State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lori59 said:
Well testimony through JA was that since the move to Canada had been canceled, she had been pulling things out of the boxes...so I think those packed boxes were intended for the move to Canada
Click to expand...

It makes sense that Nancy had decided not to move if she was unpacking the boxes, not that she decided specifically not to move to Canada. Nancy could have moved out of the house with her children, and her lawyer would have very quickly ensured that she had enough money to live on. I doubt the budget would have included pedicures for a 4 year old, which may be the reason Nancy decided not to move.
 
But not being able to get pedicures was the reason given to DD that she was upset about him cutting off her finances for the week. That tells me she was not worried over grocery money. There are people who can make $300 last a month for food so $1200/month was a pretty decent allowance, imo.

I guess I'm having a tough time feeling that she was having to scrape to buy a loaf of bread.
 
Lori59 said:
Yes, I think they were both awful in the marriage. Her behavior at the party, not helping him with the kids was her way of getting at him too. I still don't know why she didn't leave the party with him and the children. She was in a foul mood that night too.
Click to expand...

Based on one of the comments in testimony, something about Nancy saying he was on kid duty that weekend, I figured she was seperated from him in her mind even if they had to live in the same house. Since she had been gone with the girls the two previous weekends it sounds like it was dad's weekend to have the kids. The way she dealt with the guy asking about Brad playing tennis gave me the same impression. She just called Brad and handed the phone to Mike H. She would likely be expecting Brad to tell him that he couldn't play tennis because it was his weekend to take care of the girls. If that is true, it would be a plus for the defense since it would certainly explain why he wasn't too worried when she didn't come home. He would just assume that she was staying away so he had no choice. Of course he never told anyone that so that pretty much negates that out for him.
 
otto said:
Is $1200 - 1400 not enough money for monthly groceries for 2 adults and two small children? Shouldn't that also cover the cost of gas for a stay at home mom? I don't see a problem with this budget.

Brad and Nancy were from Canada, not just Nancy. How much did Nancy spent on art work? It must have been substantial for Nancy's family to want the art work included in the children's estate.
Click to expand...

I don't know how much they spent on art... it was their art. The amount of money she was given and if it was enough can be debated all day...My point is that he choice to cut her off financially. Not only is that demeaning to a stay at home mom...it is spiteful. If his motive was purely to get them back on track then he would have done it long ago. I am just saying it shows anger, resentment and another level of trouble for them to get along in that house. They shouldn't have been living together anymore.
 
Lori59 said:
Yes, I agree they were in financial trouble. But, that took years to occur and it seems once the divorce was in play...it is all her fault. They both are responsible for their mess...yet he only took over once the divorce was happening...so I think it was personal against her...not trying to get their finances in order. Pedicures were not the cause of all there debt. There entire life was just waiting to erupt....it is very sad.
Click to expand...

Divorce means budget. That's one of the first things that each party establishes. Nancy would want to pad the budget any way she could, and Brad would want to appear reasonable while establishing a history such that Nancy did not need more than she was receiving. $300 seems reasonable. Brad paid for gas on top of the $300, and paid a few hundred for Nancy's interview outfit. Nancy was not cut off from money, but she was prevented from spending money on things they could not afford - like expensive art.
 
Earlier posts (2008) put he price of the bear painting at $9000 (a purchase that Nancy did not discuss with Brad). Income was $112k. After taxes, I don't see that this family had $9000 to blow on a painting, especially given house, car and other expenses.
 
Lori59 said:
I don't know how much they spent on art... it was their art. The amount of money she was given and if it was enough can be debated all day...My point is that he choice to cut her off financially. Not only is that demeaning to a stay at home mom...it is spiteful. If his motive was purely to get them back on track then he would have done it long ago. I am just saying it shows anger, resentment and another level of trouble for them to get along in that house. They shouldn't have been living together anymore.
Click to expand...

How many stay at home moms can spend whatever they want whenever they want and then blow $9000 on a picture of a bear? Most couples with young children budget carefully and make efforts to stay within the budget. Nancy did not appear to be doing anything within a budget. What should Brad have done? ... wait until the cars were repossessed and the house was in foreclosure and then put limits on spending?
 
otto said:
How many stay at home moms can spend whatever they want whenever they want and then blow $9000 on a picture of a bear? Most couples with young children budget carefully and make efforts to stay within the budget. Nancy did not appear to be doing anything within a budget. What should Brad have done? ... wait until the cars were repossessed and the house was in foreclosure and then put limits on spending?
Click to expand...

Otto...I think we just disagree with the finances in their marriage. Again, I am saying his "taking control" of them was out of spite to her and not because of her spending or to correct the spending. What should he have done??? Well, according to the prosecution..he chose to kill her.
 
otto said:
$9000 on a picture of a bear?
Click to expand...

This only proves there is a sucker born every minute!!! How can anyone value a bear painting at $9000? I don't care how beautiful it is, it is a frigging bear.
 
Lori59 said:
Otto...I think we just disagree with the finances in their marriage. Again, I am saying his "taking control" of them was out of spite to her and not because of her spending or to correct the spending. What should he have done??? Well, according to the prosecution..he chose to kill her.
Click to expand...

I doubt Brad murdered Nancy because of finances. I see a disastrous marriage from beginning to end. There were serious marital problems for a couple of years, but Nancy wasn't murdered until one Saturday in July.
 
otto said:
I doubt Brad murdered Nancy because of finances. I see a disastrous marriage from beginning to end. There were serious marital problems for a couple of years, but Nancy wasn't murdered until one Saturday in July.
Click to expand...

Finances aside, it's the timing of that day in July and the activities that followed that make it look bad for him. Appearances and proof though are two different things. They still have to have proof. I'm certainly expecting something from the evidence collected from the house and car. We still have yet to hear from the lab as well. (Like the rape test kit.)
 
ncsu95 said:
Yes. I'm really not even talking about BC and NC and this case. I'm talking about the attitude in general here that the painting money was hers instead of theirs.
Click to expand...

A woman is entitled to her own money, separate and apart from household money. Just ask Interact.
 
Cheyenne130 said:
Finances aside, it's the timing of that day in July and the activities that followed that make it look bad for him. Appearances and proof though are two different things. They still have to have proof. I'm certainly expecting something from the evidence collected from the house and car. We still have yet to hear from the lab as well. (Like the rape test kit.)
Click to expand...

There was no sign of sexual assault, according to an article I just read.

Wasn't there some mention of Interact years ago with NC? Rings a bell...
 
Cheyenne130 said:
Finances aside, it's the timing of that day in July and the activities that followed that make it look bad for him. Appearances and proof though are two different things. They still have to have proof. I'm certainly expecting something from the evidence collected from the house and car. We still have yet to hear from the lab as well. (Like the rape test kit.)
Click to expand...

I agree. There must be more incriminating evidence. I understand perfectly well what the judge is saying when he's telling the defense lawyer to stopping pulling out rabbits (something about rabbits). One of the witnesses said that Nancy had something like 2 beer and 4 glasses of wine, or 4 beer and 2 glasses of wine (doesn't really matter). The defense then asked whether it might have been 8 drinks, or 10. He seems to want to muddy up all the testimony ... as well as introduce points that are not raised during direct questioning.

I remember when Scott Peterson gave the whistle of relief when learning that the discovery in the Bay was an anchor. That was such clear relief on his part that I thought the jury would hold onto that as a turning point in the evidence. There is probably something like that in this case as well.
 
otto said:
Have we heard how much Nancy was paid for doing the painting?
Click to expand...

I heard (I believe from Jessica Adam testimony) that she paid her $240. Of that $150 was for labor and there were $100 worth of supplies that she reimbursed Nancy for. She stated she owed Nancy $250 but she only had $240 so they called it even.
 
LivinginNC said:
I heard (I believe from Jessica Adam testimony) that she paid her $240. Of that $150 was for labor and there were $100 worth of supplies that she reimbursed Nancy for. She stated she owed Nancy $250 but she only had $240 so they called it even.
Click to expand...

In that case then NC really only made $150, not $240 since the remainder was reimbursement for supplies. BC should have provided her w/ the other $150.
 
I'm sure you all have seen this before, but this is the link to the affidavit of the "witness" who claims to have seen NC at 7:10 the morning she disappeared. She claims to have contacted police several times but was ignored. Finally she contacted Kurtz. I'm sure the defense will interview her on the stand. This should be interesting because there must be some documentation of her police statement and the fact that she was ignored. Why no police follow up?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1986015/Nancy-Cooper-Rosemary-Zednick-Affidavit
 
SleuthinNC said:
If you are meaning the call goes out from his Cisco IP Phone then the call would go across Cisco's network then off-network to the local phone carrier then off-network again to the cell carrier. Each of those networks would have a record of the call.

I thought Cisco already said they had no record of these calls.
Click to expand...

I cannot say for a complete certainty, but it depends on the kind of equipment BC had. It could be a complete Cisco phone system, not just a desktop phone unit. If this is the case, all it needed was a network connection, and would not have to transit the Cisco network. I feel comfortable that he had access to that kind of equipment IIRC NC Complained about them using it for their home phones because she feared BC was monitoring it. To be able to use it as their home phone, it seems more would be needed than just the phone.

On top of that, most people that I know who have studied for an advanced Cisco certification have some of the equipment that they build out for a lab that they can use for training.
 
I would put money on BC having had a full VOIP phone system @ home. He worked from home part time. He had laptops, desktops, routers. As an engineer for VOIP he would have the system software on his computer(s), possibly a server or two as well.

The defense showed a few pictures of BC's home office, including the closet in that office. Filled with equipment, computer manuals, etc, etc. The desk phone in his office was a Cisco phone (I saw the branding on it).

It looked to be a well-equipped high tech office with lots of computer equipment.
 
CyberPro said:
I cannot say for a complete certainty, but it depends on the kind of equipment BC had. It could be a complete Cisco phone system, not just a desktop phone unit. If this is the case, all it needed was a network connection, and would not have to transit the Cisco network. I feel comfortable that he had access to that kind of equipment IIRC NC Complained about them using it for their home phones because she feared BC was monitoring it. To be able to use it as their home phone, it seems more would be needed than just the phone.

On top of that, most people that I know who have studied for an advanced Cisco certification have some of the equipment that they build out for a lab that they can use for training.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't work that way. At some point for the calls to go to his cell phone they had to go across a network that he did not have access to and there would be traceable records.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 84 more.
Total: 3,884 (members: 85, guests: 3,799)

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
3,799
Total visitors
3,884
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,661
Messages
17,957,201
Members
228,583
Latest member
Vjeanine
Back
Top