2011.05.04 Verdict Watch

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
And just to add this....take away the google search and I would be all the way innocent.

Regardless of the emotional aspect, personal experiences, I would agree that this and the unexplained 6:40 call are the reasons I am not in the innocent camp.
 
they aren't giving them the unredacted depo are they?
 
Sounds like it's BC's deposition. The defense exhibits was HT records and BJ records (laundry detergent?)
 
who's the dude in the blue hoody?? gosh i hope we didn't pull him away from his yard mowing:floorlaugh:
 
Ah, but there is the difference. IMO I don't think the Coopers had been financially stable for quite some time.

True, our financial stability came mostly from me. My husband was much more 'easy come/easy go'. I took over the budgeting because although I was much younger than he, I was much better at paying bills, handling money, and living well within our means. But even before we became financially stable, my husband made sure that I never felt *trapped*. Although he'd never experienced it himself, he knew it wasn't a good thing to make anyone feel *trapped*. But then, he's a whole different personality type then Brad. It takes a *special* personality to derive pleasure from the pain of others IMO. Especially those 'others' you supposedly love.
 
must be BC's depo? Judge wants to query the jury about what portion (s) of the 7 hour tape they want. Did anyone else catch that?
 
Judge bringing in jury for clarification for request, both sides + judge agree that jury gets these:

state 58, 59, 60 (dismukes photos)
def 4 & 170 (customer loyalty rects HT BJs)
state 2 & 3 (photos) graphic - disturbing

(I think phone recs are in too)

will ask jury re: depos & state 5 & 6 since not on record as photos per jury request
 
yikes, they want the graphic photos
 
it'll be interesting to see what their response is to the portion of the BC depo they want. might give some insight.
 
Sent the jury back. no objections for either side on how judge handled that. Waiting for jury to clarify their requests.
 
Then he should have said that's what he was doing - cancelling joint accounts to protect himself. What came out of his mouth instead was that he was working on the marriage.

I am sorry, but if you are working on your marriage, you do not unilaterally cancel your spouse's access to money without at least informing her. You do not let her get blindsided when she is trying to have utilities turned back on. You sit down and work out some sort of agreement, a budget.

To dock her for working (painting) is a small but telling message from BC. You're damned if you don't work, but you're damned if you do too. You'll have X and no more, not if I can help it. That is not about a household budget of $300 a week. That is about control.

Regarding what I have bolded, we really don't know that they didn't discuss it.
 
Sounds like from what the are asking for they are no where close to making a decision. All I know is those depo tapes really did him in.. so if they are asking for them, it sounds like they are leaning towards G.
 
It does sound like the jury is taking their time and weighing the evidence. By the wording of the last note, I was concerned how closely they would do that.

Kelly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
2,341
Total visitors
2,421

Forum statistics

Threads
599,735
Messages
18,098,868
Members
230,917
Latest member
CP95
Back
Top