State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it's not right. But honestly, I don't blame the Rentz's for going that route. They did what they thought was right because they believed BC murdered NC. That doesn't make them evil, and the blame isn't placed on them. The blame for that fiasco (and it is a fiasco in my opinion to take someones kids that was a good dad and hadn't been charged with a crime) goes squarely on the North Carolina courts.

I could be wrong on this, but weren't they also under the impression that BC had been suicidal at some point in the past - was part of the initial motion that they were afraid of the possibility of BC doing a murder/suicide with the kids. ???? I'm not sure I'm remembering that right and I will gladly stand corrected if I am remembering it wrong.
 
That's rough, sure hope all is well now.
Thanks! Absolutely. It was rough at the time. Both could have died if things hadn't happened in a fortunate way under the circumstances. She is now a very precocious 3 year old with some minor issues that I hope she outgrows. (Some of the talk about stages of development have been difficult and I've stayed out. She is not potty trained and is still on a bottle. I won't go into it anymore because this is SO O/T, but physically and mentally she is great!)
 
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.


They're working a lot more than 12 hour days.
 
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?

I had Jury Duty Tuesday. instructions from the clerk were that court typically breaks for lunch from 1 - 2:30 daily.
 
It certainly appears they expected the case to move along more quickly and they see the length having to do with readiness. I agree, I would do what I could to keep them from smoking out that I was adding more days due to stuff I was just getting. Likewise, probably we won't see any attorney around 4:55 say, "This might be a good point to break, your honor" like they normally would.

So if the State presents new evidence, does the Defense get another chance to have an expert examine it?
 
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.

I understood that Brad was out of town that weekend, which is why Nancy was able to invite JP back to her house to shower and so on.
 
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.

As someone else pointed out, in the image where they are showing that she is "not wearing the necklace", I guess she's "not wearing her chin" either because you can't see that in the image.
 
So if the State presents new evidence, does the Defense get another chance to have an expert examine it?

I don't think so, but that's a guess. In listening to the arguments this afternoon, I got the impression that the defense is trying to get pre-emptive testimony in now in case the prosecution is allowed to bring in a new expert because they will not be able to add witnesses at the end.

Can someone remind me about the special ruling at the beginning of the trial where Brad gave up some rights in exchange for something else?
 
I could be wrong on this, but weren't they also under the impression that BC had been suicidal at some point in the past - was part of the initial motion that they were afraid of the possibility of BC doing a murder/suicide with the kids. ???? I'm not sure I'm remembering that right and I will gladly stand corrected if I am remembering it wrong.

I don't believe they believed that. It might be what they told the court to help win custody though.
 
So if the State presents new evidence, does the Defense get another chance to have an expert examine it?

It depends on whether it is truly rebuttal evidence. If it is, then technically no. If it is new evidence, then the defense must have a chance to offer rebuttal and that may very well mean that they would need to secure an expert witness for that, especially if the evidence is going to come in through Giralt(?) who testified earlier as an expert.

In light of the note from the jury today, I really don't see JG bending at all to squeeze something in as rebuttal if it is not. And I don't think that there was sufficient evidence elicited in the D's case in chief to warrant rebuttal evidence on the routers or router logs.

If you had asked this a week ago I would have believed that JG would have granted a State's motion seeking to have Michael Buffer open court every morning by introducing the ADAs then saying "Leeeettttssss get ready to testify!"
 
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.

I wasn't trying to be critical. I was only thinking about how they could speed things up for the jury that is clearly wanting to be done with this trial - and I was thinking back to when I was on jury duty and in my county it was quite different. I really don't care how long it takes them. They can still be trying this case come Christmas and it really don't make a flip to me.
 
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?

I think money, or the lack of it, was a huge factor in a lot of what she did and didn't do. I will be the first to acknowledge that much of Nancy's life was a paradox. I think she lived from moment to moment, day to day. Trapped in a most horrible marriage.
 
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.

HOWEVER, saying that October 31 was included in the "fertile period" is a leap.

Nancy was a runner, albeit not long distance. Regardless, many runners have irregular cycles.

LOL...Are you male? IMO, many females are acutely aware of the wide range of "normal" in female cycles. This is one time I wouldn't buy stock on a tip with so many variables. Just saying...
 
I don't believe they believed that. It might be what they told the court to help win custody though.

Going from memory, but I think that Nancy told her parents that Brad said something to her about a suicide attempt as a teenager (something like that). I think that was used in the custody dispute.
 
I think I remember it being close to that, sometime around the 3rd week of July. And I hate to say this (I truly mean no disrespect) but I think the child does look very much like JP.

Sadly, I also agree about the second daughter...but it's very much my hope that she is BC's daughter.

Some of my personal thoughts throughout this case:

1) I thought BDI when I learned about the necklace..felt it was the strongest piece of CE. I have pieces I wear for certain streches of time, and I also have many female friends who wear a certain earring, bracelet, ring, etc all the time. I used to be a runner, so wearing a necklace running did strike me as odd, but not implausible. And all her friends insisted NC never removed it.

Therefore, today's video and evidence completely crushed that piece of evidence. And that leads to the credibilty of many of the State's first witnesses. Which in turn, makes you have to question all of them. And this right after we hear about the ducks which those same early witnesses insisted had disappeared....even when they were shown a picture of one of the ducks clearly on the fridge in the police photos they were shown.

2) NC's blackberry. My take, until last week, was "that was a dumb move, show's the CPD is inept". But intenionally destroying or tampering with evidence? I absolutely did not believe they were diabolical like that.

Then last week we got new evidence in the blackberry wipe. And it tells me there was no accident, and it was intentional. So that means only LE had access to do this intentional act.

3) The google search, which I thought was a clear smoking gun. It's been called into question, then the defense was not allowed to have their expert testify to it. As of this afternoon we know we now have an accomplished expert in Computer Forensics stating it was compromised...and that witness will also not be allowed to testify.

Given the bb situation, I have to admit, I think this Thinkpad was very likely tampered with by LE. Evidence tampering in this case is no longer a longshot imo.

4) Lots of discussion about bringing up affairs and paternity. I don't think JP or JA were involved in NC's death. I think NC was most likely killed by a stranger. But the reason these things are brought up is NOT to trash the victim. It's to show to the jury that there were other people who had the motive, mean, and opportunity. And CPD never investigated them as suspects...or even persons of interest.

So what does the State have left now? The phone call BC allegedly faked? Yet all of their investigations show it was a real phone call. Nothing to show it was faked in any way.

This pretty well lines up my time on this board; going from a "most likely BDI" to "the state hasnt' proven guilt" to "I think this guy is innocent".
 
I don't believe they believed that. It might be what they told the court to help win custody though.

I believe there's an accusation of suicidal tendencies in about 95% of custody case that go to trial.
 
I could be wrong on this, but weren't they also under the impression that BC had been suicidal at some point in the past - was part of the initial motion that they were afraid of the possibility of BC doing a murder/suicide with the kids. ???? I'm not sure I'm remembering that right and I will gladly stand corrected if I am remembering it wrong.

Yes, twice if I am remembering correctly. Once when in Canada, and once in Cary. Maybe in the spring of 2008 when Nancy and one of her friends found the notes about the girls likes and dislikes and other info under his keyboard.
 
As someone else pointed out, in the image where they are showing that she is "not wearing the necklace", I guess she's "not wearing her chin" either because you can't see that in the image.

It wasnt' one image that they showed. It was a video where you could see her in many different frames.
 
I think money, or the lack of it, was a huge factor in a lot of what she did and didn't do. I will be the first to acknowledge that much of Nancy's life was a paradox. I think she lived from moment to moment, day to day. Trapped in a most horrible marriage.

We she trapped in a marriage any more than BC was trapped in a marriage?
 
Oh oh, looks like the spelling and grammar police have arrived at WS's, is there an apostrophe in WS 's ?


:floorlaugh::blushing::slap::gasp:

I think it's funny when someone is critical of a mistake somebody else makes and in the midst of their criticism is a mistake itself. <looking back to see if I made a mistake> :woohoo:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
1,888
Total visitors
2,062

Forum statistics

Threads
590,035
Messages
17,929,218
Members
228,043
Latest member
Biff
Back
Top