Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 187

Thread: State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    See above ^
    Posts
    596

    State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

    So - in the middle of a divorce where you are afraid of your husband, sleeping in a locked room, who brings their wedding rings to Jollys to be redesigned so you can wear them on the other hand?

    It's very odd to me to be trying to establish state of mind for Nancy (as it related to her fear of Brad) and yet the actions are either that they were getting along, or she was doing things that would likely provoke him. I don't see that as a person who is afraid.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RaleighNC For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,079
    What makes you think the wedding rings would provoke Brad? As long as he didn't have to spend money (on her) he didn't much care. He did care when she earned her own money though.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,701
    Well, in many marriages the wedding ring is symbolic of much more than a piece of jewelry. I would be offended if my spouse did that (but I'm a woman, and a man wouldn't do that, but if it was reversed).

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to BrownRice For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    See above ^
    Posts
    596
    I guess if it was only about money, he would not have cared. I just see it as a more formal declaration of the end - perhaps when he was picking up the appearance of them spending more time together.

    I don't know - it just does not seem to be the actions of someone who needed money, and who was scared of her husband. Hocking the diamond, yup, working on a redesign - not so much.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to RaleighNC For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
    So - in the middle of a divorce where you are afraid of your husband, sleeping in a locked room, who brings their wedding rings to Jollys to be redesigned so you can wear them on the other hand?

    It's very odd to me to be trying to establish state of mind for Nancy (as it related to her fear of Brad) and yet the actions are either that they were getting along, or she was doing things that would likely provoke him. I don't see that as a person who is afraid.
    It is common down here in our area to have your wedding/engagement ring set diamond(s) reset into another piece of jewelry. Some have them made into what is called a 'divorce ring' others have them made into earrings or a necklace pendant, etc.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fhc For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,079
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
    I guess if it was only about money, he would not have cared. I just see it as a more formal declaration of the end - perhaps when he was picking up the appearance of them spending more time together.
    He was doing the 'togetherness' thing as a ploy for the separation agreement, probably based on his lawyer's advice to play nice. Mostly spending time with the children and showing more interest in them. I doubt he cared about Nancy's ring, or anything to do with that.

    I don't know - it just does not seem to be the actions of someone who needed money, and who was scared of her husband. Hocking the diamond, yup, working on a redesign - not so much.
    He was giving her a weekly allowance up until that last Fri when he refused. So she had money to pay the household expenses at the time she took that ring in to the jeweler's. She wasn't afraid of him in terms of violence, per se. She was afraid he would remove important documents and prevent her from going back to Canada. Which he did. And of course he ultimately stopped her by murdering her (IMHO).

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    813
    Quote Originally Posted by SleuthyGal View Post
    He was doing the 'togetherness' thing as a ploy for the separation agreement, probably based on his lawyer's advice to play nice. Mostly spending time with the children and showing more interest in them. I doubt he cared about Nancy's ring, or anything to do with that.



    He was giving her a weekly allowance up until that last Fri when he refused. So she had money to pay the household expenses at the time she took that ring in to the jeweler's. She wasn't afraid of him in terms of violence, per se. She was afraid he would remove important documents and prevent her from going back to Canada. Which he did. And of course he ultimately stopped her by murdering her (IMHO).

    I keep wondering how far into materialism we are going to get here.

    My personal divorce experience began solely because she liked to spend more money than we could make.

    I even think the purchasing of the tarp is legit. Because I would have done that for fear my ex-wife was going to go out and spend an ungodly amount of money on some "designer" floor liner for "pro-painters" or some crap.

    I am not a fan of how the prosecution is presenting this case. I think Kurtz has found a really interesting and unique way into the melee (which is EXACTLY what it is going to look like as we get closer and closer to the heart of the case) and I think that this jury (though, I too, noted they looked zoned SG) won't have a choice on the conviction.

    Does anyone know if they are aiming solely at 1st degree with these indictments, or can they pick up lesser charges (2nd, manslaughter, etc)?

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to johnfear For This Useful Post:


  15. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,079
    I even think the purchasing of the tarp is legit.
    Claiming it's for your estranged wife to use over at HER friend's house for that painting project stretches credulity.

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  17. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by johnfear View Post

    Does anyone know if they are aiming solely at 1st degree with these indictments, or can they pick up lesser charges (2nd, manslaughter, etc)?
    1st degree only...unless there is a later motion to include 2nd degree in the jury instructions.
    At that point, the judge would make that final decision.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  19. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,079
    These delays are really annoying me today!

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  21. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,831
    I see what Kurtz is up to now. They, Kurtz and Brad, are willing to waive some of his legal rights to get in to the testimony that Bella told Clea Morwick that she saw her Mum that morning. He is trying to do it through Diana Duncan because Clea told LE - Dismukes asked Duncan about it so...third hand hearsey. The judge has once before told Kurtz no on this so he is trying this route. Currently the judge is discussing with the lawyers off the record as he believes this is about supression of evidence so that is why the camera is turned off.

    If you recall Kurtz's opening he talks about Bella getting up at 8:30 and the kids and Brad having breakfast. Now he wants to bring this in while Brad claims Nancy left at 7:00 am. If Bella didn't get up til 8:30 this is not possible anyhow. There is certainly no way to counter it as being truthful as the only two persons who can, one will most likely not take the stand (Brad) and the other (Bella) has long forgotten it. Does a 4 year old routinely know what day of the week it is ? We know Nancy's run on Friday morning was cancelled.

    Sneaky little dude Kurtz is. If that is all Brad has, he's in deep doo. I can't even imagine giving away someone's legal rights for this...or for much else. Crazy.
    Racing Doesn't Lie

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to raisincharlie For This Useful Post:


  23. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,905
    Are they on a break again?

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to ohiogirl For This Useful Post:


  25. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,079
    No they are discussing some issue and the judge sent the jury out of the room and they turned the cameras off.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SleuthyGal For This Useful Post:


  27. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,905
    they are back

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to ohiogirl For This Useful Post:


  29. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,831
    Interesting that Kurtz immediately jumps up when the State is done with Ms. Duncan to declare she has been subpeona'd for the defense. Duncan says she has not received any such subpeona.

    Kurtz sure doesn't want anyone in that courtroom...as if 227 witnesses is not enough I guess.
    Racing Doesn't Lie

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to raisincharlie For This Useful Post:


  31. #16
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    731
    The live feed on WRAL is saying the jury has reached a decision in the Bradley Cooper trial. What the heck are they talking about?

  32. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,831
    Quote Originally Posted by lib's mom View Post
    The live feed on WRAL is saying the jury has reached a decision in the Bradley Cooper trial. What the heck are they talking about?
    Hadn't heard that. Right now what they are doing is allowing the jurors to review all of the State's exhibits admitted to evidence so far. From what I heard, the State indicated they overestimated the time for Ms. Duncan to be on the stand and did not have another witness available at the moment. I have not heard if someone is on the way or not though.
    Racing Doesn't Lie

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to raisincharlie For This Useful Post:


  34. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,831
    One other thing - Judge says no proceedings on Friday March 18th.
    Racing Doesn't Lie

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to raisincharlie For This Useful Post:


  36. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,905
    Have a good weekend everyone. See you next week.

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to ohiogirl For This Useful Post:


  38. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,857
    Quote Originally Posted by raisincharlie View Post
    One other thing - Judge says no proceedings on Friday March 18th.

    Friday AM is on, as I recall.

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  40. #21
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by raisincharlie View Post
    Hadn't heard that. Right now what they are doing is allowing the jurors to review all of the State's exhibits admitted to evidence so far. From what I heard, the State indicated they overestimated the time for Ms. Duncan to be on the stand and did not have another witness available at the moment. I have not heard if someone is on the way or not though.
    Okay, thanks. The little box below the live feed said "The jury has reached a verdict..." and I got a little worked up! Maybe somebody at WRAL needs to rephrase that.

  41. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,857
    Ass DA Amy Fitzhugh

    She has practiced law since 1998
    Was in private practice in Cary until 2007
    Assigned primarily to the drug prosecution unit at the DA's office

  42. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:


  43. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    16,831
    Done for the day - back Monday at 9:30 eastern.
    Racing Doesn't Lie

  44. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to raisincharlie For This Useful Post:


  45. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,954
    This is confusing with so many threads about almost the same thing.

  46. The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:


  47. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    20,954
    Quote Originally Posted by RaleighNC View Post
    So - in the middle of a divorce where you are afraid of your husband, sleeping in a locked room, who brings their wedding rings to Jollys to be redesigned so you can wear them on the other hand?

    It's very odd to me to be trying to establish state of mind for Nancy (as it related to her fear of Brad) and yet the actions are either that they were getting along, or she was doing things that would likely provoke him. I don't see that as a person who is afraid.
    I think she was trying to provoke him. If the marriage was over, she should have taken the rings off.

Page 1 of 8 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. State v Bradley Cooper 3-17-2011
    By CyberPro in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 498
    Last Post: 03-18-2011, 11:52 AM
  2. State v. Bradley Cooper 03/16/11
    By less0305 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 413
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 10:31 AM
  3. Replies: 222
    Last Post: 03-16-2011, 10:13 AM
  4. State v Bradley Cooper 3.14 .2011 - 3.?.??
    By otto in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 521
    Last Post: 03-15-2011, 01:56 PM
  5. State v Bradley Cooper 3.10.2011
    By RaleighNC in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 03-12-2011, 12:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •