State v Bradley Cooper 4/14/11

[LaLaw2000]

jrb0124, we are not on a jury here.

JMO

 

[BeBeBru]

Well said.

I must say, withholding judgement until all the facts and testimony is in, until all parties have been heard is the both the mark of a fair jurist/judge and as you mention, our judicial system. Thank God for that.

There is nothing wrong with forming your own opinion based on the presentation of only one party, but when you do so - you choose to ignore testimony and evidence you have not even heard yet: "I've heard enough! Guilty!"

There IS something wrong with ridiculing and questioning the sanity of those who choose to hear all parties before firming up their opinion of what happened and who is to blame.

If YOU were wrongfully accused of a crime (and please, I am NOT stating as fact that BC is wrongfully accused) who would you want as your juror/judge...? someone who will wait to hear your side of the story before rendering you GUILTY! or someone who takes a posture that you are GUILTY! before hearing your side of the story, or in the case of many here, before the trial starts.

Those of us withholding judgement ("on the fence") are the jurors you want at your trial. Remember that before ridiculing our sense of fairness.

In my opinion, BC was going to walk, 100%, even with no defense presented, before the testimony re: accessing the online map.

Some here would argue that there was enough CE without the "smoking gun". I think that sentiment comes more from emotion than anything else.

About that "smoking gun"...I can think of several ways to explain that map search that do not include CPD tampering. I'll give you two examples from different perspectives.

1) Laptop was seized 7/16, 2 days after the discovery of the body. It's completely plausible to me that BC looked up the location once he learned where the body was found. Remember, he still had his laptop and it was at the house on 7/14. Is the dating on the data/images subject to a different interpretation or explanation? I don't know...but is possible the dating was off by 3 days for some reason or another. Its NOT IMPOSSIBLE that the dating is off, no one on this forum knows this for sure with the info that's out.

2) Suppose NC was meeting someone, occassionally. We know there will be testimony to this effect. There would of course be communication to arrange these meetings. What if BC saw a text mssg FRI morning or some time earlier in the week that said something like "meet at Fielding sat 7". That would certainly give him a reason to look up the address (Where is Fielding? what's at Fielding?). For this explanation, you would also need to consider that BC would not tell CPD at the time that he was aware she was meeting someone...for this would indicate he was privy to her personal communications. Once the body was discovered there his previously undisclosed knowledge of where she was possible meeting someone coinciding with the location of the body (in his mind) then became more of a liability and an indication of his guilt or involvement. So, he kept his mouth shut. Perhaps he figured they would see the text on her phone and figure it out themselves. Ooopppsss...data was wiped.

I didn't post the two scenarios above because I personally believe them, just to show that when you think you have a "smoking gun", you may not. Let's hear what the defense with its witnesses and experts has to say - and not ridicule those of us who think outside the box (wife murdered in middle class neighborhood=husband).

If the defense cannot explain the map search, if BC now take a plea, it doesn't mean I am wrong, and the BDI folks from day 1 are right...it just means it takes a more thorough and complete picture to convince me.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!!

:great: :great: :great: :great: :great: :great: :great:

 

[ncsu95]

Well said.

I must say, withholding judgement until all the facts and testimony is in, until all parties have been heard is the both the mark of a fair jurist/judge and as you mention, our judicial system. Thank God for that.

There is nothing wrong with forming your own opinion based on the presentation of only one party, but when you do so - you choose to ignore testimony and evidence you have not even heard yet: "I've heard enough! Guilty!"

There IS something wrong with ridiculing and questioning the sanity of those who choose to hear all parties before firming up their opinion of what happened and who is to blame.

If YOU were wrongfully accused of a crime (and please, I am NOT stating as fact that BC is wrongfully accused) who would you want as your juror/judge...? someone who will wait to hear your side of the story before rendering you GUILTY! or someone who takes a posture that you are GUILTY! before hearing your side of the story, or in the case of many here, before the trial starts.

Those of us withholding judgement ("on the fence") are the jurors you want at your trial. Remember that before ridiculing our sense of fairness.

In my opinion, BC was going to walk, 100%, even with no defense presented, before the testimony re: accessing the online map.

Some here would argue that there was enough CE without the "smoking gun". I think that sentiment comes more from emotion than anything else.

About that "smoking gun"...I can think of several ways to explain that map search that do not include CPD tampering. I'll give you two examples from different perspectives.

1) Laptop was seized 7/16, 2 days after the discovery of the body. It's completely plausible to me that BC looked up the location once he learned where the body was found. Remember, he still had his laptop and it was at the house on 7/14. Is the dating on the data/images subject to a different interpretation or explanation? I don't know...but is possible the dating was off by 3 days for some reason or another. Its NOT IMPOSSIBLE that the dating is off, no one on this forum knows this for sure with the info that's out.

2) Suppose NC was meeting someone, occassionally. We know there will be testimony to this effect. There would of course be communication to arrange these meetings. What if BC saw a text mssg FRI morning or some time earlier in the week that said something like "meet at Fielding sat 7". That would certainly give him a reason to look up the address (Where is Fielding? what's at Fielding?). For this explanation, you would also need to consider that BC would not tell CPD at the time that he was aware she was meeting someone...for this would indicate he was privy to her personal communications. Once the body was discovered there his previously undisclosed knowledge of where she was possible meeting someone coinciding with the location of the body (in his mind) then became more of a liability and an indication of his guilt or involvement. So, he kept his mouth shut. Perhaps he figured they would see the text on her phone and figure it out themselves. Ooopppsss...data was wiped.

I didn't post the two scenarios above because I personally believe them, just to show that when you think you have a "smoking gun", you may not. Let's hear what the defense with its witnesses and experts has to say - and not ridicule those of us who think outside the box (wife murdered in middle class neighborhood=husband).

If the defense cannot explain the map search, if BC now take a plea, it doesn't mean I am wrong, and the BDI folks from day 1 are right...it just means it takes a more thorough and complete picture to convince me.

I'm as skeptical as they come, but I don't believe #2 was possible. He didn't google search for Fielding. He googled his zip code and then moved the map to Fielding.

 

[jrb0124]

[/B]

If it was an early morning clandestine meeting it may have been there.

That would make sense - a place where no one else would show. You could also take it a step further and wonder if the paramour was someone in a position to wipe the phone...but I really do think the phone wipe was accidental.

 

[sunshine05]

About different opinions - I think it's 'unfortunate' that some people take different opinions/viewpoints so personally that they make comments that puts them in a TO. It's just an opinion, you don't have to agree with it. Normally it's just easier to scroll past (although I agree that sometimes that's harder than it seems).

About your alt theories on the map search:

1 - The agent was pretty adamant about the date being July 11th at 1:15PM. I find it hard to believe they didn't make absolutely sure that the date was accurate (since it's so vital to how damaging the evidence is).

2 - Even if it's true that he intercepted a 'meeting' text, it's very unlikely that meeting was happening at Fielding. You'd have to know the area to know what I'm talking about. It's a subdivision that's not even in a well populated part of the county. Not only that, but the image they got was zoomed in on the exact location of the dump site. I find it highly improbably, basically impossible that NC is meeting some guy in the back of some undeveloped subdivision, near a drainage pond.

Also, if it were scenario 2, BC would have spoke up about it. He would have admitted he intercepted an email of the meeting place and had the proof that there were plans.

 

[less0305]

[/B]

If it was an early morning clandestine meeting it may have been there.

Funny though that your husband, not lover, was found to have google mapped the location on his work computer. Why? What purpose did he have in magnifying the location exactly where her body was found? And if you want to argue that the time stamp is off and he googled it AFTER - then explain why a man who says he felt he was considered a suspect wouldn't have at the very least stated as much in his sworn deposition three months later. Nope, when asked he didn't say, "oh, yeah, I googled the area after they found Nancy to get a birds eye view of where Nancy was found." No, he didn't do that. He stated he only saw a map of the area maybe in a news report. Ha!! He could have cleared himself right there in the depo, but dumb butt that he is he continued on with his lie and cover up.

 

[jrb0124]

I'm as skeptical as they come, but I don't believe #2 was possible. He didn't google search for Fielding. He googled his zip code and then moved the map to Fielding.

If the hypothetical message BC intercepted mentioned directions or an area and not a specific street? or if there was a landmark mentioned? or what if Fielding was NOT on google maps back then but he had a rough idea of where it was?

 

[ncsu95]

Respectfully snipped. I like your well thought post!

I think scenario 1 will be shown to be true. (JMO). I've been thinking that for the past day too because it seems very logical that one would do a search after the body was found to see where it was. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that he would choose a spot that quickly with a google map search, which would have to mean he already chose it but wanted to take another look. But why would he risk having that on his computer? After all the careful planning and all that would have gone into spoofing the call.

We shall see.

I'm having a hard time with that. If he did this after the body was found, why wouldn't he have googled Fielding drive instead of his zip code?

 

[less0305]

Respectfully snipped. I like your well thought post!

I think scenario 1 will be shown to be true. (JMO). I've been thinking that for the past day too because it seems very logical that one would do a search after the body was found to see where it was. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense that he would choose a spot that quickly with a google map search, which would have to mean he already chose it but wanted to take another look. But why would he risk having that on his computer? After all the careful planning and all that would have gone into spoofing the call.

We shall see.

copied from a previous post of mine:

If you want to argue that the time stamp is off and he googled it AFTER - then explain why a man who says he felt he was considered a suspect wouldn't have at the very least stated as much in his sworn deposition three months later. Nope, when asked he didn't say, "oh, yeah, I googled the area after they found Nancy to get a birds eye view of where Nancy was found." No, he didn't do that. He stated he only saw a map of the area maybe in a news report. Ha!! He could have cleared himself right there in the depo, but dumb butt that he is he continued on with his lie and cover up.

Again, it goes back to those inconsistencies all adding up.

 

[jrb0124]

Also, if it were scenario 2, BC would have spoke up about it. He would have admitted he intercepted an email of the meeting place and had the proof that there were plans.

He may have thought the perp would have been identified or arrested without volunteering this info (that he spied on NC email/txt). Then it became too late (in his mind) ... then he figured he would not be charged, then the txt was wiped so no alibi. Possible...though remotely so. Could this be why the defense was so concerned about the phone?

 

[jrb0124]

copied from a previous post of mine:

He stated he only saw a map of the area maybe in a news report. Ha!! He could have cleared himself right there in the depo, but dumb butt that he is he continued on with his lie and cover up.

We're talking about this possibility (googling after the fact) along with the assumption he didn't do it. Why would it be something significant that he remembered - even if asked point blank about it. Heck, I don't remember what I searched for 3 months ago.

 

[sunshine05]

I'm having a hard time with that. If he did this after the body was found, why wouldn't he have googled Fielding drive instead of his zip code?

To see where it was in relation to his home maybe? If he was used to typing in his zip code to look at the map? It was reported as 3 miles from the home. ??? Who knows.

 

[sunshine05]

He may have thought the perp would have been identified or arrested without volunteering this info (that he spied on NC email/txt). Then it became too late (in his mind) ... then he figured he would not be charged, then the txt was wiped so no alibi. Possible...though remotely so. Could this be why the defense was so concerned about the phone?

Really interesting.

 

[less0305]

We're talking about this possibility (googling after the fact) along with the assumption he didn't do it. Why would it be something significant that he remembered - even if asked point blank about it. Heck, I don't remember what I searched for 3 months ago.

C'mon - he knows he is suspected. If he googled that map, you know good and well he would have told them. Also, he was asked did he ever drive by there. His answer. "No. I have no interest in seeing it." If he had googled it in the time frame that she was found you know he would remember that especially after the question about driving by it. "No, I didn't drive by there. It was too painful, but I did google it to see how far it was from the house." It's just reasonable and common sense. Like I've said many many times. Brad might have had an MBA and been an "expert" at work - he was dumb as a box of rocks in the normal everyday common sense aspect of life. He couldn't even cover his own stupid lies. I know nothing about technology, but you can believe I'd find a way to explain why a google map of my wife's body dump site would be on my computer. If you're going to lie, at least make it a good lie. AS gave him the PERFECT set up to explain why a google map of that site was on his computer - again, neandrathal should have been arrested for being dumb during daylight!