jury. I will say this about DD. Most of her testimony felt uncomfortable. But I really felt empathy for her when she started talking about the children and about saying I love you to Nancy when parting. You could tell she really loved her friend.