State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11

[sunshine05]

Does anybody remember exactly where Nancy's labcorp bill for the testing she had done on April 15, 2008 was found in the house? I mean, was it in a drawer, a folder, laying out somewhere?

I believe it was found on a table in the police search, not positive though.

 

[johnfear]

Common sense tells us a website dedicated to divorce and child custody issues is not going to link to a usenet group devoted to how to kill yourself, the methods, etc. I saw the heading at the top of the article when it was displayed in court. It had absolutely nothing to do with divorcing fathers feeling sad and suicidal about losing their kids. I know what I saw and I know what it said. The slide showed where the article came from. In big black letters. It was a resource guide of how to kill yourself. Then Kurtz threw a big 'ole fit to keep it out.

Actually, this site around that time should NOT be let in. It would not help the Pros' case. They know it. The primary reason is because of the big cadoodle over just that issue. There were not just trolls during that time, but the site itself swapped out to a "google group" and incorporated the aforementioned bus-stop and holiday names into it's user names and somebody was dumb enough to register and host a domain pointing back to it that DID advertise. I would be slapped on the hand by all of you, but I want to say this was May of 2007 that it started and it got stopped circa March of 2008.

I am not saying BC did or did not use it, did or did not get an idea from it. I'm saying it will basically add two weeks to the trial to get into it because the minute they open the door, the defense is going to want to bring three of the witnesses back and ask where and what was found and it's going to be a big old mess.

Look up "suicide surfing" "Suicide site trolled" "Suicide site places ads in odd places" or something to that affect and aim for MSM articles about some parents group losing it over it. It was all a very sad, sad set of circumstances because of the exploitations involved.

 

[momof7]

Brad Cooper has many supporters and their sympathy on some other forums including news comments sites. So what does that get Brad Cooper? Nothing, absolutely nothing. It won't keep him out of prison for life. It will not keep the jury from convicting him if indeed they do. It will not help him on appeal. I am sure Kurtz tells BC of his many supporters and how they defend him after hearing the testimony so far. And it also 'puffs' Kurtz up.

I hope I am not out of line here when I say this jury worries me. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but I sense there may be at least one hold-out on the jury. Maybe it is all of the niose I hear as they are coming into the courtroom. I have heard one laughing more than once as they were coming into the courtroom. Then someone on the jury complains because someone or maybe more than one person is staring at them. When a piece of crucial testimony is given, it is only natural for people in the gallery to observe the jury to see if there is any reaction. That is what happens in a courtroom and I have observed it many times in Federal Court. Now, people in the gallery are talking and it disturbs them. What is with this jury? I do not think it is against the law for me to speak of the jury, and I do not think it is against TOS here, so I am just going to predict there there are maybe a couple of very immature jurors on that jury panel. And that worries me. There are journalists at every high profile case who does absolutely watch the jury to see if they can 'read' them. It is just my opinion that these jurors need to buck up and concentrate on the witness and the testimony and ignore the gallery. If the baliff and the judge does not see the staring and hear the talking in the gallery, then I am surprised one or more of the jury does. I am indeed worried!

I am still feeling that something is going on here (trial) that is kind of odd. This one just beats all I have ever seen.

Sorry, everyone. I am puzzled as well as worried!

MOO's

Yes, I agree. There is something about the defense and the jury that has me really bothered. I would like to belive, if I were a juror, that the last thing I would be doing is noticing someone staring at me. In this high profile case I would honestly expect cameras, reporters and other things. I will admit that some of the testimony so far is paramount to having my eyelashes pulled out one by one, very tedious and at times 'boring' since I have a hard time understand the 'tech' side of things. Even more reason IMHO they would be paying very close attention to what testimony is


Kelly

 

[borndem]

Excellent thoughts. I feel the very same way. I realize, as in the parents of Jon Benet Ramsey, that defense attorneys are needed. But for the most part, I could never, ever defend anybody whom I thought, or knew for a fact, was guilty.

The only thing I can offer here about that is via my friend who is now a judge, but was first a defense atty and then an ADA. S/He much preferred working for the prosecutor's office because it bothered him/her that in a trial or hearing that people would forget about the victim(s), and s/he took much pride in convictions.

S/He told me that what s/he tried to do as a defense attorney was to make sure the defendant got a fair trial -- that was back in the day when private defense attys would be on a rotation to defend indigents, and s/he had some pretty nasty clients.

 

[borndem]

That's why def attorneys NEVER ask their client if they're guilty. They ASSUME they're innocent and that's the way they'll defend them.

JMHO
fran

And one more reason: As long as the def. atty. doesn't know, if their client gets on the stand, and the def atty asks Did you kill your husband, and the client says, No, the atty cannot be accused of subornation of perjury, which is very serious.

 

[borndem]

And what exactly are they going to be looking for in the house if she was killed while out running?

Anything that might point to where she might be: a note from a friend about meeting for lunch, a phone number, a to-do list, a phone msg, hotel reservation/confirmation, cab co. phone no., hair cut appt, note to husband that he didn't see, baby shower invitation, etc., etc.

 

[momof7]

Anything that might point to where she might be: a note from a friend about meeting for lunch, a phone number, a to-do list, a phone msg, hotel reservation/confirmation, cab co. phone no., hair cut appt, note to husband that he didn't see, baby shower invitation, etc., etc.

Or..checking her closet to make sure there wasn't clothing missing. I actually knew of someone who 'did leave home'. She ran off with someone else and over the course of time she had taken items out of her closet, little by little. Nothing noticeable until you were looking. She finally called home after 3 days. No note, no nothing. Just systematically removing clothes here and there. Her husband said he just assumed her things were in the wash, she had to be wearing clothes everyday.

I would imagine if my spouse was missing, I would miss the obvious in my quest to find answers. The high stress of the situation etc. LE would know what questions to ask, as I am sure they have been thru it a few times. When my sd decided to take a mini vacation some years ago, we were at the police station within 12 hours. Their first suggestion was to find her friends, teens never stop texting and calling friends when they runaway. We had spoken to a few friends, no one knew anything. Sure enough we just hadn't found the 'right' friend. She was found thru texts.

So, yes, I can see that LE would be searching, just to verify she did NOT leave on her own.

Kelly

 

[Palomine]

I wish google hadn't changed a couple years ago. It was so much easier to google ng postings from years ago. Now I get stumped all the time in trying to search out postings from yrs past. I did pick up something about ASH moving to ASBS, I think that was it. alt.suicide.bus.stop, something along those lines. They were trying to shake the trolls & loons yelling 'do it', 'jump'.
Interesting, Brad possibly posting as NC. I hadn't thought of that. I was thinking more along the lines of BC searching out advice, how to's, various methods of strangulation, asphyxiation, ( damn, I need a spell check ) :banghead:

I don't use google as a search engine because in my opinion they use a pay method for search results...yahoo has better results..

 

[Palomine]

That's why def attorneys NEVER ask their client if they're guilty. They ASSUME they're innocent and that's the way they'll defend them.

JMHO
fran

one of my lawyers told me if I ever commit a crime do not tell me, some sort of ethics thing that if he knew I committed the crime he could not defend me

 

[momof7]

one of my lawyers told me if I ever commit a crime do not tell me, some sort of ethics thing that if he knew I committed the crime he could not defend me

Now, forever, when someone changes lawyers my first thought will be GUILTY...jk!

:crazy:

 

[borndem]

Friday is a full day, right?

It's a full day because of Wednesday's half-day.

 

[borndem]

I heard it was full day since they had a half day yesterday. Don't know where I heard that tho.

From da judge -- because of Wednesday being a half day. It's a full day.

 

[news247]

I suspect his anger is more because he doesn't understand the tech parts of the case, and the motions and objections with the tech details are way over his head, as he said the other day. I think he feels completely overwhelmed by it, and I believe that frustration is coming out in the form of trying to limit technology in the only way he can: by banning computers and devices in his courtroom. He can't remove the tech from the legal case itself, but he can remove the tech from the public's hands. His outburst/lecture was akin to a judicial tantrum and it wasn't pretty.

if so - how does he expect to issue rulings, especially whether items are, or, are not, admissible? if he can't rule effectively, then he isn't helping himself, the prosecution or the defense. maybe he needs to reconsider his position.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I posted earlier about the posts I saw about the verdict watch, like it was some time when the jury was deliberating and it was "quiet time" on the forum....

I have not seen a response.... does anyone who has previously followed cases here know about it and care to fill me in?

Still waiting........:waiting:

CyberPro, I answered you way back there! Someone else did also.

Just now catching up, I have been sleeping!

 

[LaLaw2000]

I know I am way way behind, and maybe someone else has said what I think is what is going on with this..AS Ido realizes this Loud lughter we have all heard from the jury room..forsome reason has caused some concern....

I definately get just what ya all are thinking..But I have another perspective..We sense the tension, the important of every nuance we see, hear and apply it to things we know already, heard mentioned, then WE get to discuss, debate it....THIS JURY are unable to talk about it to anybody not ask for clearifications, not debate what they heard nor what a fellw juror hear, etc.....Jurors I am sure look for any diversion to vent their tension and maybe inaappripriately giggle, or laugh..but by geesh...IF they kept to themselves, stayed silent and brudded for weeks on end..Me thinks it may become necessary to have psychologist be in constant consultations with jurors...JURY DUTY IS ONE HUGE TOUGH JOB Mentally, emotionally and spiritually..:rocker:

Sorry, I just dont think it is fair to judge their LOL or fun they havoe outside of the courtroom..As humans they do need to have a outlet...and I venture to say when alone they are having real big trouble sleeping!!!

Not meant to judge anyone for being worried, or concerned about their behaviors..Just trying to point out the other side and positive side of that same coin :seeya:

I also respect your opinions and respect your right to them. I agree with you so much of the time! I am 60 years old and am retired. Maybe I am just too serious in my older years, but I still hold my opinion! I am worried about this jury.

:HHJP: <-----------Me! LOL!

*Getting myself back to bed now!

 

[johnfear]

In case you are wondering, I was able to use old information and trace all of the BC links for suicide to here:

http://www.suicidemethods.net/links/listlink.htm

The top three links were once a single page/usegroup/newsgroup and that appeared to be what was displayed in court.

FYI, I got there via a fathers/depression/custody search too. It was about eighteen items in. (I found a SECOND link via a depression post-divorce site....but that LINK was labeled "Practical Guide to Suicide" Took me to the same place)

And yes, I am aware most of them are not clickable/disabled, but if you search your favorite SE groups (google,yahoo,etc) you will find the information you are looking for.

There were multiple cases of assisted suicide in the period July 2007 to January 2008 that made big news there and this site and the associated groups were featured there.

 

[Just the Fax]

Because of the Feb 2008 timing of the suicide information, I don't think it has anything to do with researching methods so murder would appear as suicide. Now, if he went there shortly before the murder, that would be debatable.
Like Boz originally said in court, he wanted to use this to show the jury he lied again in the deposition.

 

[sunshine05]

I don't use google as a search engine because in my opinion they use a pay method for search results...yahoo has better results..

I use scroogle scraper for all my searches because it doesn't leave tracking cookies.

http://scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm

 

[fran]

In initial police interviews, HP didn't mention anything about NC's paint plans, nor did 14 people who attended the party with NC on Friday evening.

Then, in testimony, HP said NC DID tell her she was going to finish up painting at JA's when she spoke to her on Friday before the party. So she added that detail to her story just recently.

What doesn't make sense is that HP called BC Saturday morning at the time NC was supposed to be at JA's house and never mentioned any knowledge of NC's paint plans, just was calling to firm up pool plans for later. So why did she call the Cooper's home phone? Why not her cell phone if she told her she was going to be at JA's?

When JA called BC that morning looking for NC, she also failed to mention that NC was supposed to be there.

Another inconsistency is CC said in testimony that NC was running at Lake Johnson on Thursday but HP said she was at the gym and having lunch with her after taking the kids to school.

Plus MH and BC had tennis plans and JA had plans with her kids that morning at 10:30AM according to her calendar. On the police call, she said NC was expected at her house by 9 (that has now changed to 8 in testimony). Why would you have someone come to paint at 9 when you would have to clean up to take your kids somewhere after one hour. Makes no sense. Plus NC told KL she was sick of painting.

I know most of you don't want to discuss this since the "smoking gun" is now known, but I can't let go of this. It really seems like things just don't add up with the friends' stories and I want to know why. IF they are lying, which most of you don't believe, but just what if they are. Why????

From the VERY BEGINNING, NC's friends told LE NC had plans at 8:00 a.m. the day she disappeared. Saturday.

JMHO
fran

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3248238/
911 calls in Nancy Cooper's death released

Raleigh, N.C. — A friend of Nancy Cooper tells 911 dispatchers in a call released Tuesday that the slain Cary mother of two was in the middle of a divorce, that there was tension in her friend's marriage and says her apparent disappearance "would not make any sense."

"She was supposed to be at my house at eight and just because of the situation with the divorce, I'm just wondering – I don't know what I should do," the caller says in the July 12 call, made at 1:50 p.m.

The caller, Jessica Adam, tells dispatchers that Nancy Cooper's husband, Brad Cooper, said his wife went out early for a run – he believed with a friend.

Adam says that although it was possible Cooper had forgotten about their meeting, it was "weird" that she had not heard from her.

"She would have made contact with me or her other friend by now – who both had expected her today

 

[SleuthinNC]

Are you saying that the calls never happened or that it is impossible for the calls to have happened and that the friends were not aware of the calls? Can't one believe that the calls were made but just not in the presence of anyone?

The way NC told them everything I don't believe she could be with them and calling him repeatedly without complaining "now he is ignoring my calls" and that would have come out as another BC negative from the crew.

Now I have to go back and look at the section with the Fri calls from NC cell. Something just struck me as being fishy.