It really seems like things were not right with the marriage from the beginning. They were married because Brad had a job opportunity in NC and Nancy couldn't accompany him except as a spouse. She quit her job, moved with Brad and then, by the sounds of it, she became completely helpless when it came to financial responsibility. I'm assuming that they had shared accounts in the beginning, yet it sounds like Nancy chose not to participate in family finances except to spend. I say this only because house bills normally come to the house, and I don't see any reason why Nancy couldn't have taken on the responsibility of looking after household bills, or made arrangements for automatic debit. I also get the impression that when Nancy wanted to lash out at Brad, she did it by over-spending.
State v Bradley Cooper 3.10.2011
- Thread starter RaleighNC
- Start date
- Status
It really seems like things were not right with the marriage from the beginning. They were married because Brad had a job opportunity in NC and Nancy couldn't accompany him except as a spouse. She quit her job, moved with Brad and then, by the sounds of it, she became completely helpless when it came to financial responsibility. I'm assuming that they had shared accounts in the beginning, yet it sounds like Nancy chose not to participate in family finances except to spend. I say this only because house bills normally come to the house, and I don't see any reason why Nancy couldn't have taken on the responsibility of looking after household bills, or made arrangements for automatic debit. I also get the impression that when Nancy wanted to lash out at Brad, she did it by over-spending.
BrownRice
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 4,791
- Reaction score
- 16,728
Nope. I'm a runner (run as much as Nancy, or more) and I don't "need" pedicures. Sure, I would love to have them on a regular basis, but I'm a stay at home mom and it doesn't fit into our budget (I don't have $300 weekly to blow). I can paint my toenails myself, if needed. There is no necessity other than to have them look nice.
Perhaps, but it could have also been a matter of "retail therapy" because she was unhappy in the marriage and/or with BC having an affair (or more). It is strange though, if she was an avid running, the endorphins from running are mood elevators, and should have helped keep her more content.
It's my opinion that Nancy was messing with Brad financially. They lived in Cary from 2000 onward, so some part of that must have been good times where their finances were manageable. It seems like the more she wanted attention from him, the more she spent ... which probably got attention of the wrong sort. The more she spent, the more upset he became ... introduce all the neighbors giving Nancy advice and what a mess.
I keep hoping for more out of these witnesses...but at this point, I am betting this is how the whole case is going to go.
I was with you guys on a conviction, but questioned how they would get it.
I think the DA's office is tanking their case. If DD is any representative of how it's going to go....I think we are going to see a whole lot of inconclusive BS.
I stand by the idea that if I were on the jury, hearing this case, I would have to have DNA and/or a spoofed call (and proof thereof) for 1st degree. OR a litany of google searches related to poison, strangulation, etc. That would help.
BTW, the live feed doesn't do justice to how one-sided and inflated all of this feels in the court room. The defense is doing an excellent job so far capitalizing on what loose ends the DA is leaving lying around.
Were any of this DD stuff convincing, I would be leaning the opposite way, but it feels like a nosy/angry neighbor and the jury is nodding off. Because it doesn't sound like it's true. It sounds hollow and desperate. Not a keen way to kick off a trial, whether he did it or not.
The finance stuff is ridiculous, but it's just going to tick the jury off. Not in the prosecutions favor. Which is why I kept saying (two years ago) that the argument would almost have to be second degree. I even think they could have gone for Felony Murder here, arguing that he had committed felony assault in the domestic violence form, therefore accidentally killing her. Treated the same as first degree. But, they are going to try and convince these folks that he just snapped and PLANNED a murder? No way.
Also, you guys who are arguing he was "controlling" the finances and what not. Well...somebody should have been. He (in my opinion) was not doing enough to keep their dollars straight. There was a LOT more that should have been going on in order to keep both of their sides in order there. Again, financial devastation over time, man snaps, chokes/strangles wife, go for Felony murder or second degree. I would buy that for this case way more than I am buying what they are trying to sell me.
I think the guys a weirdo. I think the marriage was a shambles. I think they had no idea what they were doing or how to get out of it. I don't think Nancy had thought any more ahead than he had.
The problem with this over reach is the same as the Raymond Cook case. You can't "prove" a drunk person was intending to commit harm. You can't even prove they intended to drive. That's the whole point of it being a problem proving them drunk. They were drunk. They had poor judgement that lead to someone's death. Felony by motor vehicle? Yes. Murder with malicious intent? No. Moron? Yes. Cold-blooded killer? Yes, but by default of being a moron. Not second degree.
With this logic, we could point the finger at Alice Stubbs (NC's divorce lawyer) and say she made him snap, which made him kill her, which makes her a conspirator.
I was with you guys on a conviction, but questioned how they would get it.
I think the DA's office is tanking their case. If DD is any representative of how it's going to go....I think we are going to see a whole lot of inconclusive BS.
I stand by the idea that if I were on the jury, hearing this case, I would have to have DNA and/or a spoofed call (and proof thereof) for 1st degree. OR a litany of google searches related to poison, strangulation, etc. That would help.
BTW, the live feed doesn't do justice to how one-sided and inflated all of this feels in the court room. The defense is doing an excellent job so far capitalizing on what loose ends the DA is leaving lying around.
Were any of this DD stuff convincing, I would be leaning the opposite way, but it feels like a nosy/angry neighbor and the jury is nodding off. Because it doesn't sound like it's true. It sounds hollow and desperate. Not a keen way to kick off a trial, whether he did it or not.
The finance stuff is ridiculous, but it's just going to tick the jury off. Not in the prosecutions favor. Which is why I kept saying (two years ago) that the argument would almost have to be second degree. I even think they could have gone for Felony Murder here, arguing that he had committed felony assault in the domestic violence form, therefore accidentally killing her. Treated the same as first degree. But, they are going to try and convince these folks that he just snapped and PLANNED a murder? No way.
Also, you guys who are arguing he was "controlling" the finances and what not. Well...somebody should have been. He (in my opinion) was not doing enough to keep their dollars straight. There was a LOT more that should have been going on in order to keep both of their sides in order there. Again, financial devastation over time, man snaps, chokes/strangles wife, go for Felony murder or second degree. I would buy that for this case way more than I am buying what they are trying to sell me.
I think the guys a weirdo. I think the marriage was a shambles. I think they had no idea what they were doing or how to get out of it. I don't think Nancy had thought any more ahead than he had.
The problem with this over reach is the same as the Raymond Cook case. You can't "prove" a drunk person was intending to commit harm. You can't even prove they intended to drive. That's the whole point of it being a problem proving them drunk. They were drunk. They had poor judgement that lead to someone's death. Felony by motor vehicle? Yes. Murder with malicious intent? No. Moron? Yes. Cold-blooded killer? Yes, but by default of being a moron. Not second degree.
With this logic, we could point the finger at Alice Stubbs (NC's divorce lawyer) and say she made him snap, which made him kill her, which makes her a conspirator.
If a husband suspects that his wife is going to divorce him, a really strong suspicion, is it still wrong for him to find out whatever way he can - like check her email? He checked it in April, and were the papers from March or April?
The DA is. His office is not. They frequently are accused of abusing the grand jury in this county to bypass preliminary hearings with a judge. This comes up a lot in 3b (the superior court room for motions and answers or M&A in Wake County)
SleuthyGal
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 1
The DA is the one who has control of whether a case is brought to the grand jury or not. He wouldn't go forward on the Young murder case for over 3 years. He wouldn't go forward on the Ann Miller case (much to the frustration of the Raleigh P.D.) for 5 years. The DA made the call in this case as well. So the DA felt he could make a case (and have a good chance of convincing a jury).
Not to lead this thread down a bunny hole, but I saw the amount of evidence they had in the JLY case, and I don't know what they were waiting on so long! They had enough in that case to convict St. Peter, but waited a LONG time to make an arrest.
This is one reason I think they have some goods on BC, they moved fairly quickly on it. I think they have a nuke or two that we are going to hear soon, but per my earlier post, much of it might be inconsistancies in the stories and actions of BC himself. The ADA alluded to as much in her opening. Telling the jurors to use "their most important tool, their brain" or something similar to that. Do the actions of the accused ring true? Does it sound like something any rational human would do? As a possible example, we discussed something when this was a hot topic before about BC trying to swipe NCs card into Lifetime Fitness as a possible false trail. Not sure, but if something like this comes out.... that is pretty hard to explain away.
SleuthyGal
Former Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2008
- Messages
- 4,078
- Reaction score
- 1
She suggested the jurors use their common sense.
Interesting. I hope it's more than he repainted or messed up the walls that Nancy painted.
Inconsistent stories are not a good thing. Any inconsistency can eliminate all conflicting testimonies.
Did Brad's attorney mention during opening arguments that Brad regretted that he hadn't always told the truth ... to neighbors ... in general ... or did I misunderstand.
Was Nancy's fitness club card used after she disappeared?
jmflu
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,404
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think this was hearsay. I remember reading or hearing DD say Nancy had her fists clenched while she was saying this to BC...
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
What I understood is that the defense wanted to introduce evidence during the prosecution portion of presentation rather than waiting to introduce during their own portion. For that they gave up the right to address the jury last prior to deliberations. The only thing I'm aware that they introduced was the water bill.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
She had her fists clenched and was spitting out the words as she told Diana what she said to Brad. Diana was not present if/when it was said to Brad.
- Status