State v Bradley Cooper 04-18-2011

[jmflu]

I think the most logical reason for looking at Air Canada was just another way to try to prove Nancy was alive when she wasn't. She couldn't call him, and she couldn't search for flights. He premeditated her murder, and set it up to look like she was alive a lot later than when she was.

 

[Madeleine74]

Huh? I thought he had HP call his parents as well as NCs parents. And do we know if his parents called him on the 12th or 13th? Are you seriously suggesting he was looking up Air Canada information because he was considering fleeing to Canada?

C.M. called K.L., who in turn called her father (Garry R). C.M. & M.M. had the children that first part of the day on July 12th. Don't know who called BC's parents or when (if anyone did). It was not done on the 12th. That's the day he was looking at Air Canada on the Mac.

 

[dramamama]

You're right, they never officially named him as a suspect or even a person of interest while Nancy was missing, but for them to imply that they weren't even "looking at him for it" is disingenuous, IMO. He's the spouse, for crying out loud. It wouldn't hurt the case to admit that they were looking closely at him while still following up on other leads. It hurts their credibility to claim otherwise.

And he was THE LAST PERSON TO SEE HER, as said in his own words, when he claims she looked in on him and the girls. It would have been SO much smarter to say he didn't know if she ever came home. She was mad, right? No matter how much you love your children, when it comes to divorce, there are times when you want to stick it to the other one with responibility, especially if there is a custody dispute, to say, "See? this is what you are getting yourself in for." Unfortuantely, children are the victims in any divorce, and it is a rare circumstance that makes a smooth and non-traumatic transition.

 

[SleuthSayer]

He had gotten directions from the cell phone provider. He followed the instructions given. It is unfortunate that the instructions may have been for something completely different than what he needed.

We actually have no idea whether he followed the instructions or not. He testified that he waited a week after getting the instructions and then just winged it from memory.

I'm not beating the detective up and I don't think he was doing something nefarious. And, btw, I think that BC was lying about not knowing how to access his call history. But, erasing the phone was a pretty boneheaded mistake, particularly given that he got a warning that it was about to do just that.

 

[johnfear]

I think the same thing was attempted in the Jason Young case. The family went for custody and rather than be deposed, he rolled over and gave up custody. It delayed the arrest but it was inevitable. MOO

We went up and stalked him at a basketball game during all of that. What a smug ______________. Who the DEVIL leaves a little girl in her mother's blood? ( I know that is not the worst aspect of that crime, but it's what hit the nerve for me)

 

[Cheyenne130]

So you think his goal is to annoy the jury and gain camera time? Not to defend his client?

I honestly believe that he has a relationship with Brad and wants to provide the best defense possible to the extreme. I also think that this is a whole lot of free publicity for his firm. MOO

 

[Tipstaff]

And he was THE LAST PERSON TO SEE HER, as said in his own words, when he claims she looked in on him and the girls. It would have been SO much smarter to say he didn't know if she ever came home. She was mad, right? No matter how much you love your children, when it comes to divorce, there are times when you want to stick it to the other one with responibility, especially if there is a custody dispute, to say, "See? this is what you are getting yourself in for." Unfortuantely, children are the victims in any divorce, and it is a rare circumstance that makes a smooth and non-traumatic transition.

But the dress NC wore to the party was in the house. So was the necklace, her cell phone, keys.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

C.M. called K.L., who in turn called her father (Garry R). C.M. & M.M. had the children that first part of the day on July 12th. Don't know who called BC's parents or when (if anyone did). It was not done on the 12th. That's the day he was looking at Air Canada on the Mac.

The "Canada Job Search" which turned out to be BC looking up the contact page for the Rentz's company was on the 13th, and Air Canada was on the 14th. I am absolutely certain about this. Officer Chappell was even specifically asked "if this could be Brad looking up plane tickets for his parents." To which Chappell responded "yes."

 

[dramamama]

I think the most logical reason for looking at Air Canada was just another way to try to prove Nancy was alive when she wasn't. She couldn't call him, and she couldn't search for flights. He premeditated her murder, and set it up to look like she was alive a lot later than when she was.

Yes, and didn't he also include in those searches "things to do with the kids" even though he had plans for tennis. It is likely that his story was, she wasn't home yet, he took the kids out, and came back and lo and behold, she had searched flights and jobs and everything else. Add this to the contact with her ex- fiance in Canada, and we have a woman running away.....He didn't know she had plans in the morning, or why would she let him make tennis plans?

 

[Just the Fax]

Based on testimony, I don't think the DA's office knew about the google search prior to late 2009 when they go the results back.

I would wager this was not available at all prior to the CTF CART report return.

Although, we had a poster on here once say THIS would be the evidence. Circa August 2008....
:banghead:

:laughcry:

 

[borndem]

Originally Posted by Hartzy34
Is this an issue, possible collusion or misrepresenting the real purpose of her questioning. It's clear that BC is not going to take the stand and they probably knew this from the get-go. Did the DA, CPD and AS work together to get as close to getting BC on the stand as possible?

Uhhh... let me think.... Uhhhh..... Yes, give that winner a prize.

Do all of you really & truly think that a respectable and successful attorney (AS), the entire staff of the CPD, and DA Colin Willoughby, et al, would risk disbarment (of the attys), firing, felony conviction and possible 10 -- 20 months jail time to do what they could to help assure a guilty verdict for
BC? If so, why?

Here is what the North Carolina General Statutes say about perjury, and I, for one, think the principals mentioned above know this one by heart:

SUBCHAPTER VIII. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE. Article 28.
Perjury.
§ 14‑209. Punishment for perjury.
If any person shall willfully and corruptly commit perjury, on his oath or affirmation, in any suit, controversy, matter or cause, depending in any of the courts of the State, or in any deposition or affidavit taken pursuant to law, or in any oath or affirmation duly administered of or concerning any matter or thing whereof such person is lawfully required to be sworn or affirmed, every person so offending shall be punished as a Class F felon.





(the source of the above text is self-citing)

 

[sunshine05]

I honestly believe that he has a relationship with Brad and wants to provide the best defense possible to the extreme. I also think that this is a whole lot of free publicity for his firm. MOO

Maybe it is because, based on everything he has seen, he believes his client is innocent.

 

[gritguy]

I'm completely missing how Stubbs talking to the DA, if she did, or LEO, if she did, before the depo was improper in any way at all. If brad killed his wife that would be very relevant to a custody hearing, obviously.

Did she testify under oath she didn't but people think she did so it's perjury?

I'm missing the point apparently.

Brad had his lawyers with him and he knew the theme of the matter was he was likely a murderer and yet he proceeded to answer questions, untruthfully, with his lawyers there having no problem with it. Is the sin that Stubbs consulted all possible sources to make her case for custody for her clients? I just don't see the problem.

Criminals are not promised they won't be asked questions. They have the right to refuse to answer and the right to counsel and that's it. There is no promise they won't get asked hard questions by a fairly well prepared lawyer in a civil matter.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Maybe it is because, based on everything he has seen, he believes his client is innocent.

I have no doubt he "believes" his client is innocent. It's a necessity of the job. A defense attorney is trying his best to provide a defense for his "innocent" client. If his client is guilty, he doesn't want to know about it. MOO

 

[SleuthSayer]

Do all of you really & truly think that a respectable and successful attorney (AS), the entire staff of the CPD, and DA Colin Willoughby, et al, would risk disbarment (of the attys), firing, felony conviction and possible 10 -- 20 months jail time to do what they could to help assure a guilty verdict for
BC? If so, why?

Here is what the North Carolina General Statutes say about perjury, and I, for one, think the principals mentioned above know this one by heart:

I'm lost. Who said anything about perjury?

 

[gritguy]

Maybe it is because, based on everything he has seen, he believes his client is innocent.

This could be but to give Kurtz credit perhaps he tries hard either way.

 

[johnfear]

I'm completely missing how Stubbs talking to the DA, if she did, or LEO, if she did, before the depo was improper in any way at all. If brad killed his wife that would be very relevant to a custody hearing, obviously.

Did she testify under oath she didn't but people think she did so it's perjury?

I'm missing the point apparently.

Brad had his lawyers with him and he knew the theme of the matter was he was likely a murderer and yet he proceeded to answer questions, untruthfully, with his lawyers there having no problem with it. Is the sin that Stubbs consulted all possible sources to make her case for custody for her clients? I just don't see the problem.

Criminals are not promised they won't be asked questions. They have the right to refuse to answer and the right to counsel and that's it. There is no promise they won't get asked hard questions by a fairly well prepared lawyer in a civil matter.

Eh. Technically it was a fifth amendment issue, but they warned him before hand. How Kurtz and Blum let that happen?? Who knows. But, clients are like juries. They pop up from nowhere and do stupid crap til you send them home. (or back to their cell)

 

[johnfear]

And show of hands, who believes Daniels and Young wanted Cooper down at the station because it was "quieter"? Come on. I would not go anywhere with those jokes coming from either side. (If you like and em and think they are great, they were gonna dunk em. If you hate em and think they are inept and dishonest, they were gonna dunk em.)

 

[gritguy]

Eh. Technically it was a fifth amendment issue, but they warned him before hand. How Kurtz and Blum let that happen?? Who knows. But, clients are like juries. They pop up from nowhere and do stupid crap til you send them home. (or back to their cell)

Agree he could have taken the fifth but he didn't and they didn't advise him to on the record. Maybe wise maybe not but I see no problem with stubbs consulting any or all sources to get the best depo she could.

 

[johnfear]

Agree he could have taken the fifth but he didn't and they didn't advise him to on the record. Maybe wise maybe not but I see no problem with stubbs consulting any or all sources to get the best depo she could.

You're right in context and pretense, but still. It was dishonest to present it in a way that his attorneys approve it, he STILL loses his kids and we get to watch it in a criminal trial. Alice Stubbs was not as innocent as she seemed in all of that. She was a WC judge, for crying out loud. She had every intention of doing exactly what she did, which is present an interrogatory interview.

If he HAD taken the fifth, everyone would be sitting here saying GUILTY.

If he HAD ignored the subpoena, everyone would be sitting here saying GUILTY.

He showed up, answered her questions and everyone is sitting here saying GUILTY.

He's damned no matter how you look at that.