Honestly, it has taken ridiculously long and I would be pissed too (though, I probably wouldn't be writing a note about it) but its not because of the judge or the defense so it's odd timing.

Some of the state testimony was excrutiatingly boring to watch and much of it had little to nothing to do with their actual case. Out of what, 8-9 weeks now, the defense has only had 2 weeks and they are about finished as far as I can tell.

4/29/2011 10:09:54 AM

Quote :

"Jurors are reviewing evidence presented by the defense. Stay tuned for continuing live coverage."

4/29/2011 10:10:29 AM

90% of the proscutions case was hearsay and housewives gossiping. If I were a juror I'd be pissed at having to listen to that for 3 weeks. Hell I'd vote not guilty just because of that.

4/29/2011 10:15:29 AM

Two things I noticed last night while reading through the search warrants and motions:

1. CPD took several computers from the Cooper home, why no forensic examination of any of the others?

2. When Nancy went missing, the kids went to stay with some other lady. Other lady has mentioned to the defense that at some point CPD questioned the older daughter who confirmed she saw her mother that morning and she was in fact dressed to go running. Keep in mind this is a 4.5 year old kid, but still.

4/29/2011 10:16:56 AM

i hear ya, jocristian, i'd be frustrated too... but it's like you said yourself - you'd stop short of writing that letter. likely out of respect for the court and the process, flawed as it may be

and while i love a good clean legal debate (especially on tww), i've been forcing myself to stay out of this thread since i found it. following the trial has taken enough of my time, i can't turn back into a chataholic as well.

that's not directed at anyone, i'm just talking.

^been wondering that too... was the 4 y/o ever asked when she last saw mommy? god, its so hard to avoid this thread!

4/29/2011 10:18:29 AM

Yea. The comments from the kid came up. But I think it wasn't allowed because of her age. Or something like that.

4/29/2011 10:18:48 AM

The amount of evidence that has been suppressed and/or voluntarily not introduced is ridiculous. Shit shouldn't have even gone to trial as far as I can tell.

4/29/2011 10:19:11 AM

Quote :

"But I think it wasn't allowed because of her age. Or something like that."

4.5 year-old's can't be trusted to recognize their own mother. Wow.

4/29/2011 10:22:58 AM

I dont think it's that they can't be trusted in recognizing, its more likely that at this point, since the fumbling bumbling CPD never asked, could the kid be trusted in remembering?

4/29/2011 10:24:20 AM

wait, is the kid 4.5 now? or was she 4.5 in '08?

4/29/2011 10:26:39 AM

A 4 year old has no concept of time. It can't be trusted testimony in a trial

4/29/2011 10:26:49 AM

I understand not calling a child as a witness, but if the police questioned her at the time, whatever she said would seem to be relevant.

4/29/2011 10:27:25 AM

Yeah, unfortunately the CPD seemed to ignore most of the evidence that pointed towards Brad Cooper not being the guy.

The thing is, it wasn't even anything nefarious, it was just lazy. Easy to just call the guy you already know and have in custody guilty rather than having to actually do your job and find the killer.

4/29/2011 10:30:56 AM

Yea. I don't think it started off as "let's screw this guy over!" they were lazy and inept. "it's ALWAYS the husband". Then the prosecution got involved and had to find a way to get him convicted to cover up the CPDs mistakes.

4/29/2011 10:34:13 AM

any conviction >>> right conviction

4/29/2011 10:35:31 AM

Quote :

"4.5 year-old's can't be trusted to recognize their own mother. Wow."

They'll recognize their mother, they just can't be trusted to remember when they saw her. I'm sure they could have asked her, 5 minutes later ask again, and she'd give a different answer. Then they would just try to coax the answer they wanted out of her.

You didn't see your mommy that morning did you?

4/29/2011 10:50:25 AM

Quote :

"I understand not calling a child as a witness, but if the police questioned her at the time, whatever she said would seem to be relevant."

exactly

i don't think anyone here wants to see those little girls called to the stand or anything like that. we're all just wondering if the cops bothered to ask the girls anything... and if so, what was the police testimony regarding what was said about where mommy went

4/29/2011 11:12:07 AM

so are they done for the day?

4/29/2011 11:13:58 AM

defense rested i think?

4/29/2011 11:29:26 AM

Defense rested. 2 days after the jurors note about wanting their lives back. Coincidence? Or trying to get on the jurors good side?

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM. Reason : Ugh]

4/29/2011 12:24:44 PM

If this is the case I'm pretty certain that the defense is confident that the jury will make the correct decision.

4/29/2011 12:30:39 PM

Zellinger needs a 5 gallon tub of weight gainer. He makes a suit coat look like a members only jacket.

4/29/2011 12:34:30 PM

lol at Boz: 'In the interest of justice'.

You fuckers have zero interest in justice.

4/29/2011 12:35:04 PM

CFry back on the stand possibly?

4/29/2011 12:35:41 PM

After much deliberation today we feel strongly in our household that Brad did it.

4/29/2011 12:37:49 PM

Question for all you court/law hobbyists...

Wouldn't the time to determine whether an expert can or can't testify be before the trial starts? Specifically to avoid this crap where they grill someone after the trial starts to suppress evidence. Then you're stuck not being able to call in a new expert to make the evidence known.

Also, the system seems to be set up such that one side could approve of an expert testifying for the other side because they know they'll be able to prevent the testimony and thus prevent the evidence from ever being brought forth.



[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 12:45 PM. Reason : -]

4/29/2011 12:38:42 PM

Trenkle just called Boz unethical. Oh snap

4/29/2011 12:40:55 PM

is it back on?

4/29/2011 12:42:27 PM

c fry in the house

4/29/2011 12:43:14 PM

SO It appears that the defense rested, and the state wants to bring cfry back up because he has new evidence that might seal the prosecution's case. Naturally, the defense doesn't want that allowed, and this afternoon we should get to hear about it outside of the presence of the jurors.........

4/29/2011 12:48:20 PM

Quote :

"After much deliberation today we feel strongly in our household that Brad did it. "

WTF. how could you possibly reach that conclusion?

4/29/2011 12:48:29 PM

/sarcasm?

4/29/2011 12:49:44 PM

Quote :

"WTF. how could you possibly reach that conclusion?"

1. The dress
2. Brad cleaning in the house
3. The garage
4. Nancy's key ring had two keys on it, car and house. Appropriate for a runner, yes? However when she "went running that morning" she left her keys at home. Also she was wearing one diamond stud earring when her body was found.
5. The garage
6. Missing shoes, both from the house and what he was wearing in the HT video
7. Nancy goes missing, Brad doesn't call any of her family
8. Motive- he has it. Brad was intercepting her email/etc, she had recently been in contact with the man she was involved with prior to Brad as well as Jon Pearson who quite possibly could have fathered one of the kids. Nancy had been so upset over the Brad/Heather incident that when Brad learned what a desperate househoe Nancy had been the whole time he decided to kill her.
9. The way too clean trunk of Brad's car


I am not even going to touch the phone calls/router mess, or the Google Maps search, I think that will wash out.

4/29/2011 1:03:42 PM

optimusprimer presented the case much better than the prosecution ever did.

4/29/2011 1:07:42 PM

4/29/2011 1:11:39 PM

in prosecution's defense, they haven't made their closing statement yet. perhaps they'll just read those notes off to everyone and sit down.

4/29/2011 1:11:52 PM

I'm curious why you think the earring is evidence against Brad. As someone who had lost many a stud earring while wearing them, I don't think it's evidence of anything. Now if the missing earring had been found on the floor of the house, maybe it would be indicative of something, but then again maybe not.

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM. Reason : Th]

4/29/2011 1:13:14 PM

I don't see how you can discount the "phone calls/router mess". Phone calls were made after the prosecution says Nancy Cooper was dead.

WHO WAS PHONE?

4/29/2011 1:13:54 PM

are we off air for the day?

4/29/2011 1:19:47 PM

i see no stream!!

4/29/2011 1:27:42 PM

did cfry take the stand and if he did what did he say?

4/29/2011 1:33:18 PM

Quote :

"I'm curious why you think the earring is evidence against Brad. As someone who had lost many a stud earring while wearing them, I don't think it's evidence of anything. Now if the missing earring had been found on the floor of the house, maybe it would be indicative of something, but then again maybe not. "

Good question.
It goes along with the dress. Maybe one of the earrings comes off in the house, maybe somewhere else. Maybe its in the mud on Fielding Drive, all that matters is that earlier in the day she was seen in the HT video without the necklace and apparently without earrings. Some point that evening she gets dressed for the party, puts on the dress, the earrings and the necklace. She comes home from the party, he strangles her. Dress goes in the wash, he keeps the $7,000 necklace out of spite, he puts the sports bra on her and dumps the body, probably never thought about the earrings until finding it later and in a panic disposes of it.
Likewise, he fucked up by letting her get upstairs before killing her, remember how the stairs were among the places in the house that he cleaned? Well, consider this, upon expiration she most likely evacuated and made a mess on the floor, complicating the removal and disposal of the body, creating laundry that needed to be washed and making it difficult to put running shorts and shoes on her. Also would have left trace evidence on his shoes, and that jacket he was seen wearing at HT, neither of which were recovered. But just because he couldn't fully dress her as if she was running didn't mean he could leave her shorts and shoes in the house so he had to dispose of those as well.

4/29/2011 1:40:00 PM

Quote :

"they found my ducks!?"

4/29/2011 1:40:13 PM

Quote :

"did cfry take the stand and if he did what did he say?"

Gessner dismissed the Jury for the weekend and they cut the camera off, so who knows?

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 1:43 PM. Reason : maybe they are taping it and will post the vid tonight]

4/29/2011 1:42:40 PM

I just don't know how after watching all this, you could come to the conclusion that he did it.

4/29/2011 1:44:13 PM

^^^^Did he actually clean the stairs, or are you going off those pictures that show the staircase as one of the few clean areas of the house? Not surprising to have stairs clean of clutter, you don't want to trip or anything. Getting down there with some soft scrub with bleach is another matter entirely though.

Besides, that stuff isn't enough evidence to put a man away. Just a theory - like any other.



[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 1:47 PM. Reason : formatting]

4/29/2011 1:45:38 PM

^^ seems the same way the CPD came to the conclusion. assume the statistically probable conclusion and fit circumstantial evidence to fit a theory and ignore the phone calls and other suspicious characters she has slept with.

[Edited on April 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

4/29/2011 1:48:08 PM

Hey optimusprimer. If you were on this jury(or any other murder trial) would you be willing to vote a guy to spend the rest of his life in jail over some theories? Or circumstantial "evidence"?

4/29/2011 1:55:15 PM

and DoeoJ wins the thread

4/29/2011 1:56:00 PM

Quote :

"Good question. It goes along with the dress. Maybe one of the earrings comes off in the house, maybe somewhere else. Maybe its in the mud on Fielding Drive, all that matters is that earlier in the day she was seen in the HT video without the necklace and apparently without earrings. Some point that evening she gets dressed for the party, puts on the dress, the earrings and the necklace. She comes home from the party, he strangles her. Dress goes in the wash, he keeps the $7,000 necklace out of spite, he puts the sports bra on her and dumps the body, probably never thought about the earrings until finding it later and in a panic disposes of it. Likewise, he fucked up by letting her get upstairs before killing her, remember how the stairs were among the places in the house that he cleaned? Well, consider this, upon expiration she most likely evacuated and made a mess on the floor, complicating the removal and disposal of the body, creating laundry that needed to be washed and making it difficult to put running shorts and shoes on her. Also would have left trace evidence on his shoes, and that jacket he was seen wearing at HT, neither of which were recovered. But just because he couldn't fully dress her as if she was running didn't mean he could leave her shorts and shoes in the house so he had to dispose of those as well."

And he did all of this without leaving one shred of physical evidence, no dna, nothing.

and what about the people, including a cary police officer, who saw her running that morning?


There's just too much inconsistency and lack of proof to convict this man.

4/29/2011 1:57:29 PM