Thanks. If she was paid $240, and normally received $300, it seems to me that Brad should have given her the difference.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
State v Bradley Cooper 3-18-2011
- Thread starter CyberPro
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Thanks. If she was paid $240, and normally received $300, it seems to me that Brad should have given her the difference.
I was reading some old articles and documents today and saw a figure of $240.
So why is the money she earned her money, but the money he earned is their money. If she earned money, it should go to the household.
So why is the money she earned her money, but the money he earned is their money. If she earned money, it should go to the household.
I don't have a problem with that, but if the budget was $300 for Nancy to spend on groceries, gas and pocket money, shouldn't she be entitled to the full $300? I suppose we don't know if Brad made up the difference, as I somehow doubt that Nancy wouldn't have mentioned this.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
Thanks. If she was paid $240, and normally received $300, it seems to me that Brad should have given her the difference.
I was thinking about that. I know we've only heard her side of the issue but I imagine it being something like this:
Nancy left on Saturday, June 28 for a vacation with her family. Since nothing was mentioned I would assume that she got her $300 allowance on Friday the 27th. So she is on vacation from the 28th until Sunday, July 6th. When Friday rolls around Brad might have told her that he wasn't giving her the money since he had given her the money for the previous week but since she was on vacation, she didn't use it for the family home. In this scenario she would mention needing that money for her vacation to which he would say she had her own money for vacation from the painting job.
Based on the timing of everything, that makes the most sense to me. Under the circumstances with the separation/divorce hanging over his head, I just can't believe he would suddenly deny her money for household needs.
I don't have a problem with that, but if the budget was $300 for Nancy to spend on groceries, gas and pocket money, shouldn't she be entitled to the full $300? I suppose we don't know if Brad made up the difference, as I somehow doubt that Nancy wouldn't have mentioned this.
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.
I was thinking about that. I know we've only heard her side of the issue but I imagine it being something like this:
Nancy left on Saturday, June 28 for a vacation with her family. Since nothing was mentioned I would assume that she got her $300 allowance on Friday the 27th. So she is on vacation from the 28th until Sunday, July 6th. When Friday rolls around Brad might have told her that he wasn't giving her the money since he had given her the money for the previous week but since she was on vacation, she didn't use it for the family home. In this scenario she would mention needing that money for her vacation to which he would say she had her own money for vacation from the painting job.
Based on the timing of everything, that makes the most sense to me. Under the circumstances with the separation/divorce hanging over his head, I just can't believe he would suddenly deny her money for household needs.
Actually, that makes a lot of sense. We budget less for groceries (we actually budget different categories every paycheck) when we are on vacation.
I was thinking about that. I know we've only heard her side of the issue but I imagine it being something like this:
Nancy left on Saturday, June 28 for a vacation with her family. Since nothing was mentioned I would assume that she got her $300 allowance on Friday the 27th. So she is on vacation from the 28th until Sunday, July 6th. When Friday rolls around Brad might have told her that he wasn't giving her the money since he had given her the money for the previous week but since she was on vacation, she didn't use it for the family home. In this scenario she would mention needing that money for her vacation to which he would say she had her own money for vacation from the painting job.
Based on the timing of everything, that makes the most sense to me. Under the circumstances with the separation/divorce hanging over his head, I just can't believe he would suddenly deny her money for household needs.
We heard testimony that Nancy was going to make it look like she wasn't receiving enough money. I agree that there is probably more to it. It's an interesting and confusing case because we have all the dirty laundry from the divorce (which is usually half true) mixed in with a murder trial.
Actually, that makes a lot of sense. We budget less for groceries (we actually budget different categories every paycheck) when we are on vacation.
I budget three times for food while on vacation because it's mostly eating out. Wasn't there something about Nancy's father paying for the vacation?
Other than Nancy telling her friends that she was moving and Brad was okay with it, have we heard from Brad, or that Brad told anyone, that he didn't care if his family permanently left the country?
For me, the fact that there were packed boxes all over the house shows they had agreed to her moving back to Canada. At the very least, it wasn't being done in a secret manner. It was obvious that she was packing to leave at one time. JMO
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
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.
Does anyone know how BC found out she earned the money? I have to say that I think Jessica was, in a way interfering with their marital problems/situation by offering her the painting job, knowing it would most likely create more conflict (which it obviously did). She should have kept out of it, imo.
Another thing that bugs me about her is that she should have told him when she called, that she was expecting NC at her house at 8AM and that she was worried. Then BC may have said "something's wrong. I'm calling the police".
For me, the fact that there were packed boxes all over the house shows they had agreed to her moving back to Canada. At the very least, it wasn't being done in a secret manner. It was obvious that she was packing to leave at one time. JMO
Keeping in mind that Brad was trying to get her a green card through his work, that he didn't want her to move to Canada (she hid the passports), couldn't she have been packing to move out of the house but not out of the country?
Does anyone know how BC found out she earned the money? I have to say that I think Jessica was, in a way interfering with their marital problems/situation by offering her the painting job, knowing it would most likely create more conflict (which it obviously did). She should have kept out of it, imo.
Another thing that bugs me about her is that she should have told him when she called, that she was expecting NC at her house at 8AM and that she was worried. Then BC may have said "something's wrong. I'm calling the police".
I thought that was odd as well. Brad was her husband, and regardless of what Nancy told friends, why shouldn't he know that Nancy was expected to do some painting that day? He already knew that Nancy was hired to do the painting because he'd been at the house when Nancy was painting. It seems like the friends were sneaking around Brad and keeping him out of the loop.
I think it is very clear that she was cut off financially from Brad. She was a stay at home mom....adding the fact that she was living in another country.....she was at his mercy financially. He knew that and tried to make life hard for her in that manner. The fact that she was painting and trying to make money on her own shows she was in need of money. I find it admirable that she was willing to try and work with the limits of having small children to care for and having Visa troubles that seemed to prevent her from getting a job. He cut off all money from her and gave her an allowance. That is very demeaning for a husband to do that to the woman that is caring for the children. JMO.
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 CanadaKeeping in mind that Brad was trying to get her a green card through his work, that he didn't want her to move to Canada (she hid the passports), couldn't she have been packing to move out of the house but not out of the country?
I budget three times for food while on vacation because it's mostly eating out. Wasn't there something about Nancy's father paying for the vacation?
To clarify, anything we buy/eat on vacation comes out of our vacation money. That's why we budget less for groceries while we're gone.
I think it is very clear that she was cut off financially from Brad. She was a stay at home mom....adding the fact that she was living in another country.....she was at his mercy financially. He knew that and tried to make life hard for her in that manner. The fact that she was painting and trying to make money on her own shows she was in need of money. I find it admirable that she was willing to try and work with the limits of having small children to care for and having Visa troubles that seemed to prevent her from getting a job. He cut off all money from her and gave her an allowance. That is very demeaning for a husband to do that to the woman that is caring for the children. JMO.
They were broke. What choice did he have? They already did the heloc and borrowed against the 401k. They were freaking broke. And she had $300/week outside of bills to live off of. Considering she was mad that she couldn't do the pedicures for her and a 2 and 4 year old, I think that says enough.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
I think it is very clear that she was cut off financially from Brad. She was a stay at home mom....adding the fact that she was living in another country.....she was at his mercy financially. He knew that and tried to make life hard for her in that manner. The fact that she was painting and trying to make money on her own shows she was in need of money. I find it admirable that she was willing to try and work with the limits of having small children to care for and having Visa troubles that seemed to prevent her from getting a job. He cut off all money from her and gave her an allowance. That is very demeaning for a husband to do that to the woman that is caring for the children. JMO.
I completely agree. As a couple I'm not sure they could be any more dysfunctional. That was certainly a marriage that was better off dissolved. Unfortunately the mess was too tangled to do that simply. I don't believe he was the only bad person in the marriage and I don't believe that she was the only one that ran up their debt. It was a mutual mess but she is the one who is dead. If he was dead I would be saying that she had all the motive. As it is, he had plenty of reasons to want her dead.
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.They were broke. What choice did he have? They already did the heloc and borrowed against the 401k. They were freaking broke. And she had $300/week outside of bills to live off of. Considering she was mad that she couldn't do the pedicures for her and a 2 and 4 year old, I think that says enough.
I completely agree. As a couple I'm not sure they could be any more dysfunctional. That was certainly a marriage that was better off dissolved. Unfortunately the mess was too tangled to do that simply. I don't believe he was the only bad person in the marriage and I don't believe that she was the only one that ran up their debt. It was a mutual mess but she is the one who is dead. If he was dead I would be saying that she had all the motive. As it is, he had plenty of reasons to want her dead.
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.
I think it is very clear that she was cut off financially from Brad. She was a stay at home mom....adding the fact that she was living in another country.....she was at his mercy financially. He knew that and tried to make life hard for her in that manner. The fact that she was painting and trying to make money on her own shows she was in need of money. I find it admirable that she was willing to try and work with the limits of having small children to care for and having Visa troubles that seemed to prevent her from getting a job. He cut off all money from her and gave her an allowance. That is very demeaning for a husband to do that to the woman that is caring for the children. JMO.
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.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 125
- Guests online
- 3,671
- Total visitors
- 3,796
Totals may include hidden visitors.