State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
raisincharlie said:
One oddity is Brad saying he saw Nancy's silhouette at all. Had the hall light been on, or any light for that matter that would backlight Nancy, it would have been seen from the Duncan's house. Take a good look at the front of that house - there is a large window over the staircase as it goes up to the second floor. Just a small note.
Click to expand...

You honestly don't think she turned a light on when she got home? So if you come home at night, you walk through your house and upstairs without turning a light on?
 
diphi said:
[...]
Has either side estimated how long the trial might last?
...
Click to expand...

IIRC, the pre-trial estimate quoted in the media was 4-6 weeks (based on witness list, evidence to present, etc). The estimate was so long in fact that contributed to difficulty finding jurors (folks with the next 4-6 weeks free...). Based on the perceived pace thus far, plus some of the comments by the judge, doesn't seems like things are exactly 'ahead of schedule' either....

We're about 1.5 weeks in... will the prosecution rest this week... or next... or later?
 
ncsu95 said:
It was 38 seconds. That's not exactly chatting it up.
Click to expand...

38 seconds is a long time if you are just discussing 2 items to pick up at the market. I tried it with a stopwatch and it was very long.
 
On Saturday, early morning, the first call to BC cell phone from the landline was to locate the phone. OK, this is acceptable and I do the same thing. However, is it probable that this really happened as described? The stress of being up at 4am with a 2 year old would become more stressful if BC's cell phone was located in the girls bedroom and thus waking up the 4 year old with the call to locate the phone. Do we know what time the call to confirm the tennis match on Saturday occurred. If it occurred after 8:30 then the cell phone must have been in the girls room, correct?
 
BrownRice said:
But, I don't think "nanny" status would have been legal. In order to have working rights in the US (not as a spouse but as a sole person), an entire process needs to be approved by the govt. Probably the same process was followed when Cisco brought BC to the US. The employer has to show that the prospective employee has such highly desired skills that are not able to be found by applicants in this area. Likewise, BC would not have been able to legally hire NC as a nanny because a nanny does not require such hard to find skills. If BC wanted to pay NC under the table as a nanny, that would be one thing, but she would be here illegally and wouldn't be able to travel back and forth to Canada.
Click to expand...

That is only in the case of an H-1B Visa. In her case there are other Immigration status petitions that would apply not requiring the specialized skill set.
 
otto said:
Nancy may have had better success with the custody situation if she had remained in Canada at the time of her last visit and started proceedings from Ottawa. She would have given up all the material possessions, but at least she would be safe with her children. It would have become an international custody battle, but I doubt the children would have been forced to return to NC without their primary caregiver (Nancy).
Click to expand...

Hi Otto! Nancy's father was very familiar with the system in Canada, wasn't he? Head of Childrens' Services or something?
My memory is sooooo bad but do you remember if she even discussed her problems with her family?
I'm just wondering if he would have advised her in any way.
 
jilly said:
Hi Otto! Nancy's father was very familiar with the system in Canada, wasn't he? Head of Childrens' Services or something?
My memory is sooooo bad but do you remember if she even discussed her problems with her family?
I'm just wondering if he would have advised her in any way.
Click to expand...

Her family had to have known that she was planning to move back to Canada without Brad because she was planning to move into her sister's house. I don't know the answers to anything else.
 
Both my wife and myself have very busy schedules and not uncommon for us to have events scheduled for the same day. We always remind each other, "Don't forget that I am doing X at Y time" When NC *went* running that morning why did BC not remind NC of the tennis event?
 
do you remember if she even discussed her problems with her family?
Click to expand...

Her parents were well aware of the problems (both financial and marital). In the custody case hearing Mr. Rentz testified as to the financial help he had given to Nancy & Brad in the past (to help with bills I believe). Read the affidavits from her family (in the legal docs section above).

Further, the declining situation in the marriage, the tension, the super-controlling behavior was known as well. There was testimony by Nancy's twin sister at the custody hearing about that. Nancy's mother testified how Nancy sobbed before leaving that final time at vacation, saying she wished she could just go home (back to Canada). Brad had already hidden the passports by this time (before Nancy's last vacation).

Nancy was dead 5 days later.
 
If Nancy was indeed in touch with Interact, might someone be called as a witness who knew of the circumstances?
 
I was just listening to the custody deposition. It was the equivalent of having him on the stand for a murder trial. I am surprised at the questioning when it was only supposed to be about whether he was fit to retain custody. So the prosecutors have 7 hours of interview to use for their case and it's doubtful they ever planned to let him keep the kids. They used the custody to get him to talk. Then they indicted him a couple weeks later. I wonder how much contact the prosecutors had with Alice Stubbs. She *was* the prosecutor in a sense, not a divorce attorney.
 
sunshine05 said:
I was just listening to the custody deposition. It was the equivalent of having him on the stand for a murder trial. I am surprised at the questioning when it was only supposed to be about whether he was fit to retain custody. So the prosecutors have 7 hours of interview to use for their case and it's doubtful they ever planned to let him keep the kids. They used the custody to get him to talk. Then they indicted him a couple weeks later. I wonder how much contact the prosecutors had with Alice Stubbs. She *was* the prosecutor in a sense, not a divorce attorney.
Click to expand...

Kinda hard to ignore that the children's mother was murdered, and probably by the person they were debating giving custody to. Not your usual case!
 
jmflu said:
If Nancy was indeed in touch with Interact, might someone be called as a witness who knew of the circumstances?
Click to expand...

Nancy herself was not in touch with Interact, but a friend who was very familiar with Interact's services and the signs of domestic violence was aware of the escalating tension and the weird list that Brad had written, and she spoke to Nancy about her situation when they had lunch on Fri 7/11/08. By the next morning Nancy had been murdered. This friend testified at the custody hearing in 2008.
 
SleuthyGal said:
Nancy herself was not in touch with Interact, but a friend who was very familiar with Interact's services and the signs of domestic violence was aware of the escalating tension and the weird list that Brad had written, and she spoke to Nancy about her situation when they had lunch on Fri 7/11/08. By the next morning Nancy had been murdered. This friend testified at the custody hearing in 2008.
Click to expand...

Thanks, SG. I had forgotten all about that very strange list. Just another weird thing to add to the list.
 
jmflu said:
Kinda hard to ignore that the children's mother was murdered, and probably by the person they were debating giving custody to. Not your usual case!
Click to expand...

Right. I get that! But he hadn't been charged with anything at that point. It seems around here that it's guilty until proven innocent.
 
sunshine05 said:
Right. I get that! But he hadn't been charged with anything at that point. It seems around here that it's guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

They had enough evidence to put him in jail. He hadn't been proven guilty by that point, either.
 
I found this from a N&O article about him intercepting her emails. This most likely will be brought up soon and just the fact that he was copying all her incoming emails does not look good, imo.

The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina)

December 5, 2008 Friday

Web site of Cary man charged with murder was collecting e-mail sent to wife;
Nancy Cooper's e-mail was from her lawyer

RALEIGH -- Brad Cooper was intercepting his wife's e-mail and read some messages the day before she disappeared, according to a search warrant made public Thursday.

The document also says some notes intercepted earlier were between Nancy Cooper and her lawyer, who was drafting a separation agreement between the Cary couple.

The search warrant application, signed this month by a Cary Police Department detective, says investigators searched a laptop computer belonging to Brad Cooper's employer and assigned to him. They learned that all incoming e-mail to Nancy Cooper's account was being copied and sent to an account associated with Brad Cooper's Web site.

The document doesn't say what was in the e-mail messages. In the warrant application, detectives requested permission to search a Google e-mail account associated with Bradley Cooper.

An examination of the laptop indicated Brad Cooper read e-mail messages sent to his wife's account three times on July 11, the document said.
Click to expand...
 
sunshine05 said:
Right. I get that! But he hadn't been charged with anything at that point. It seems around here that it's guilty until proven innocent.
Click to expand...

Kinda difficult to ignore information that came out, including the defendants own statements, that were in conflict with his other statements. When you become aware of and start to add up all the various things, including behaviors, statements, glimpses into some of the evidence, and you also uncover lies, you can't really unring that bell and pretend you don't know what you learned.

Does it all still have to be proved in a court of law? Yep.

But remember that the judge in the custody hearing also didn't find BC to be credible, although the standard of proof was certainly lower than in a criminal trial.

We know far more than the jury does at this point, because we've focused on this case from the beginning, read the legal documents, and saw his deposition and custody hearing testimony from witnesses.
 
jmflu said:
They had enough evidence to put him in jail. He hadn't been proven guilty by that point, either.
Click to expand...
So you think they had enough evidence to put him in jail *before* the custody dep.?

If so, they clearly baited him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 202 more.
Total: 4,490 (members: 203, guests: 4,287)

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
4,287
Total visitors
4,490
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,431
Messages
17,968,819
Members
228,768
Latest member
clancehan
Back
Top