Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Nancy's Demise and The Trial of Bradley Cooper


During the last three years, I’ve read articles depicting circumstantial evidence pointing toward Nancy’s husband, Bradley Cooper, as the one who strangled her. Nancy Cooper was killed July 12, 2008.

However, it is what I’ve heard in the trial from friends of Nancy and Brad’s that have led me to believe the circumstantial evidence is painting a vivid picture and growing in strength; I’m leaning toward believing Brad was the one who caused Nancy’s death.

We’ve heard much about Nancy’s marriage and the night her friends last saw her.

On Saturday, July 12, 2008, Nancy allegedly left her home for a run with a friend, which was common for her to do. She was an avid runner and trained for marathons. However, Nancy had made plans for 8a.m. Saturday morning to paint a friend’s, Jessica Adam’s, dining room and later had plans with another friend. For Nancy to not keep her appointments were not usual. All her friends were immediately suspicious. Jessica had spoken with Brad a couple times on the phone that Saturday but it was she who called police to report her friend missing.

On Monday, July 14, 2008, they discovered Nancy’s body 3 miles from her home in an area where a newly developed subdivision was to be built, and lying on the bank of a storm water pond.

Some of the things we’ve heard at trial so far:

Nancy and Brad’s marriage was in dire straits.

Nancy often spoke with friends about her concerns of her marriage and the trouble it was in.

Nancy hired a lawyer to help her with her marital separation.

Nancy had filed for separation and allegedly had intention of divorcing Brad and moving back to Canada.

Brad had refused to separate.

Brad put Nancy on a strict weekly allowance to cover the household needs, groceries etc., but it wasn’t enough to cover all the needs.

Brad at times would follow Nancy to the gas station and put the gas in, just enough to get her where she had to go and back home, to the children’s schools, the grocery etc.. (Also it was testified to that he did this so Nancy couldn’t get cash withdrawals with the payment charge.)

Nancy and Brad had an argument in hearing of neighbors. (This wasn’t normal.)

Brad had an affair with one of Nancy’s friends.

Brad made passes at another close friend of Nancy’s.

Brad talked about sleeping with a woman to his male friends.

Brad was negative about Nancy’s paint job when he came to pick up the children the day Nancy painted at Jessica Adam’s home.

Brad did not report Nancy missing, Jessica Adam did.

A friend, Jessica Adam, saw Nancy’s purse and cell phone in her car on the passenger seat the day she disappeared. (The car was at home parked in the driveway)

After Nancy was reported missing, Brad cleaned out the garage.

They always parked both vehicles in the drive, but suddenly the car was inside it.

Brad actions, and the way he carried himself was suspicious to neighbors and friends the day Nancy went missing, and the days following her disappearance.

One suspicious thing to me, and I question, is why Brad walked over to Diana Duncan’s house and asked she help look for a ‘black dress’ Nancy was wearing Friday night. (Nancy was wearing a green dress with black designs in the fabric. Diana concluded that Brad was putting the thought in her mind that Nancy wore black so it was a black dress she searched for. We’ve heard testimony that the dress allegedly had a stain due to Nancy spilling something on it but friends attending the dinner party didn’t remember that happening.)

Nancy had a diamond necklace that she wore and never removed from her neck. (Apparently, we will hear she wasn’t wearing the necklace when they discovered her body. )


  1. It is a lot of hearsay testimony.

  2. There is a lot of hearsay in this trial for sure. The prosecution didn't present these witnesses for the truth of the matter.

    However, I can't believe there is reason to not consider so many friends telling the same story as good testimony. Otherwise, I'd have to think these friends all had a mass conspiratorial decision to blame Brad for Nancy's disappearance and murder.

    Each friend witness told individual stories while still telling similar ones of Nancy and her marriage to Brad. Each one had something to add to it all. I do think at this point in trial (now on the police officers’ testimony in court) that all I've heard so far gives me a wow feeling. So much of the same makes it more than hearsay, it becomes believable circumstantial evidence.

    I feel Brad would have liked to pull Nancy away from the circle of friends. The same way he had pulled away. (Allegedly, he'd stopped being as social as he previously was and as content with them as he'd been a few years earlier.)

    The socializing they had with others wasn't with people he brought into the mix. We did not hear of his coworkers socializing with them.

    Also, although I am trying not to go back and reread all the media reports of the case from last 2 years, I do remember at some point reading Nancy's necklace was found in the home. Brad advised police it was there and that was something they removed in one of the searches of the house. I think that Nancy's car being at home, the day she disappeared and was killed, is suspicious. We heard testimony that Nancy would drive to the meeting place when she jogged.

    Another thing I find suspicious is when the first officer responded to the house, after Jessica Adam reported Nancy missing, stated that Brad went into the house with him (this was at the officer's request) and immediately started to take a seat in the dining room. The officer suggested they look around the house and Brad turned to the stairs and began calling Nancy's name. Brad knew Nancy wasn't at the home. She'd been missing (allegedly) since early morning. He knew if she'd come home, she'd have contacted him and her friends would have known of it. And he claimed he'd been out with his children in the car searching for her.

    After hearing all I have - his actions were faux to me. Neither were they fooling people who knew him all the years he and Nancy had been in US and lived in the home.

  3. I am not saying with my above comment that my belief at this time is one I'll adhere to. The trial is in its infancy still. I am neither on nor off the armchair guilt fence. I am waiting and paying attention.

  4. One other thing I wanted to mention. While I was writing comments here on my surmisals with trial, I was listening to the K9 officer testify and found his testimony more than a little interesting. His K9 dog walked the front yard and around the outside of the home but on 3 different occassions, headed up to the home. The dog was getting the strongest scent of Nancy inside the home and couldn't pick her scent up very strong outside. That tells me Nancy did not leave that home the morning she disappeared on foot. The dog would have taken off down the road and followed the scent. Her car was home so she had not driven herself. It's unlikely she had anyone else pick her up or Bradley would've said someone came for her. Her running friend had said when she was on the stand that Nancy didn't come to the jog meeting place either.

    The evidence about the K9 dog is another point for prosecution against Brad with me. I haven't climbed atop that armchair guilt fence and fell off onto the guilty without a reasonable doubt side yet. But K9 officer's testimony is another step-up to top.


  5. More evidence came out today in the trial. The live feed was cut due to restrictions on what the public can see in the trial. However, according to the officer who advised Brad the day Nancy's body was discovered, but before she was postively identified, Brad never shed a tear. The officer explained that Brad was sitting with his head down and began what he called forced groaning.

    Had it been my spouse, I'd have been demanding information they had, and that they catch the person responsible.
    The officer also reiterated that Brad appeared tired at first when they had initially responded to the home after Nancy was reported missing. He also said Brad had a bandage on his left midddle finger and red markings on the back of his neck. We haven't heard yet whether any photographs were taken of the finger and neck. I hope they were, but that was the first day before the extensive search for Nancy began. Dismukes, also said the TV was on and set to a golf channel. ( I find that odd)
    Who would calmly watch golf when their wife is allegedly missing for hours?

    Also Brad advised Dismukes that Nancy's gym membership card had been swiped that afternoon the day she went missing. The police discovered that the card had not actually been swiped but on Brad's request they'd entered her name to see if she'd checked in. She had not.

    Also mentioned today and things that add to my hmmm effect:

    Nancy's purse was on the floorboard of her car.
    A pair of children's jeans were on the carseat. A floormat was on the outside of her car and between hers and his.
    Brad stated Nancy usually wore a black and red sports bra when she ran - A black and red sports bra is the only clothing on her body when she was found.
    Investigators felt Nancy may have died inside the house.
    Brad told the investigators they thought he was a suspect.
    When they arrived with a search warrant he questioned their right to be there.
    Nancy had not plans to run that Saturday morning.
    The dogs didn't pick up her scent outside the home.


  6. The evidence against Brad is getting more interesting now. The floormat on the ground between the cars is strange. The finger wound and marks on his neck is too. I'm having OJ flashbacks with that. lol

  7. At this time the trial is again dark with cameras due to a witness that public is not allowed to see. :(

    The case is for sure getting more interesting with the evidence we are hearing and reading about.

    According to the autopsy report I read, Nancy had dark discoloration on her forehead and I believe the right facial area along her nose,(don't quote me on the nose area- my memory isn't exact) and too, on her leg above the knee. Dirt was embeded in the leg. That could mean she was killed at the location her body was discovered but I suppose the leg injuries could've also been made when if she was dumped after death. Hopefully the ME will clear that up when we hear that testimony. I mention this because of the statement that investigators felt Nancy may have died in the house.

  8. The court will not have cameras on again today. Until all the testimony by Officer Dismukes is completed the cameras will remain off.

  9. The ME testimony Friday set the stage for Monday's witnesses. And they were strong witnesses. Jurors saw pictures of the crime scene and Nancy's decomposed body. They heard evidence found on and around her. One thing that stuck with me is the way her sports bra was rolled under on her back. That appears to say she was attacked as she pulled the bra over her head and didn't have time to straighten it, or someone put it on her and didn't take time to straighten it. The female jurors will realize that it being rolled under is relevant. Nancy would have pulled it down straight and if it'd have pushed up during a struggle, it wouldn't likely roll under.

    Nancy's mother's testimony fit with her friends telling of Brad and Nancy's relationship going rapidly downhill. It was sad listening to her mom talk about their last time with their daughter, and how she cried because she didn't have enough money to buy a bottle of wine to celebrate with them. Family testimony is always emotional but always important to hear too. Mom verified that Nancy always wore, even when swimming.

    She also told of how Brad would not look at them and how when she hugged Brad and looked in his eyes she knew he'd done it.

    All of the above builds a solid picture to me. That he didn't look them in the eye and deny kiling Nancy is powerful to me. However, I am trying to keep an open mind until all the witnesses testimony has been heard.

    I believe Mom will be back on the stand today.

  10. When Detective Jim Young testified about how Brad Cooper's explanation of Katie crying hard for about 10 minutes in the room where he and Bella was sleeping without waking Bella it raised red flags with him- I wasn't shocked. I, too, frowned with that story. I have children and grandchildrn and know that type crying would wake a sleeping child. And too, why allow her to cry that hard for so long and chance waking Bella?

    The crying child wasn't all that raised flags with me with what Brad said to Young and the other officers. The shoes did also, he found a way to put down Nancy every chance he got and did it without seeming concerned about her welfare. I wondered if a pair of the shoes he had shown LE when they looked for something with Nancy's scent, were her newest and her older pair was there also, what shoes did she wear to allegedly go running. She wouldn't have gone barefooted or in slippers. And after a third pair was put into evidence, I really wondered.

    Brad told LE before his wife was found that Nancy wasn't at home at nights, there was always another birthday party to attend. She spent 40, 000 thousand dollars - and she spent 3 thousand in one day- it was a constant verbal dialogue of how inept Nancy was and nothing about finding her. Nothing within his verbiage showed concern for a missing wife he knew was punctual and wouldn't stay away from her children willingly. Yep. Red flags flew high and strong with me.

    Detective Young's testimony was powerful. As was the evidence we heard from Ivy McMillan, on Wed., that blood was found beneath Nancy's fingernails. I was disappointed that DNA couldn't be extracted but still, she was badly decomposed and that she had blood beneath them is strong evidence. It's a sign of a struggle. When hearing of the blood I remembered that we'd also heard Brad had red marks on his neck and a wound on his finger.

    I hope the juror who was concerned about dates was also taking copious notes on the Detctive and others testimony.

  11. A breath holding incident happened in court today when Judge announced to lawyers he'd received an email about a juror allegedly talking in public about the trial. The Judge turned the matter over to LE to look into before making a decision with how to handle it- He wants to be sure juror misconduct has or hasn't taken place before ruling on the matter.

    I assume LE will go speak with the person who sent the email and see if anything said or done by juror was misconduct or misconstrued by the emailer- We will find out Monday I guess what will be further done, if anything, with the situation. However, the Judge reread his juror conduct instructions to jurors today as a reminder that they are not to speak of the trial or with anyone involved or not involved with it, not do internet searches etc either. And he put stress emphasis on certain parts.


  12. When I signed in with the trial this morning, it'd been live for several minutes and The Judge was making a decision what to do about the email concerning juror misconduct. I didn't know who had receieved the email. Soon after the court was dismissed for the day, at lunch, an article appeared on wral that stated the Judge had received an email on the situation. Later today I ck'd again and a second article stated the Prosecution had received notice via email and voice mail about misconduct of a juror. So I am not sure which received it but apparently the Judge has heard back from LE and the trial will continue Monday as planned.

    According to what I read the Judge said there is there is no need for further inquiry. He is satisfied with LE's report.

    I am glad. I was praying we wouldn't have a mistrial declared. They have 4 alternates but if a juror had said something publicly and/or something had been said to other jurors about it then he'd have no choice.


  13. Today we heard from an ATT man who explained to jurors how cell calls bounce off towers and how they are recorded on phone bills... And then more of evidence collection and removing from Cooper's home.

    The defense objected but the Judge reminded him his defense was that LE botched the investigation. They are continually asking about booties and gloves and whether LE wore them, when and where they wore them, among other hints at inept investigations. He makes it sound, to me, like defense thinks LE should've been wearing gloves and booties from the day Nancy went missing. I am not saying when this trial is over that I'll feel Pros has a good no reasonable doubt case but I am saying they are presenting a lot of evidence (circumstantial and real) that is adding up to a powerful lot showing odds that anyone else killing Nancy is nil to none. And her death certainly wasn't from some accident.


  14. One thing the Pros did for me yesterday was put thoughts in my mind that Brad Cooper tried to make it appear Nancy was alive and well between 6 and 7AM on the morning of the 12th. He had said Nancy called him to pick up juice when he went back to the store for detergent. (which he also said she had asked he go back and purchase)- But, via his phone records he was at home when calls from the home landline came to his cellphone. The first one at 6:05 AM had a duration of 23 seconds. The second at 6:34AM had no seizure or duration listed. And he contacted his voicemail 3 times in a 10 minutes time period.

    In my mind, this blows his story that Nancy took the crying Katie from him that morning, that she called him, and that she had done laundry.

    I am officially more suspicious than ever but still waiting for more before I can say Pros has proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt he did it.

  15. Great day in court today. Defense showed their dummy side and got chastised by judge. I do think Brad did it and the Prosecutor is finally showing through Brad's own actions and words that he did.

  16. Yes it was a good day in court Tuesday. Especially the judge losing patience and telling both sides to ask questions as they should be asked so witness wouldn't have to take so long to look in his notes to find a reference.

    What I don't understand is what is it that defense thinks LE ignored? They just keep harping on the actual investigation but as of yet, have not said anything that could remotely point to anyone other than Brad committing the murder.

    If you look at each thing as singular incidents then you could say doubt could exists.

    But look as them a whole-the friends and family suspicions, the home in diarray, the missing items in home, the laundering of the dress, the asking Diane to find a black dress, the trips to store, the alleged spill of gas in trunk and cleaning it, the necklace being at home, the demaeaning Nancy at odd times during talks with LE, Nancy not having clothing on except a sports bra, where she was located (within cell tower range of Brad's cell) the phone calls from home and to Cisco the morning she 'went missing'- and a plethora of other things that have come out in trial - you get suspicious of Brad as the only person who could've killed Nancy.

    Defense will have to do a better job than just attacking what detective said what to other detectives and when it was said, when certain items were collected or harp on chain of evidence to show me someone else killed Nancy.

  17. Defense lawyer Kurtz kept after Detective Young Wed over him not collecting or asking about shoes. The thing is, on the day LE asked for shoes it was during the search and they wanted something with Nancy's scent. Brad showed them 2 pair shoes, what he said was her old pair and a new pair. Brad commented at that time she'd bought the new shoes at a speciality store. After Nancy's body was discovered, LE obtained warrants for searches of the home for items and shoes were one item they searched for.

    The shoes Brad wore during his trip to Harris Teeter were never found. Defense wants jury to believe it was negligence on part of LE. What it did for me was ask myself, was Brad afraid a footprint at or near the crime scene was his and he discarded shoes he'd worn that morning?

    Another point of contention for defense was that Nancy's cellphone was wiped while Det Young was attempting to access the records. However, LE had a copy of the records from the phone company. These records, like phone bills, show all numbers dialed and received call numbers. They also show text message numbers. So if anything was loss, it was nothing more than actual text messages and or voice mail messages she'd saved.

    I do think somewhere in his barrage of same question after another Kurtz could've made a point for defense with a couple of his accusations but he did the overkill by continually revisiting the calls and the shoes and not letting go to move on to next part of investigation. I have the privilege of having video of the trial to revisit if I have questions but the jurors don't have that option. I have to wonder if he lost any point he could've made for defense with jury also.

  18. Prichard's testimony is a big WOW! She said both she and Nancy felt Brad was monitoring her calls. Phones he had put in home from Cisco made clicking sounds like someone had picked up and would drop calls. She said Nancy began using her cell instead of home line phone.

  19. The testimony of 3 of Nancy and Brad's friends yesterday added more hmmm to the probability that anyone other than Brad killed Nancy is slim. These friends give strong testimony into the Cooper's failing marriage. Brad's taking Nancy off the credit cards and bank account then only allowing her 80 dollars weekly was an act of a controller to me. Although he did up that amount to 300 a week, it couldn't have been enough to purchase food and handle the kids and Nancy's personal needs. Nancy couldn't work in US.

    That he changed his mind about the seperation/divorce and Nancy taking both children after making his 'list' of finances shows me a lot. He didn't want to pay out the monies monthly he would have to pay. I believe he had the passports to keep her from flying home with the kids. He knew she would not go without the girls.

    That Brad had brought those Cisco phones home and used them was a big red flag for me also. So I agree about that being a big Wow. I believe he 'was' monitoring her calls and listening in to them also.

    The Pros just keeps putting up more and more negative on the relationship and his personality and Nancy's too. After so long of hearing all the negative with nothing positive to compare it too, (defense hasn't shown any positive) one has to start thinking he did it.

    We've been hearing testimony for 3 wks and I could say much more about my feelings of what I've heard while watching the live feed on wral, but I'll leave it to settle in my mind until closing arguments. Those aren't near to being heard yet.

  20. The testimony Friday and Monday was good for Prosecutor to me. From the exterminator to the man who assisted with search for new home to geochemist and entomologist to her sister we heard evidence that fit the state's case. No one but Brad could have killed Nancy. No one else had motive. I think Christa's, Nancy's sister, testimony was a great way to close yesterday. Christa highlighted the problems Nancy was having with her marriage and told us how Brad controlled the purse strings. Including how he controlled the money she had received from her parents as a gift back in 06.

  21. We heard a long taped deposition Brad made during the child custody suit and he had many inconsistencies with evidence we've heard in this case.

    One thing Brad said during that deposition was that the main computer email was in Nancy's name and he had access to it too. Today, we heard from a special agent, with the FBI's Computer Analysis Response Team, who said Brad had forwarded all the emails from that address to his work computer. That means he knew all Nancy's buisness. Including her letters from her lawyers, their strategy. I found that very informative and not good for Brad's case.

    During the deposition he also had said he and Nancy had not argued outside the children's school. We'd heard from a couple other mothers at that school that they witnessed an argument and heard it also. One lady said her child became frightened, she had to hold her. Nancy's sister testified that Nancy called her crying because of Brad following her in his car to the school that day. Both ladies who testified also said vulgar language was used. Dumb F***- and Brad said he never called Nancy anything other than B**** when they argued. She cursed when they argued and got loud often.

    So much more was inconsistent. I hope the jury took good notes of all he said, including about his MBA schooling and the woman another man said he was amorous with and that Brad took off his ring during that trip. I noticed Brad remembered vividly the women who was there but had to think about what men attended. He couldn't even remembered any of the men's names. Yet, he'd loaned one nearly 200.00 and the man got up with Brad and that money was paid back a few weeks after the classes ended. Brad stated he had not been in contact with any of the classmates from that time since.

    I still think the Pros has shown that only Brad had reason to kill Nancy. I'm still waiting for defense to show something that says otherwise.

  22. I'd hate to think a jury would send a man to prison for the rest of his life based on innuendo and hearsay from a "loyal" group of Mrs. Cooper's friends.

    I have yet to see ONE PIECE, ONE PIECE of evidence linking Mr. Cooper to her murder! In today's world of forensic expertise, a person just can't kill someone else in their OWN HOME, and not leave some substantial incriminating evidence. However, the prosecution is expecting this jury to send a man to prison without as much as ONE SHRED of forensic evidence found in his home!


  23. I agree with the person above relative to zero forensic evidence linking Brad to Nancy's murder. I'd say at this point anyway, that Brad is going to walk.

  24. We all have to remember; we have heard nothing from the defense yet. I suspect that Kurtz is going to have his own 'expert' witnesses to rebute the prosecution's! I would almost guarantee we'll see a defense computer expert testify that the computer's had over 650 files tampered with after being seized by the CPD. This will put a huge negative in the mind of the jury relative to the CPD and the prosecution.

  25. Brad covered himself in the deposition about the girls having a care taker when he was making 2 trips to Harris Teeter-He said Nancy was up & calling him. If Nancy was no longer alive at this point-could he have left Bella & Katie home alone?? and to go dump the body? or do you think she was kiled earlier while they were asleep? Was the story of the child waking concocted to cover that time? she does not have on runing shoes to go jogging -when the body was found-right? just a sports bra and all the running shoes she owned were in the home??? was gas used in the car to destroy the scent of her body? I am trying to keep up just trying to make sure I have not overlooked anything..It is most strange that his focus f the day when his wife is missing is to clean up?? In the deposition he appeared to say he always did whatever it took to try to please Nancy and everything he said about he was just facts but he said them in a way to make her look like a B****? just trying to understand---explain whatever I have wrong..... jwm@carolinainter.net

  26. This comment has been removed by the author.

  27. death by stragulation leaves no DNA evidence to tie him to her body and no blood in house or car? but if she indeed went running why was she not dressed to go running when her body was found??? who else could have done this? and why was he not concerned when she did not return? did he really go look for her? why did he not ask her friends where she was or if they had seen her?? they asked him first?

  28. Just curious about this blog! Is this blog strictly designated as a blog about men accused of murdering women? I see no reference to any case involving women suspected of killing men! Is this a "man hater" blog???

  29. "I can't believe there is reason to not consider so many friends telling the same story as good testimony"

    Oh, yes there are reasons. First of all, we know Nancy lied and exaggerated the truth. This has been revealed in court. Second, she should be consistent with lies so as to build support in her attempts to win child custody.

    My ex told people lies about me, too. There were folks who thought I must have been the devil reincarnated, but they learned over time that she had filled their heads.

    You should stop with the "Brad did this" and "Brad did that" nonsense. He gave her $300/wk and you still want to say he followed her to the gas station to give her just enough gas to get from point A to point B? Really?

    There isn't a single piece of real evidence so far.

  30. I think people who come here should read the disclaimer at top. This site is based on the blogger's opinions! And I think Brad was a Domestic Abuser. Emotional abuser. I don't see anything yet that supports him being innocent. I see a lot that supports him being guilty. Let the defense team show me I am wrong too! Only then will I, too, say I was wrong, Brad didn't do it.

  31. http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2011/02/17/9132146/coopermotion.PDF
    long document with lots of info about evidence ,questions, people in this case that we have not been told about!!for those of you who like to explore these cases--read this

  32. To the anonymous comment person who said this was a man hater blog. check out the other articles here and the Taylor murder by his wife.

  33. Anonymous' of April 12,

    Thank you for all of your opinions on this blog and your feelings on this trial. Regardless of how you feel, I appreciate your views. I won't reply to each of you individually because it'd basically be pete and repeat comments.

    I 'd kept up with this murder after Nancy went missing and was found but after a while, and due to interest in other trials and other cases, decided to wait until the murder trial to decide if I felt LE was correct and Brad was guilty.

    I have not and do not want to go back in archives and read all the articles on her death and his arrest from 08 -to date of child custody hearings before this murder trial. And I won't do that. One reason is we can't always go by what reporters say in their articles. They are reporters and like putting spin on news. It's how their papers gains readership. I like to reach my own decisions.

    I do not even like having to rely on in court live tweets as witnesses testify. I like to see and hear them for myself. That way I know what was said before and after a certian statement. And that something tweeted isn't taken out of context.

    I have not written anything here that hasn't been heard in court. The original article is from hearing witnesses the first few days in court. We heard the Pros opening on March 9 and between then and the 15th when I decided to blog on this trial, what was heard is what was written. I did not say Brad was guilty in the original post nor did I say he was innocent. I did say I was leaning toward Brad being the one who caused her death. That was after 5 days of court testimony. And leaning is not a definte decision, it's a temporary feeling.

    Can we take everything every friend witnesses said as fact, no, not to me. But, to me we can take it as mostly truths. These people knew this couple well. They saw the changes in the marriage over the years. They saw the changes in both Nancy and Brad. Nancy did the right thing with discussing her marital problems with them and her family. Go read on domestic violence and you'll see that is a good thing.

    Since the original March 15 piece I have heard a lot that says he is guilty. And nothing from defense questioning of state's witnesses has shown me he didn't do it. I've heard a lot of investigation bashing from defense lawyers when they question each witness. Yet, I highly doubt Mr. Kurtz or his client could go out and do what these officers do on a daily basis. And too, bad investigations 'imagined or real' do not mean a defendant is innocent any more than it means they are guilty. It just means LE didn't do their job properly.

    Nancy was not a perfect person but nothing I have heard has told me she was a compulsive or situation based liar. Therefore I take what neighbors said and LE officers testimony as good testimony due to so many saying same thing. And if you read 'all' my personal surmise updates, I mention that. There was no mass friend or LE conspiracy to get Brad.

    I will make my final 'armchair' decision after all the witnesses, states and defense, have testified.

    This is a circumstantial case. Nancy was strangled. Forencis evidence is hard to find in those type deaths. Especially when someone was strangled in one place and moved to another, and stayed outdoors in the elements for days before discovery. Evidence supports her being killed and dumped, not killed at scene of body found. And all the circumstantial evidence I have heard, to me, points to Brad being the only one who had motive to kill.

    After all the witnesses have testified, I may say guilty but unproven (which isn't an option for jurors). I may say not guilty or guilty. But as of yesterday, I say guilty- proven.
    And that is my personal surmise based on all I have seen and heard in this trial to date.

  34. I still think he did it and today it was tweeted that the expert said Brad had googled the zip code of that area and it hit on the latitude and longitude of the area where Nancy's body was discovered. And he zoomed in on the area. The look at the site was for about a minute but that was long enough to see what was there. That is solid evidence and I do not see how defense can claim the timestamp was off due to inept police work. That argument is old to me.

  35. We know very little about what actually took place in the court yesterday. The trial did not go live until 1p.m. eastern and a little over an hour later, the judge shut down all phones and laptops. He banned them. He'd already chastised court because jury was upset they were being stared at, the jurors are anonymous and want to remain that way. If I were a juror, that'd make me incredibly uncomfortable. Especially in a high profile case like the Cooper trial.

    According to those in court, listening and reporting via twitter, witness Chris Chappell showed the jurors Brad's computer searches and according to his temp files he'd searched, via google maps, the site where Nancy's body was discovered. However, it seems his search through the zip of the area was done on the 11th of July, the day before she disappeared. And not only did he look at the area, he zoomed in on the site. You can do searches of certain areas and use google to see the satellite topigraphical views as well as street views. And apparently Brad searched for the weather for that zip too. (This zip is also the zip for his and Nancy's home but the look at where her body was found is 3 miles from the home.)

    What seemed to only be a short few minutes later, while we on twitter were discussing that testimony, the Judge announced a ban on cell phones and laptops. Sadly, a little later we learned the court recessed early due to a juror feeling ill. It all seemed to happen inside 30 minutes. But I didn't clock watch so it could've been longer.

    I find that Brad did these searches very strong evidence. The defense was questioning Mr. Chappell when court shut down for the day, he of course is still using the inept investigation defense theory and therefore the computer searches are incorrect with time stamp data. Defense says someone tampered with comps while LE had them.

    A couple things defense has to overcome is this computer was a Cisco laptop, it was at Cisco, it could not be accessed without a password, and the search on zip took place during the time he'd previously said he was lunching with others.

  36. The Pros has a strong strong case to me. Detective Daniels has verified all Brad's inconsistent testimony and his comments to police when Nancy went missing. Defense attorney is still trying to refute all Daniels said and did as inept investigation. But I think Daniels is holding up to his work in this case. All that stuff about Nancy's phone being deleted is not a big thing. Except to Kurtz. Nancy's phone was in her car according to testimony on July 12. And it looks like the ATT rep is one who caused it to be deleted anyway. He gave Young wrong information to get in the phone. They easily got records of all her calls and text message numbers from the phone bill. So information actually on phone wasn't needed.

  37. I am of the belief that Detective Daniels testimony clinched the pros case against Brad. I will not go over what all he testified to because he carried the jurors back over the investigation and evidence. We already heard it all. His testimony was also about what he had his detectives do in relation to it; of which we have already heard from those officers. I think his years as an officer and detective gives great support and credence to his ability to make good sound decisions about who could have or whom he believed/believes is a person of interest or suspect in any murder case he investigates. Belief isn't enough, you must have probable cause. The police did have probable cause; they had proof of means, motive and opportunity. They had nothing that showed anyone else known to Nancy had reason to want her dead. They had nothing to show an unknown random killer took her life. They had plenty to show Brad had both cause and reason.

    When someone goes missing, police must take spouse or intimate partners off that POI and suspect lists before looking at unknown person(s). It's a statistical fact that in marital deaths it is most likely someone the victim knew who did the crime. And in most of those cases it is the spouse/intimate partner/or family member of the victim. In the Cooper case it is evident to me due to all I heard in court that the defendant is the one who committed the crime.

    I still await for the defense to say something or pull out evidence of some evidence that refutes 'completely' what has been brought out in this case. Again, with Daniels on the stand, Kurtz continually questioned LE's not taking a picture of Brad's body the day Nancy went missing. And he did so for a very long time. I hope the jurors know LE could not have legally photographed Brad. All they could do, as Detective Daniels and other officers on scene did, is make mental notes of it. It was day one, Nancy was nothing more than a missing person. Legally there was no crime until her body or evidence that she was dead was discovered. I hope they know that anything on her phone, calls or text made and received could be and 'was' acquired from her phone provider. That her phone was accidentally erased in efforts to view it isn't powerful evdience that Brad didn't do the crime. It isn't even minor evidence he didn't do it.

  38. We shall see if defense adds anything relevant to this case. Calling an expert to refute the states experts is a norm in defense strategys. Lets see if they call these people who claim they saw 'Nancy' jogging on July 12, 2008. Lets see if these sightings of a woman jogging is believeable. Lets see if they call someone who will answer why the dogs didn't pick up Nancy's scent past her own lawn. And why said dogs kept going back up to the house wanting inside. I hope they do. I'd like to hear a not guilty verdict for once in a domestic violence trial- One that is 'fact' proven. Not one that is based on an embellished 'Accusing Housewives' story Mr. Kurtz made in his opening statement.

    In Kurtz OS, I was riveted, found myself thinking I was watching a movie, until I was brought back to reality and remembered that this was a real life case, not fictional. I noticed when he was saying anything about his client's actions during the night before and day of, also the days, weeks and years past, his voice changed to a sympathetic tone. Excused his clients actions. But when he talked about the 'clique of friends' (as he called them), his tone was agressive and accusing.

    What really got me was near the closing of his diatribe opening statement, Mr. Kurtz said that you will hear an argument that this was clearly a case of domestic violence but you will never hear from them or anyone that Brad ever laid a hand on Nancy in violence. That statement is extremely misleading.

    Domestic violence is about emotional, intimidation, isolation, financial , physical, and sexual abuses. It is without a doubt not 'simply' about physical abuse! Nancy was definitely, and it has been shown in court via the witnesses, both emotionally and financially abused. I believe, due to what I heard in court, the process had begun to create isolation. Isolation from certain known friends, but that fell through.

    The later years of the Cooper marriage, to me, was also about itimidation. I believe (due to all I've heard in the trial so far) Brad was using the financial situation and the kids to intimidate Nancy. He knew her life was about her children, and he had begun to 'use them' in his efforts to control her.

  39. I think the image put out on all those people during the opening statement,especially the women, of that neighborhood the Cooper's lived in was horrible. It turned me off.

  40. The Pros closed its case and now defense is up. Tuesday defense called a witness outside jury presence to have him qualified as an expert. Allegedly, defense hopes were to have him declared a computer forensic expert but the judge denied that. The judge did qualify him as a network security and vulnerability assessment expert. Kurtz was angry and did the defense age-old thing and asked for a mistrial. Denied. Good for Kurtz though, it’s a fair trial must be on the record thing. But Kurtz went further with his motions. He told the judge that he had been consistently outside the bounds of prudent jurisprudence and asked that the judge recuse himself. Again denied. All that court legal wrangling was done while viewers were blacked out.

    I had gotten so frustrated with Kurtz when he was questioning Det. Daniels after Pros said he was their last live witness. Kurtz had more questions for Daniels. (his future appeals’ possibility was in need of him to question Daniels) My view of his questioning, due to what I heard and saw of it, was that he defiled Daniel's character and accused this lead detective of being inept and basically incapable of leading a team of investigators. And/or being one himself. The questions he had for Daniels in jury presence were bad enough but his hours of questioning this detective outside their presence was tragic to listen to. All defendants deserve a fair and just representation but to me there is a thing called 'overly passionate with visions of personal gain'. And, in all my years of trial watching and keeping up with crime, I have never literally lost respect for a lawyer. I have, however, been frustrated with some, defense and state. However, I personally felt due to what I witnessed as an online viewer watching the trial, that he came across as a 'morally inept' lawyer who would step on anyone to do what 'he' feels needs doing to free his client and up his own status as a criminal attorney. And too, as I listened to his questioning of Daniels, I did find myself losing some of my respect for him as a lawyer.

    After they questioned Ward and the judge declared an expert, the jury began hearing him. James Ward was still on the stand when court recessed for the day. We heard about all his previous work, again, and he showed the jury how to hack a computer network. And explained what he called 3 names of hackers. Hopefully today the defense witness will say how it's relevant in the Cooper murder trial. I feel he will lead this witness into saying CPD and/or FBI created wrong timestamp on Cooper’s laptop when they 'hacked' into the computer to do their forensic testing and/or to view Cooper's temporary internet history. Therefore, the google map search where it showed someone viewed the dump site was compromised. We shall see.

    Despite losing some of my respect for Mr. Kurtz, I know and respect the fact that his client deserves a fair trial. And so, although at his time I feel state during their CIC proved guilt, I'm willing to look at defense case logically and fairly with just as much common sense as I did the state's case.

  41. My major concern with the testimony Thursday was with Curtis Hodges, I’d heard it but hadn’t comprehended all he had said since I had been otherwise occupied. So Friday, I went in and listened to his testimony several times. Backing up tape and re-listening to what he’d said.

    Mr. Hodges was driving north to Food Line store #724 on the intersection of Kildaire and Maynard Saturday morning July 12, 2008 and running about 5 minutes late. His speed was 30 to 35 mph and he was due at work at 7 AM with about 4/5 miles to go. (His estimation)

    (I rewound and listened on wral’s video several times. It’s between 6:00 & 6:25 on the tape when he says store # 7:24)

    As Mr. Hodges passed over the bridge on Kildaire Farm Rd., he noticed two things. A lady jogging and a later model (later changed to older model) reddish white box-style van with a square front, square windshield and lights, driven by two Hispanic males. The jogger was wearing a light-colored top, blue or black shorts and was jogging south on his right and on the sidewalk headed toward him and Penny Road. The van was also going south. Two things happened that he noticed. One was the van stopped, waited for him to pass, and made u-turn near the Lochmere Golf Course and came back north. At that time, the lady was about 100 yards away from him still headed toward Penny Road. Mr. Hodges said he continued north about an eight of a mile and stopped at a traffic light. The traffic light, according to him, was at the Harris Teeter store. And the store was on the left. When he looked into his rear view mirror while at the traffic light (about 40-50 seconds) the van had disappeared. He did not say if, when he stopped at traffic light, he still had a visual on the jogger. He continued on his way to work.

    An interesting part of Mr. Harris’s testimony is the time line- He said saw her about 6:55- (his wording was about 5 minutes to 7). But when Mr. Kurtz re-questioned him and he asked if it was more 5 after 7 he agreed. Before Kurtz and Pros let him go, the time he saw the lady was between 5 till & 10 after 7 AM. (Check the last 5 minutes of the video)

    Mr. Hodges proceeds to tell the court after explaining about not seeing the van again that when he went to work that day (again, another one later changed to Monday) he clocked in and saw a missing person flyer lying between the time clock and phone. He felt he had seen her somewhere before. About an hour after signing in at work he told Mike that he felt he knew the woman in the flyer and that she looked like the one he saw jogging Saturday morning. But, come to discover, Mr. Hodges had also seen Mrs. Cooper in his store on occasion. There made my forehead wrinkle. I think, due to listening to his testimony several times, his 90% feeling he’d known her when first seeing the flyer was due to her patronizing the food line store more than his recognizing her from the lady jogger. I also think the disappearing van went into the golf course parking lot.

    Another thing, how did the van not pass the jogger at some point. If both she and the van were moving south. He pointed out on the map the van did the u-turn at or about the country club section and that was the same location she was at when he first passed over the bridge heading north. He also said she was facing both him (still headed toward Penny Road) and the van after it did the u-turn and went north like him. It can’t always be behind her and facing her at same time.

    I can’t put logical reasoning to his testimony and can’t see his testimony as totally credible. Not that he lied, just that he doesn’t have his time and facts straight. He also mentioned when he called CPD on Monday, they returned his call and took his information. But, it was Oct before they contacted him again.

    to be cont'd:

  42. Question - How can Nancy Cooper be in 2 or 3 places at or around the same time. She was allegedly at Kildaire Country Club at or around 5 till 7 and be within a 10 minute walk to Mrs. Zednick’s home on Lockwood West Dr. walking on a bike path off Kildaire Rd.

    (His timing doesn’t make sense and had to be closer to 7:05/10 because Mr. Hodges had said he was running five minutes late, still had 4 to 5 miles to drive, and was due at work at 7 sharp)

    Not only that, Nancy allegedly left her home at 7 AM to go running, which added more mileage to her ability to be at the locations these people allege they saw her so very early that morning.

    I discredit Mrs. Zednick’s testimony. I just do not believe she saw a fresh non-sweating Nancy Cooper, and was mistaken about the long face lady’s identity. I don’t believe under any circumstances think she was deliberately lying. I think ‘she’ is convinced it was Nancy.

    Mrs. Hink lives on Fielding Dr., and on Saturday, July 12, 2008 between 7:30 and 8 AM she was on her porch. Mrs. Hink said she noticed 2 runners, but on Sunday, July 13 about 9 AM she noticed a maroon work van (the work van was from her previous statements) on Belmont Forest St with two Hispanic males standing nearby. New homes were being built in the Fielding Dr area in 08, and she said there might have been some others the day she saw the men and van, she isn’t sure. A little later when she speaks of how she came to speak to police she said she was weary because the van and men were back there with no one else back there and no construction happening.

    One thing we learned in court during Mrs. Hink’s testimony. The maps being used in this trail are 2008 maps. So, the ones shown when we heard about the zoom in on Brad Cooper’s computer would’ve been an 08 map.

    About the Kuerbitz testimony. The Kuerbitz lives on Wendy Rush Lane. Wendy Rush leads to and accessible from Lockwood and Lockmere, by the pool. Boat ramps are at the lake nearby. And is approximately a mile from Cooper home. Mr. Kuerbitz looks official, he is ex-navy and still, to me, has that look about him. (A good thing) On Friday, July 11, 2008 he went to bed between 9 and 11. After midnight, he felt around 12:30 AM, their doorbell rang. His doorbell is on the inside of the door jam. He believes they kept outside lights off back in 08. Mr. Kuerbitz dressed and went to investigate. He turned outside lights and went outside, heard noises over near the bushes and cul de sac. It was then Mr. Kuerbitz noticed a van and someone getting inside it, the van sped off out the cul de sac and he trotted after it in an attempt to get plate numbers.

    The van lights never came on, and he couldn’t give a description of it. Mr. Kuerbitz called police and they came very quickly and looked around. He said they were at his house about 15 to 20 minutes. He also asked them to step up patrols in that area.

    to be cont'd:

  43. The Kuerbitz were concerned after hearing of a missing woman so they stopped at the roadblock on Sunday, July 13; they advised the police of what had happened at their home the early morning of July 12, 2008. He said the police did not take their contact information and sent them on their way. The time he actually contacted police on July 12 was at 12:17:07 AM and police came at 12:23:03 AM, two or 3 units arrived and stayed until 12:46:18 investigating the incident. Back in 08 police also had reports of incidents of kids stealing in that area, mainly beer from garages.

    Mrs. Kuerbitz testified about the same as her husband; only she advised the doorbell could be rang without actually opening the door too. We did hear that she and Mr. Kuerbitz decided to contact the defense ‘after the trial started’. She said they were just concerned and wanted to make sure that ‘both sides’ had the information about what had happened that night.

    Mrs. Zednick is another one who contacted defense; she also testified at the custody hearing.

    Mrs Wells is a third one that called defense ‘after’ being in mountains with a couple friends and lawyers of the friends. The lawyers were defense attorneys. She said she felt it was unusual police had not called her and Glenn back after reporting to them that in 01 a man stayed in contact with Nancy and was trying to help her get a green card so she could work. So she mentioned it to the friends in the mountains, at a horse ranch, and then 'after that conversation' decided to contact Brad’s defense lawyers.

    What caught my attention about Mrs. Wells was she blushed concerning someone from college who was interested in her, while she and Nancy was at that Sea Trail Resort back in 01. Yet she said she felt uncomfortable after they shared that ‘secret’? Allegedly Nancy said this man she was in contact with via cell phone during that trip was going to help her get a green card so she could find a job. This man, according to Mrs. Wells, was better connected than Brad to do this.
    (But, it has me wondering why Brad wasn’t helping her get a green card then and during the years of their marriage before her death. He could have done so, had he wanted. And it would’ve also been helpful with the financial angle to their problem he was allegedly so concerned about)
    After the sharing of information Mrs Wells also lost contact, voluntarily, with Nancy. They only saw each other a couple times a year after that. When asked, she replied ‘based on appearances’, (her words) Nancy had no more contact with the man, stayed with Brad and went on to have children. The Wells had originally decided to call police and report the incident and did (allegedly 3 times over a couple weeks time), and it was their slow to contact back that bothered her and her then husband. But, she also said it was her husband who said they should call police, she didn’t really want to tell a secret Nancy told her.

    Police did contact them though. Not immediately but a couple weeks after their trip.

    I think both the Kuerbitz presented themselves well on the stand; they weren’t arrogant or combative. However, I cannot find any relevance with the doorbell incident and Nancy Cooper going missing a few hours later and found deceased in the new construction part of the Fielding Drive.

    Everything said, I will add,I liked Rosemary Zednick too. And, if I were to have a small dinner party and invite a few of the defense witnesses only, she would top my list of those to invite. Mrs. Zednick is incredibly expressive with her body and facial language. No.Trial conversation would not be on topic list. lol) Another one I’d add to the list would be the groundskeeper, Mr.Cutler, from Lockmere Golf Course, I liked how his eyes smiled with him. I think he’d be interesting to converse with.

    As far as the others who testified, the Dittners, I want to re-listen to their testimony too before mentioning how I feel of what they said. My head is full of the ones mentioned in the this and the other 2 comment post above.

  44. This has been such a week of havoc with weather hitting the state where I live and so many others where I have family and friends that all I have heard in court with this case has gotten clogged up, waiting to get out. Get out it will. I hope with some sort of order to them. I know I've had mixed emotions with all that they have said in court. Have I deterred from my guilty stance since Pros closed his case? No. Maybe after I sort the thoughts, I'll find something to make me go hmm, I don't know.
    I know the bashing victim and slamming other people’s reputation (in the name of justice and someone else did it - but state was too inept to look) has me feeling emotions I haven't felt during a trial for a very very long time. I have questions that haven’t been answered at this time.

    One question I have - Why would Nancy pack two ducks from a hallway table safely in a box and not the third one she had on the refrigerator? Another question - Why would she leave her necklace in a drawer and not in her purse or where she kept all her other jewelry?

  45. I listened to the defense witnesses again and I still have no reason for doubt. I have heard many a defense strategy played out in courts during my years of trial watching, including bashing the victim, but I can't remember one going to the lengths this one has. I also don't see Nancy packing 2 ducks when she intended to move to Canada and not the 3rd one of the set. That defense strategy doesn't add up. Nor does her necklace being put in a drawer inside a box 'by her'. Nor does the fact she was seen without it inside a store not wearing it. Of course she wore it when she went to social functions. And that is reasonable grounds friends and family would say they don't remember seeing her with it off. Common sense rules in minor things and the necklace is minor and not reliable proof of 'how' it came to be in that drawer for anyone to find.

    I just can't find any reason to believe anyone other than BC, known or unknown, would want her dead. The evidence he did it has been shown to be more powerful to me than any defense allegation thrown out that he didn't, LE was inept, she had affairs, was seen jogging etc.. Even, BC's own words show guilt to me.

    I hope the rebutal witnesses only take a couple days so jurors can hear CAs, be charged and sent off to deliberate. As I have said before, I accept juror decisions. That doesn't mean I have to concur with them if theit verdict goes against how I saw the evidence. And no one else does either.

  46. I was proud of how the State handled their rebutal. They did so with dignity for the victim, showing via chat that BC admitted to having the router. And how that missing router router, belonging to Cisco, was missing when the call from Nancy was made from her home to Brad the morning of the 12th. And that router is still missing to this day, only its box remains. (Remember suspicion grew that he was also listening in on NC's home phone calls.)State also rebuted RZ's testimony about seeing Nancy jogging and that LE talked to her more than once about it. And each time she spoke with them, she told a different story.

    Closing arguments are today and then final charging of jurors before they begin deliberations. Each side had 2 hours to do their CA. Defense didn't like the limit Judge Gessner put on them but I think it's appropriate. The jurors have the testimony, they know it and don't need a day long reminder of each thing heard during trial.

    I'm sending up prayers for Nancy's family as these CAs and deliberations take place.

  47. The defense lawyers, Kurtz and Krenkle focused on LE ineptness in their closing just as they did during trial. I tired of hearing it. But listened intently. Admittedly I missed part of Trenkle's and had to go back during lunch and hear it but he didn't give me any Whammy moments either. More blame game. More victim bashing. More reputation staining. That is what I heard with all the ignored evidence and tampered with phones and computers accusations.

    Prosecutor Boz Zellinger's closing argument was magnificent. His last words about domestic violence was so powerful it brought tears to my eyes. He gave Nancy back her dignity. I think common sense rules in this case. Yes it's circumstantial but all the circumstantial evidence piles high as the highest hill where come from. And MS has lots and lots of hills.
    Pros Cummings is laying on the effect of how Brad acted toward Nancy's family. He never made eye contact. Mom had to look under his cap (pulled down to shadow them) to see his eyes and she saw truth. Mothers' know, that maternal instinct kicks in. I know that because I am a mother. Pros Cummings last statment was phenomenal. He used the how long it takes a person to die with strangulation and then said,"she's dead now." Please find Brad Cooper guilty 1st degree murder.

    The case is now in the jurors hands. I hope it's guilty because I truly believe state proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, I say, regardless of what they decide, I accept it.

  48. The case is still in jurors hands. No verdict today but they did call for numerous exhibits. Usually that means jurors are carefully deliberating the case as a whole.


  49. "She's Dead Now; I ask you find him guilty 1st degree murder."

    And so they did.

    A jury in a small room of the courthouse in Wake Co., N.C. deliberated the fate of Bradley Cooper in the murder of his wife, Nancy Cooper, for 10 hours and came back with the verdict.

    I strongly feel this is vindication for the CPD, the Prosecutors and friends of both Nancy and Brad. It wasn't bad enough that defense constantly called CPD and FBI inept. All of them were also atrociously maligned as suspects, whores, and other vile and vicious names as they testified and sat in the courtroom listening during trial - And while they were waiting for a verdict to be rendered too. Sadly, people who watched the trial did these attacks. Many said Judge Gessner and wral were both bias for the prosecutors. I didn't see that. Many of those nay sayers were first time trial watchers. Is that an excuse? Maybe, I don't know. Hopefully, if they are truly interested in the justice system, they will stop being children and become adults with an adult view of truth and justice.

    Murder is serious; it isn't a child's word game one plays.

    Consider Oliver Wendell Holmes quote: 'A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used.'

  50. I have listened to Mr. Kurtz interview and his mass conspiracy theories doesn't sit well with me. We heard all that diatribe in trial. He claims that anyone who came into contact with comp could've tampered with the computer, and that includes all the police. Then he claims Nancy's friends could've done it. Hmmm. I don't think so! Kurtz is insistent that Brad did not google the body site. I disagree.

    Nor do I think one of her female friends killed her. I do not believe any of the husbands wanted her dead either. The physical evidence of tire tracks he claims was the killer's vehicle tracks could've easily have been a worker's truck from the housing project. (And that is more likely than a killer's tracks.) I didn't see him showing possible evidence that any of the friends vehicles could match the tracks. The killer was found to be Brad, and I think he parked the same area LE parked and carried her body down to the scene where she was found. Just a few steps had to be taken. He was a strong man and could carry her a long way.

    And more importantly, to me, from what I heard in the trial (which was every witness except black out ones) more evidence than just that blasted google map showed Brad Cooper was the one who killed his wife. I am sick of Brad Cooper and his lawyers bashing Nancy. I think Mr. Kurtz really needs to take OW Holmes quote to heart and set it to action in future cases where he atttempts to demoralize victims' and law enforcement. No, not all cops are good cops but the mass majority are and hate bad cops as much as the public does. There was no Mass Conspiracy between cops and friends to Get Brad!! In my heart, I believe that as strongly as he said he believes there was.

  51. there was no careful deliberations by that jury-theyT did not take the time to review the vast amount of information. There was quite a bit of reasonable dobut that needed to be studied.

  52. On May 12 I received an email of a comment on this thread. The comment never actually posted here on the thread. I assume it was because blogger was updating and it was down for comments and posting for 2 days.
    This is the comment:
    Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Nancy's Demise and The Trial of Bradley Cooper":

    there was no careful deliberations by that jury-theyT did not take the time to review the vast amount of information. There was quite a bit of reasonable dobut that needed to be studied.


    I am posting that comment because I have to soundly disagree. The jury in this case deliberated for 10 hours and that was after each juror used several notebooks taking copious notes over the 2 months of testimony.

    So I believe they took 'all' the evidence heard, seen and read into consideration when deciding guilt. I could find no reasonable doubt that would give me pause to find first degree guilt nor any reason to say 1st degree wasn't applicable to me but the lesser charge of second degree was. I agree totally with jurors' verdict.

  53. I was very impressed with how the foreperson, Andy Gilbert, handled his letter to the media in reference to the verdict in the Cooper case. I was convinced of Cooper's guilt when the jurors began their deliberations due to the evidence heard during the trial and remain convinced to this day. He stated the jurors came into the trial nuetral to the guilt or innocence of Cooper. That's how it should be. That he stands behind the verdict they made makes me proud of the justice system. And he remains neutral today with both sides. I appreciate that too. He isn't allowing outside pressures with all the naysayers effect his feelings on their verdict.


  54. http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/08/...st-340000.html

    Brad Cooper defense cost $340,000

    excerpt: "Dateline NBC," a TV newsmagazine, is scheduled to air an hour long segment tonight on the case. The show begins at 9 p.m. locally on NBC17; the Cooper portion is scheduled to start shortly before 10 p.m.

    Hmm, so Kurtz made a nice fee on this one for his own pocket change of $233,116, demeaned the victim, Nancy Cooper, among others. And they call it indigent defense services!

    I am not a fan of Dateline ... IMO they take too much out of context. Ratings. So I didn't watch the show.

  55. According to wral the defense is asking for an extension for filing an appeal. I still believe Bradley Cooper is guilty as charged and found by jurors.

  56. Bradley Cooper's appeal was filed this week. Yes, the google search is an issue covered in it.

  57. A three judge panel heard the appeal yesterday and a decision should be forthcoming in next few months. wral carried the appeal via live stream but sadly, technical difficulties interfered and much of it wasn't heard. The lawyer for defense claimed rulings kept him from putting on a best defense, mainly the inability of forensic experts to testify. They also claim the computer was seized and searched illegally. State came back denying the illegal search and said other evidence could render same verdict. They said he have called others to testify. I look forward to the decision.