State v Bradley Cooper 04/01/11

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Do we REALLY know that she didn't have sex with him in over two years? I don't recall anyone confirming this, but I could be wrong. I only recall hearing it in the opening statement...and, as SG said, if they were unhappy, then DIVORCE. Don't have an affair, or worse, commit murder!!

I understand what you are stating regarding divorce prior to an affair, but this isn't an ethical or morality issue. Should have, would have, could have doesn't matter. This is about evidence in a criminal case.

I can't see where BC would lie about not having had sex with NC since K's conception, because it actually works against BC to admit this. Points to an extremely unhappy, sexless marrage.
 
I said evidence, not your speculation.

Where is the evidence presented thus far that anyone other than Brad saw Nancy alive after she returned home from the party at midnight or so between Friday and Saturday? You said nothing presented thus far - I'm saying nothing presented thus far indicates ANYONE saw Nancy after she left the party. Brad admitted to having seen her at 4 a.m. through 6:50 a.m. So beyond 6:50 a.m. has there been any evidence presented anyone else saw her?
 
I would say since she asked for a STD test AFTER the affair was admitted to, then obviously there had to be sex somewhere in the time frame of just before and after the sexual affair. If she didn't have sex with him prior to the affair and didn't have sex with him after the affair occurred, then she wouldn't have a need for a STD test.

Sorry but she had the STD test because she found out her lover had STD. Its in the affidavits.
 
RE: BC's fathering. There seems to be 2 different views here:

1. He worked and trained quite a bit, and had outside dalliances that kept him away from his family a lot; or

2. He is involved with the girls, playing outside, putting them to bed, etc.

I wonder if he ever did say to NC that he never wanted to see them again or if that was an exaggeration? And remember the comments early on how NC had an infant at home and he was in Europe and never called, etc., but then it was shown on phone records he did call? Maybe he wasn't a bad dad, just sucked as a husband?
 
I still have seen no evidence of NC having an affair. None. Where is it?

Correct, none thus far, but...

The defense has not even begun their case yet. In opening statements defense mentioned NC's affair, so they have to produce that evidence. Their case has not yet been presented.
 
That is my recollection as well. However, has it EVER been determined it was NC withholding her affection versus BC? Why do all the men assume it was NC, therefore he had no choice (in essence) than to go stray with other women?

The testimony was that she only slept with him after their first child during her attempt to conceive a second child.
 
Another thing that keeps coming back to me from the def opening statement that makes NO sense at all IMO...they spent a lot of time going into excrutiating detail and explanation about Brad's route he drove to the store. He drove a different route the first time from the second. Having driven those very roads 1000's of times, I found their explanation absurd! I am of the firm belief that is quicker to get to HT from their house by taking a right on Lochmere Dr out of their section of the subdivision. By going right you only hit one light which is another right turn and doesn't even slow you down.

They claimed that it is slightly faster to go left (bull!) and that he sometimes went right instead because it was easier if there was traffic (double bull!!). First of all, if you go left, you have two lights that you have to make left turns at...one of which is INSUFFERABLY LOOOOONG. Second, there is very little traffic on Lochmere Dr. particularly at 6:30 AM on a Saturday. Saying he chose to go right one time and left the other because of traffic was the silliest thing I've ever heard.

The explanation is simple...he went right once because that is the logical route. He went left the other time because he had to make a quick stop to dump off a dead body before going to the store!!
 
In this situation the only logical compromise would have been for him to give up his job and move back to Canada. MOO

But why should he have to make that kind of sacrifice for his (soon-to-be) ex-wife? Why is it ok for her to take both his kids away from him and move over 600 miles away while he's got to quit his six figure job and find something close to wherever his ex chooses to live?

Let's be clear, I don't think it's acceptable at all that he held on their passports and kept them hostage.
 
Where is the evidence presented thus far that anyone other than Brad saw Nancy alive after she returned home from the party at midnight or so between Friday and Saturday? You said nothing presented thus far - I'm saying nothing presented thus far indicates ANYONE saw Nancy after she left the party. Brad admitted to having seen her at 4 a.m. through 6:50 a.m. So beyond 6:50 a.m. has there been any evidence presented anyone else saw her?

There hasn't been any presented. I asked for evidence presented so far that links Brad to the crime and you responded with speculation. And I seriously doubt the prosecution would present a witness that said they saw NC alive after 6:50. It would sort of defeat the purpose of the trial. And the defense hasn't presented yet...but at least 1 witness will say they saw her after 6:50. You can choose not to believe that witness, but that will be the testimony.
 
You 100% BC did it folks use stuff that has not been presented yet in this trial all the time. But if anyone brings up anything that the defense has stated...even if it isn't evidence...then it doesn't count. Well let's apply those rules to both sides then and only discuss what has been testified to in this trial. So no more talk about affidavits or depositions, or gossip, or theories. Right?

Affidavits and depositions are legal documents, sworn to and in evidence. They can be used in this trial. In fact, the defense has used info from several depositions to try and impeach witness testimony. So those are *in*.
 
Where is the evidence presented thus far that anyone other than Brad saw Nancy alive after she returned home from the party at midnight or so between Friday and Saturday? You said nothing presented thus far - I'm saying nothing presented thus far indicates ANYONE saw Nancy after she left the party. Brad admitted to having seen her at 4 a.m. through 6:50 a.m. So beyond 6:50 a.m. has there been any evidence presented anyone else saw her?

There's an affidavit by an eyewitness that said she did.
 
The testimony was that she only slept with him after their first child during her attempt to conceive a second child.

Right, but what does that mean (besides the obvious physical part of it)? Sometimes it's a natural progression to the end of a marriage/relationship. Too much baggage. Was she so mad he had an affair (or was a jerk, or ........fill in the blank) she said no more I hate you. Or was he sick of the fighting, couldn't stand her at this point, and decided he'd go elsewhere? I don't see anywhere where one person (NC or BC) is responsible for this.

This relationship just makes no sense to me. No sex (which obviously means something), but let's procreate again and look for a more expensive house.
 
Another thing that keeps coming back to me from the def opening statement that makes NO sense at all IMO...they spent a lot of time going into excrutiating detail and explanation about Brad's route he drove to the store. He drove a different route the first time from the second. Having driven those very roads 1000's of times, I found their explanation absurd! I am of the firm belief that is quicker to get to HT from their house by taking a right on Lochmere Dr out of their section of the subdivision. By going right you only hit one light which is another right turn and doesn't even slow you down.

They claimed that it is slightly faster to go left (bull!) and that he sometimes went right instead because it was easier if there was traffic (double bull!!). First of all, if you go left, you have two lights that you have to make left turns at...one of which is INSUFFERABLY LOOOOONG. Second, there is very little traffic on Lochmere Dr. particularly at 6:30 AM on a Saturday. Saying he chose to go right one time and left the other because of traffic was the silliest thing I've ever heard.

The explanation is simple...he went right once because that is the logical route. He went left the other time because he had to make a quick stop to dump off a dead body before going to the store!!

I live 2 miles from there... The traffic there is very sporadic... what he says about one being easier than the other it times is very accurate... But again if that is an argument the prosecution was going to use they would have done so with the detective’s don’t you think?
 
I live 2 miles from there... The traffic there is very sporadic... what he says about one being easier than the other it times is very accurate... But again if that is an argument the prosecution was going to use they would have done so with the detective’s don’t you think?

6:15am to 6:45am on a Sat morning would not be a heavy traffic kind of time that one would have to be aware of to alter their route. Not for THAT reason. 5pm on a Friday? yeah, maybe.
 
Affidavits and depositions are legal documents, sworn to and in evidence. They can be used in this trial. In fact, the defense has used info from several depositions to try and impeach witness testimony. So those are *in*.

You just made a post stating they are going to find history of fielding drive on his computer. Is that in any evidence so far?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
1,348
Total visitors
1,483

Forum statistics

Threads
602,157
Messages
18,135,780
Members
231,255
Latest member
Bunny1998#
Back
Top