State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

Status
Not open for further replies.

RaleighNC

New Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
596
Reaction score
0
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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)?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
No they are discussing some issue and the judge sent the jury out of the room and they turned the cameras off.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
One other thing - Judge says no proceedings on Friday March 18th.
 
Have a good weekend everyone. See you next week.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
110
Guests online
767
Total visitors
877

Forum statistics

Threads
589,928
Messages
17,927,774
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top