State v Bradley Cooper 3.11.2011

[lib's mom]

Hadn't heard that. Right now what they are doing is allowing the jurors to review all of the State's exhibits admitted to evidence so far. From what I heard, the State indicated they overestimated the time for Ms. Duncan to be on the stand and did not have another witness available at the moment. I have not heard if someone is on the way or not though.

Okay, thanks. The little box below the live feed said "The jury has reached a verdict..." and I got a little worked up! Maybe somebody at WRAL needs to rephrase that.

 

[Just the Fax]

*advertiser censored* DA Amy Fitzhugh

She has practiced law since 1998
Was in private practice in Cary until 2007
Assigned primarily to the drug prosecution unit at the DA's office

 

[raisincharlie]

Done for the day - back Monday at 9:30 eastern.

 

[otto]

This is confusing with so many threads about almost the same thing.

 

[otto]

So - in the middle of a divorce where you are afraid of your husband, sleeping in a locked room, who brings their wedding rings to Jollys to be redesigned so you can wear them on the other hand?

It's very odd to me to be trying to establish state of mind for Nancy (as it related to her fear of Brad) and yet the actions are either that they were getting along, or she was doing things that would likely provoke him. I don't see that as a person who is afraid.

I think she was trying to provoke him. If the marriage was over, she should have taken the rings off.

 

[Just the Fax]

This is confusing with so many threads about almost the same thing.

If a new trial thread is started, there needs to be notification in the last thread. Thats what happened today. A new thread was started for 3/11/11 and not everyone was aware.

 

[otto]

If a new trial thread is started, there needs to be notification in the last thread. Thats what happened today. A new thread was started for 3/11/11 and not everyone was aware.

Thanks ... yes, I need something to know that one thread is closed and another is opened. Right now the comments about the first two days and opening statements are spread over three different threads.

 

[otto]

At this time, I could see second degree ... where Nancy returns home after several drinks, there's a confrontation, Nancy is at the losing end and the rest is history. For premeditation, I think we need more than a pending divorce, bad marriage and un-used tarp.

 

[dcnc]

I'm local and followed this case closely at the time. Going in to the trial, I was leaning towards Brad's guilt. Will wait to see all of the evidence to really determine an opinion, but after 2 days of testimony I'm on the fence. I don't understand why the prosecution would "start" (and I mean the testimony of a friend not a first responder) with DD - she was unbelievable and played into the role of the "clique" that Kurtz described.....a rush to judgement from the neighborhood whose memories are serving the 'Brad did it' theory.

 

[CyberPro]

I don't understand why the prosecution would "start" (and I mean the testimony of a friend not a first responder) with DD - she was unbelievable and played into the role of the "clique" that Kurtz described.....a rush to judgement from the neighborhood whose memories are serving the 'Brad did it' theory.

I'm local too and have been following the case from the start. I understand why begin with DD, it was her party that BC and NC were attending the evening before she was missing. This is a good place to glean information about their interactions and state of mind before leaving the party. However, I hope that if BC did this, they have something else up their sleeve, I have not seen nor heard much that could convince me at this point. Based on what I have heard, I think it likely, but not enough to convict as of now.

 

[otto]

I'm local and followed this case closely at the time. Going in to the trial, I was leaning towards Brad's guilt. Will wait to see all of the evidence to really determine an opinion, but after 2 days of testimony I'm on the fence. I don't understand why the prosecution would "start" (and I mean the testimony of a friend not a first responder) with DD - she was unbelievable and played into the role of the "clique" that Kurtz described.....a rush to judgement from the neighborhood whose memories are serving the 'Brad did it' theory.

Entirely. Starting with the neighborhood gossip to set the stage for what was going on in the marriage gives me the impression that Brad was going to work, furthering his education (something that is quite common with young, married professionals), providing for his family and somehow the entire neighborhood clique moved into his marriage. He was supposed to then deal with what all the women thought he should be doing ... no longer a family unit, but two people living separately in the same house. Nancy effectively cut him out of her life, and then wondered why he looked elsewhere for companionship. I also get the impression, at this point, that the prosecutor jumped on board with the clique and bought into the "Let's get Brad" chant ... especially since she seems to believe that this is a strong starting point in the trial. What I saw was a silly woman, giggling on the stand and backtracking on what she said because now she can't remember. That gives me the impression she modified her original statements to fit her theory that "Brad did it". What color was Nancy's dress? Black, blue, green? It's definitely not a strong start on behalf of the prosecution.

 

[SleuthyGal]

My goodness! They're only 4 witnesses in, on a list of what...120+ and people are already saying he'll walk or there is reasonable doubt? Give me a break.

The first 4 witnesses established the finding of Nancy's body, confirming who was called, when, how, and how all that went down.

We've now seen testimony from exactly ONE friend/neighbor (out of what will surely be many), providing her perspective.

This witness is not someone who examined Brad's computer. This witness is not someone who examined Brad's cell phone or VOIP system. This witness gave the testimony she gave and remembered what she remembered and didn't remember everything. It's ONE person's answers to the questions asked and it's based on her experiences and her recollections.

It's a long road ahead and the prosecution is just starting. Give it time. Building a case against a defendant is not like CSI or NCIS or any crime show. It's done slowly, methodically, piece by piece.

This witness (DD) confirmed some things:

1. Nancy was receiving $300 a week except NOT that last Friday.
2. Nancy was upset and yelled at Brad at the party.
3. Nancy never considered not going through the divorce once she started down that road.
4. Brad wasn't ostracized exactly like Kurtz said. He *was* invited to neighborhood things AND he sometimes showed up.
5. Brad wasn't hated by this witness. She felt proud of him for completing his MBA. She never said she disliked Brad. *HE* stopped speaking to her & her husband.
6. Nancy was making plans to move on with her life, was lining up job interviews, and was looking forward to life back in Canada. She was planning to work (i.e. not just live a life of leisure and indulgence as many imagined).
7. For whatever reason, Brad was NOT interested in talking about the experience his daughters had when the Duncans took them to school that Tuesday morning. He HUNG UP on DD. She was clearly concerned about the emotional impact on the children.
8. Brad did not attend ANY service for his wife---not with his children at the candlelight service at their school, nor the memorial service that Sat.
9. Emails were sent specifically to Nancy and they were NOT intended for Brad (this will tie into the fact that Brad was secretly receiving a copy of ALL of Nancy's email from April to her death)
10. Nancy was wearing jewelry (though DD only noticed her ring and the diamond earrings, it doesn't mean nancy wasn't wearing her diamond necklace! Note...Nancy did not take off her diamond earrings...she was found wearing ONE earring).

 

[ncsu95]

My goodness! They're only 4 witnesses in, on a list of what...120+ and people are already saying he'll walk or there is reasonable doubt? Give me a break.

The first 4 witnesses established the finding of Nancy's body, confirming who was called, when, how, and how all that went down.

We've now seen testimony from exactly ONE friend/neighbor (out of what will surely be many), providing her perspective.

This witness is not someone who examined Brad's computer. This witness is not someone who examined Brad's cell phone or VOIP system. This witness gave the testimony she gave and remembered what she remembered and didn't remember everything. It's ONE person's answers to the questions asked and it's based on her experiences and her recollections.

It's a long road ahead and the prosecution is just starting. Give it time. Building a case against a defendant is not like CSI or NCIS or any crime show. It's done slowly, methodically, piece by piece.

This witness (DD) confirmed some things:

1. Nancy was receiving $300 a week except NOT that last Friday.
2. Nancy was upset and yelled at Brad at the party.
3. Nancy never considered not going through the divorce once she started down that road.
4. Brad wasn't ostracized exactly like Kurtz said. He *was* invited to neighborhood things AND he sometimes showed up.
5. Brad wasn't hated by this witness. She felt proud of him for completing his MBA. She never said she disliked Brad. *HE* stopped speaking to her & her husband.
6. Nancy was making plans to move on with her life, was lining up job interviews, and was looking forward to life back in Canada. She was planning to work (i.e. not just live a life of leisure and indulgence as many imagined).
7. For whatever reason, Brad was NOT interested in talking about the experience his daughters had when the Duncans took them to school that Tuesday morning. He HUNG UP on DD. She was clearly concerned about the emotional impact on the children.
8. Brad did not attend ANY service for his wife---not with his children at the candlelight service at their school, nor the memorial service that Sat.
9. Emails were sent specifically to Nancy and they were NOT intended for Brad (this will tie into the fact that Brad was secretly receiving a copy of ALL of Nancy's email from April to her death)
10. Nancy was wearing jewelry (though DD only noticed her ring and the diamond earrings, it doesn't mean nancy wasn't wearing her diamond necklace! Note...Nancy did not take off her diamond earrings...she was found wearing ONE earring).

For #7, I think it was pretty clear from testimony today why he hung up on her. All along we've heard that she offered to watch the girls and he hung up on her. Now today, the truth comes out. He hung up on her because DD said "No, what the girls need is their mother back". I would have hung up on her too. And it was her admitting that she said that.

For #8, I don't think many of us men would have attended any of the memorials. He was already suspect #1. People were already trying to take his kids from him by emergency injunction. I sure wouldn't have attended them. And please don't say he should have attended for his kids. He wouldn't have been welcomed at any of them considering the circumstances.

 

[otto]

Maybe there is a logic to this method ... perhaps the prosecution wants put all the antagonism of the divorce on the table right up front so she can get past it and focus on more relevant issues. Hope so.

 

[otto]

For #7, I think it was pretty clear from testimony today why he hung up on her. All along we've heard that she offered to watch the girls and he hung up on her. Now today, the truth comes out. He hung up on her because DD said "No, what the girls need is their mother back". I would have hung up on her too. And it was her admitting that she said that.

For #8, I don't think many of us men would have attended any of the memorials. He was already suspect #1. People were already trying to take his kids from him by emergency injunction. I sure wouldn't have attended them. And please don't say he should have attended for his kids. He wouldn't have been welcomed at any of them considering the circumstances.

I agree. He knew he was not welcome at any memorial for Nancy. Why would anyone expect him to show up ... more gossip?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Now today, the truth comes out. He hung up on her because DD said "No, what the girls need is their mother back"

That's not what I heard during her testimony. She said that what the girls needed was ONE person (or one couple) to take them to school and care for them, for consistency, rather than a different set of people each day taking them. And then he hung up on her.

 

[otto]

That's not what I heard during her testimony. She said that what the girls needed was ONE person (or one couple) to take them to school and care for them, for consistency, rather than a different set of people each day taking them. And then he hung up on her.

She did reluctantly admit that she told him the children needed their mother back. I suspect the tone of voice did not convey sypathies for his loss.

 

[ncsu95]

She did reluctantly admit that she told him the children needed their mother back. I suspect the tone of voice did not convey sypathies for his loss.

Yes, she very reluctantly admitted that during cross. Kurtz said something to the effect of "isn't it true you said to Brad on the phone...what the girls need is their mother back...and that's when he hung up the phone?". And she said yes.

 

[SleuthyGal]

That's probably the portion I missed when I couldn't get the online feed.

Still, I don't see why he had to hang up on her. Obviously the girls needed their mother back...who could disagree with that? Surely Brad would understand the girls needed both their parents.

 

[johnfear]

Claiming it's for your estranged wife to use over at HER friend's house for that painting project stretches credulity.

Doesn't linking it to a murder that it wasnt used to clean up stretch it a bit? Maybe he did not want her to buy the more expensive canvas drop clothes.