State v. Bradley Cooper 4-7-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
....or that he was so private that nobody knew what he was up to!! I am thankful that Nancy did talk...at least she left a trail.

He seemed social enough, went to lunch with co-workers, played tennis with friends, went to neighborhood barbecues. He even watched the kids while his wife drank and socialized with her friends. It all seems normal to me.

And remember, she didn't start trashing him until learning of the affair and then that was all she did constantly. Making him look bad would certainly help her in the divorce/custody. But no one, not even her friends saw him mistreat her ever. Yes, there is a witness that heard them arguing, but couples argue all the time and even Krista said Nancy turned into a monster at times.

Even the money stuff, we are learning more. He gave her $700 for her week vacation and she blew it all the first day but let her parents think she wasn't given any cash for the trip.
 
Best I can tell, if WS was the jury, there may be a 8-4 vote for guilty at this point.
 
So you guys have the opp. to understand something about this preceding that may (or may not) give you a little legal insight.

The NC Supreme Court is backlogged into oblivion. Appeals take YEARS to get heard and sometimes rightfully so.

They are very particular about not "re-trying" cases. In that regard, if you read some of their opinions they are hyper-critical of the way defense attorneys raise issues in the appeals that were not raised in the trial.

The objections you hear argued out, then softly replayed throughout and overruled throughout testimony is actually to raise those issues on the record. It minimizes the need for sidebar discussion, etc. believe it or not and preserves the defendants rights while allowing the trial to continue.

Not trying to be a smarty about it, just didn't know if some of you guys knew that was one of the things that Kurtz and Trenkle are doing.
 
I'm pretty sure my husband doesn't sit at lunch and talk about me and the kids. That doesn't make him a bad husband.

I think we are learning that BC was a private person about his personal life. Lots of people are like that. There is nothing wrong with it.

I think it shows integrity that he did not trash his wife, even in the midst of a divorce.

Integrity but he had 'other relationships'?
 
I'm pretty sure my husband doesn't sit at lunch and talk about me and the kids. That doesn't make him a bad husband.

I think we are learning that BC was a private person about his personal life. Lots of people are like that. There is nothing wrong with it.

I think it shows integrity that he did not trash his wife, even in the midst of a divorce.

No, when you're sleeping with her best friend behind her back, taking off your wedding ring when in another country to chat up another woman, and standing screaming at her in a public place in front of the children to the point they are screaming and crying, that just about says it all, doesn't it?
 
I'm pretty sure my husband doesn't sit at lunch and talk about me and the kids. That doesn't make him a bad husband.

I think we are learning that BC was a private person about his personal life. Lots of people are like that. There is nothing wrong with it.

I think it shows integrity that he did not trash his wife, even in the midst of a divorce.

I also think he wasn't the type to share too much of his personal life from what we know so far from the friends..introverted, not too sociable. So far, it apears from HER friends he was a terrible, awful husband. But, he never showed that side to HIS friends...which makes me think he had no real friends. Acquaintances and colleagues and normally we don't get too personal with those types of 'friends'. Even their mutual friends from Canada said that it wasn't Brad who initiated friendships too much.

I think Brad was a controlling and not so nice person. I am waiting for the Defense at this point to see if they bring anything to the table that refutes HER friends testimony. When you live in that type of community, my mom used to refer to them as 'coffee clatchers' there is a certain amount of everyone knowing everyone's business. I am inclined to believe there was less keeping things secret.

But, I still don't think the jury can find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this juncture. I still am wondering if the tech information is enough to prove Nancy was not the one making the calls, was alive and went running. Its is doubtful that is true, but is there concrete without out a doubt evidence this is true. Even the 'bug' guy once the Def crossed said he could not be sure of the what evidence he was given and the timeline. Didn't he say something along the lines of as late as 11 am but likely the 1 am to 6 am timeframe?

Kelly
 
Best I can tell, if WS was the jury, there may be a 8-4 vote for guilty at this point.


That sounds heavy handed for us fence sitters but is probably close. I've been thinking 10-2

I have to tell you guys, it's been way easier to talk on here about this than anywhere else. Mainly because I think we mostly agreed to disagree and make it more interesting. (Or get timed-out)
 
No, when you're sleeping with her best friend behind her back, taking off your wedding ring when in another country to chat up another woman, and standing screaming at her in a public place in front of the children to the point they are screaming and crying, that just about says it all, doesn't it?
You forgot spying on her.
 
Ok, here we go. I really can not contribute a lot but I am a German married to an Canadian. Our dinner is late. We do kiss each other even we don't know each other so well. Him being in Europe and do so with this girl in France doesn't mean anything for me. On the other side, we hardly call people in our neighborhood friends. I think we might be strange at times. As I said, I think he did it. But if there is nothing else I would have a hard time to feel good sending him to prison (or jail, I really do not have any idea what the difference is)
Many thanks to all of you for the warm welcome.
 
Integrity but he had 'other relationships'?

As did she. It was a sexless marriage. I don't think a spouse should have to go w/o for years (IMO). They probably should have divorced long before the affair started.
 
You forgot spying on her.

Yes, I did. I also didn't mention that if he didn't let out all that steam elsewhere, the slow build up could be what made him lose his head one night in July, 2008.
 
But this trial is being held in North Carolina which is not located in Canada. As long as he is being tried in the US, US laws and due process rights apply. It doesn't matter if he is a Canadian citizen.

just saying...in Canada police do not have read your rights because they have ruled ...everyone knows

Miranda is implied
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
2,213
Total visitors
2,398

Forum statistics

Threads
589,962
Messages
17,928,403
Members
228,020
Latest member
DazzelleShafer
Back
Top