State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is very scary that the state can step in, take your children with no input from you or cause, hand them to someone else, then give them permission to leave the country. Not just in this case, in ANY case.

Honestly, international child custody is a crap shoot at best, and when he is found not guilty, he will pay hell getting his children back, I assure of that.

He had input. He paid his attorney in ducks and paintings. He sat for a 6 hour deposition. He was able to secure affidavits from several people. In the end, the judge ruled in favor of the Rentz for custody. The state didn't just put them in foster care or hand them to strangers.
 
That's your opinion. I have mine. They were there this morning, right?

I think they were. We heard testimony that they believed, at the memorial (where Brad was wearing a baseball cap), that Brad was responsible. A not guilty verdict might change their minds, but I suspect they are viewing the current courtroom debate as par for the course.
 
I don't think that is true. If you remember, one of them sent a note about making sure they stop on time because they work at night and need to get to work.

I don't understand the 9:30 start time - why can't they start at 8:30 or 9:00 in the morning. And I really don't get the really long lunches sometimes. Of course, I've never been to the courthouse there, so maybe it just isn't feasible to get lunch and get back in any shorter time. I've been on jury duty before - we had to be in court at 8am every morning and never got that long at lunch - one hour on the dot was the longest. Different county, but <shrug>??

This court house is located in a fantastic downtown location. Loads of restaurant choices and shops. Perhaps some had to take kids to school in the morning and then get through traffic? Perhaps the little extra lunch is for the judge to catch up on administrative matters?
 
The 1 and 2 week early I can understand, and that's not abnormal.

5 weeks is uncommon, 12 is unusual and probably due to a complication/premee (?)

In any case, NC (and any woman for that matter) had a 72-96 hour window where intercourse could make her pregnant.

If she and BC had intercourse as well within that window...then could be BC's.

Why did the CPD refuse to perform the paternity test requested 3 times by the defense? Because the State itself is unsure.

Both moms had miscarriages prior to conceiving and carrying the 5 week early and 12 week early. (12 week definitely premie, 2 lbs, 7 oz. Mom had an undiagnosed blood clotting disorder that was treated during the pregnancy with the 1 week early baby.)

Sorry for the O/T It was just an example.
 
KL & HP may have been absent to avoid another emotional moment knowing the HT video was going to be shown?
 
Think about this as well. You can clearly see her sunglasses reflecting light in that picture. Yet a diamond that would generally sparkle in direct light isn't reflecting anything. To me, that is the clearest indication that she is not wearing a necklace in that picture. It would reflect the same light that her sunglasses are reflecting.

The sunglasses are on top of her head. The lights are overhead. The pendant is in the shadow cast by her head & chin.

It is hard to make it out. I would not make a big deal about this, and even though I used to do some real darkroom work, I really - Um, Vacuum at Photoshop. It is a really low quality image to begin with, but at least on my screen if I lighten it up (darkroom equal to Burning in) the shadow, I can see a grouping of blue hued pixels with a straight line running up to the left side of her neck.

This is not make or break to me, never has been, but I am curious now that such a big deal has been made about her not having it on, when I can see it.

If it is really not there, mea culpa, but it sure looks like it to me.

In the shadow, it would not be catching the overhead light, and the chain appears to be pretty fine.
 
If only one file had a bad time stamp, bad watermark, and missing cookie file then I'd say "yep, that file was tampered with or planted". But since every single Google cache file has the same issues, I say "there was a systemic problem with Google or the laptop, but those files are valid.". The theory I'm going with: BC was using a private browsing feature of his browser that malfunctioned and, using today's expert witness term, "dropped" a bunch of files in the cache directory.
Not sure about the private browsing part, but I generally agree with the premise that it is most likely a systemic/behavioral issue.
 
He had input. He paid his attorney in ducks and paintings. He sat for a 6 hour deposition. He was able to secure affidavits from several people. In the end, the judge ruled in favor of the Rentz for custody. The state didn't just put them in foster care or hand them to strangers.

The dealings going on around that custody case were as shady as it gets. Makes the principals in this case look like altar boys.
 
Both moms had miscarriages prior to conceiving and carrying the 5 week early and 12 week early. (12 week definitely premie, 2 lbs, 7 oz. Mom had an undiagnosed blood clotting disorder that was treated during the pregnancy with the 1 week early baby.)

Sorry for the O/T It was just an example.

Sorry to hear about the M/Cs =(

I am happy for you though that both moms were able to greet their next babies.
 
I'd also like to point out, for those critical of the schedule of the court, that these attorneys and judges (on both sides) typically get to their offices early in the morning, work up until court, sit in the courtroom all day, and then go back to the office to work some more. Both sides have commented on working 12 hour days, seven days a week for the majority of this trial, which is ending it's 9th week.

I think it's a little much to judge them for not wanting to alter their schedule, when we get the convenience of watching it from home, being able to turn it off when we want, get up and go to the bathroom when we want. It's a bit of a different ball game on their end.
 
The dealings going on around that custody case were as shady as it gets. Makes the principals in this case look like altar boys.

Isn't there also an affidavit by a psychologist stating that she thought the girls would be better off with the R. family because of the media attention, if Brad was arrested they would have no one, etc.
I can't remember if that came before or after he was arrested. Need to go back and check on that.
I was going to bed an hour ago.
 
We don't know the whys behind her call to the RE agent, but I think that was going to be a short term thing. Just to get out of that house, ASAP. And then move back to Canada with KL.
But I really think, above all, that Nancy didn't know what she wanted from one day to the next. She was miserable in her marriage and that's the only sure thing she felt.

But why hadn't she contacted her divorce attorney for months? If she contacted the realtor, really, wouldn't you also expected her to contact the divorce attorney?
 
The sunglasses are on top of her head. The lights are overhead. The pendant is in the shadow cast by her head & chin.

It is hard to make it out. I would not make a big deal about this, and even though I used to do some real darkroom work, I really - Um, Vacuum at Photoshop. It is a really low quality image to begin with, but at least on my screen if I lighten it up (darkroom equal to Burning in) the shadow, I can see a grouping of blue hued pixels with a straight line running up to the left side of her neck.

This is not make or break to me, never has been, but I am curious now that such a big deal has been made about her not having it on, when I can see it.

If it is really not there, mea culpa, but it sure looks like it to me.

In the shadow, it would not be catching the overhead light, and the chain appears to be pretty fine.

I guess we could debate this forever, which I guess is part of the fun of this site. But I guess we'll find out if they bring a rebuttal witness for this. If not, we can assume there is no necklace in that video.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
2,960
Total visitors
3,129

Forum statistics

Threads
592,295
Messages
17,966,835
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top