State v. Bradley Cooper 3-29-11

[Tipstaff]

Frequently when we are so used to seeing a person we don't notice things about them - like they have diamond earrings on. Now a stranger may notice the earring or earrings.

 

[Wyn]

Is the $300 a week fact? I don't know that anyone can prove that because there would be no record of how much cash he actually gave her even if he withdrew $300 every week.

I've read it that repeatedly in reports since the murder but I don't know for sure if Brad is the only one that said that, or if one of her friends offered that info.

 

[borndem]

He's not asking questions. He's saying statements. He need's to ASK a question in the form of a question. It's like he's Alex Trebec and expects the witness to answer in the form of a question! It's really poor form IMO.

Yes, and they're having a little discussion about that now, and we're excluded!

Oh, to be hearing that one. Kurtz has been doing this all along & finally Zell has had enuff. I think the judge was waiting for this to come up so that he could, as Barnie Fife (absolutely no insult intended here to the very smart, patient, fine & fair Gessner -- really -- but the phrase I'm gonna use is apt..) would say, "Nip it! Nip it in the bud!"

 

[gracielee]

Temporary work where? As a maid in a local low rent hotel? She'd still incur daycare costs. Why would she want to do that? She was already doing painting for friends where she could take along the children. Until the separation/divorce was final, he's still giving her that three hundred dollars a week.

No kidding. Brad was already deducting Nancy's painting wages from her *allowance*. Like he wouldn't deduct her wages for picking strawberries or tomatoes too. ABM ( asterisks by me ) :woohoo:

 

[Cheyenne130]

I've read it that repeatedly in reports since the murder but I don't know for sure if Brad is the only one that said that, or if one of her friends offered that info.

In the beginning when the friends and neighbors were on the stand I remember in cross that Kurtz would ask them if they were aware that BC was giving NC $300 a week. I can't remember anyone answering yes to that question. (It was another way to get in BC's testimony without BC taking the stand.) I can't swear to it but I thought JA gave a figure of thinking it was $80.

 

[Wyn]

OT: I think the Jason Young trial will have much more credible evidence linking him to his wife's murder.

 

[RTPEngineer]

That part is true but she also was found with no shoes, socks, shirt, shorts but was left with her sports bra on. There is no evidence of a sexual assault. Her diamond earrings were still in her ears so she wasn't robbed. Her hair was not pulled back which isn't necessarily proof of anything but I don't know of many runners who run with their hair flying in the breeze. It's the little things that you expect to find and don't that make me say it doesn't point to a stranger. Sometimes lack of evidence IS evidence.

So what was BC trying to do with her to avoid being suspected of the murder? If he planned/covered up/cleaned everything else so perfectly, with the phone calls, the alibi, the clean garage/car/dress/etc. Why be so sloppy with the body? Wouldn't he be trying to setup the scene so it looked like someone else? He would know without semen it wouldn't look like a sexual assault. He would know with earrings that it wouldn't look like a robbery. What could he have been thinking? I'm not asking rhetorically, honestly looking for plausible answers.

 

[TigerBalm]

It's not odd, it's smart. It reduces the chance the witness will go off on a tangent that you aren't prepared for.

It's not smart, it's called standard cross examination.
You ask leading questions on cross.


Before you get mad, I was just kidding with you. We need some funnies to lighten up this place. :crazy:

*this funny landed on a random quote*

 

[gracielee]

Is the $300 a week fact? I don't know that anyone can prove that because there would be no record of how much cash he actually gave her even if he withdrew $300 every week.

Exactly, that's what I've been thinking. What about the weeks when he drove with her to the gas station to put gas in her car? Did she still get $300? did she get the supposed $300 when she went to the beach with her family? Everybody takes these statements from Brad as fact, yet when I listened to the depositions, much of what Brad said comes across as so self-serving it's hard to not laugh at him.

 

[LyndyLoo]

I've read it that repeatedly in reports since the murder but I don't know for sure if Brad is the only one that said that, or if one of her friends offered that info.

Someone mentioned that Nancy was forced to look after kids, pay bills, feed herself , and relied totally on whatever money Brad allowanced to her..I heard numbers between 80-300 a week...then I also heard that their water was cut off because of overdue payments..All I know is, Brad was the Breadwinner, and held all the purse-strings.....I tend to doubt Nancy had much in the way of ability to splurge on anything!! I dont even know IF she had a credit card??..

Just asaside..Divorce proceeding had been underway since April or even before her death in July!! Also her trip to visit her parants and sister that she had just returned form was totally funded by her folks..Including gas for her car and food and lodgings on their holiday!! Sad to say...Nancy had little or no ability to do much...but she was able to make a few bucks painting for others...sad sad!! She must have felt very trapped indeed!!:twocents:

 

[TigerBalm]

This is twice or three times today Trenkle has had to argue to the judge on Kurtz's behalf.

I find that very odd, usually it is ONE attorney arguing per side. This judge is very lenient, too lenient at times. Then again, if the defendant is convicted there should be less grounds for appeal.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Arrgh the afternoon watchers must have checked in. The live feed keeps buffering and dropping. More bandwidth WRAL!

 

[sunshine05]

No kidding. Brad was already deducting Nancy's painting wages from her *allowance*. Like he wouldn't deduct her wages for picking strawberries or tomatoes too. ABM ( asterisks by me ) :woohoo:

Okay, let's end this O/T discussion as it has nothing to do with this case. I shouldn't have brought it up but wanted to point out that there obviously are a lot of non-citizenship jobs here and they are not all farm jobs. It's hard for me to buy that she was trapped over this, especially since he did agree to help her, things were in the works, including the separation terms which would have allowed her to survive financially.

 

[gracielee]

I don't think we have any real information on the status of the green card application. Unless and until somebody representing Cisco or the INS testifies that yes or no a Green Card has or has not been applied for on her behalf and possibly what the status of that application was, all we can really do is speculate.

Somewhere in the depostions that question is broached, and Brad names the INS, is that it?, Cisco attorney who is supposed to be working on it.

 

[Cheyenne130]

So what was BC trying to do with her to avoid being suspected of the murder? If he planned/covered up/cleaned everything else so perfectly, with the phone calls, the alibi, the clean garage/car/dress/etc. Why be so sloppy with the body? Wouldn't he be trying to setup the scene so it looked like someone else? He would know without semen it wouldn't look like a sexual assault. He would know with earrings that it wouldn't look like a robbery. What could he have been thinking? I'm not asking rhetorically, honestly looking for plausible answers.

Most of the planning/cleaning/phone calls was pretty much after the fact meaning after the body was taken from the home (if he is guilty). I can only imagine that a person might be in a big hurry to get a dead body out of their house if the are responsible for that person's death.

 

[cityslick]

Someone mentioned that Nancy was forced to look after kids, pay bills, feed herself , and relied totally on whatever money Brad allowanced to her..I heard numbers between 80-300 a week...then I also heard that their water was cut off because of overdue payments..All I know is, Brad was the Breadwinner, and held all the purse-strings.....I tend to doubt Nancy had much in the way of ability to splurge on anything!! I dont even know IF she had a credit card??..

Just asaside..Divorce proceeding had been underway since April or even before her death in July!! Also her trip to visit her parants and sister that she had just returned form was totally funded by her folks..Including gas for her car and food and lodgings on their holiday!! Sad to say...Nancy had little or no ability to do much...but she was able to make a few bucks painting for others...sad sad!! She must have felt very trapped indeed!!:twocents:

There has already been testimony that she was able to purchase a number of high dollar items.

 

[less0305]

Why can't they all be telling the truth? I do believe she told her friends she was angry about the money, and that they are all telling the truth. But I also have no reason to doubt his version of the events. Why would he lie about this particular issue? If he is lying, that would mean pre-meditation. If it's pre-meditation, why not just give her the money so it doesn't become an issue like it has? If he knew he was going to kill her, he'd certainly be able to get the money back! :winko:

For the same reason he said she went out running when HE and all her friends say she never ran alone and HE said she never ran on the particular road she was found on. I said I believe he premeditated the murder. I never said he was a career criminal or professional hit man. I think he made mistakes - huge mistakes. Otherwise, he wouldn't be in the mess he's in.

 

[ncsu95]

So what was BC trying to do with her to avoid being suspected of the murder? If he planned/covered up/cleaned everything else so perfectly, with the phone calls, the alibi, the clean garage/car/dress/etc. Why be so sloppy with the body? Wouldn't he be trying to setup the scene so it looked like someone else? He would know without semen it wouldn't look like a sexual assault. He would know with earrings that it wouldn't look like a robbery. What could he have been thinking? I'm not asking rhetorically, honestly looking for plausible answers.

Because he was super smart in the stuff he did to hide the crime and super dumb in the stuff he didn't do (or did do) that appears to be sloppy. So he switched back and forth between super smart and super dumb.

 

[sunshine05]

I find that very odd, usually it is ONE attorney arguing per side. This judge is very lenient, too lenient at times. Then again, if the defendant is convicted there should be less grounds for appeal.

Too lenient? It is the defense team and prosecution team. There are drinking games floating around bc the judge overrules so many of the defense questioning. He is clearly biased in favor of the prosecution.

 

[gracielee]

That part is true but she also was found with no shoes, socks, shirt, shorts but was left with her sports bra on. There is no evidence of a sexual assault. Her diamond earrings were still in her ears so she wasn't robbed. Her hair was not pulled back which isn't necessarily proof of anything but I don't know of many runners who run with their hair flying in the breeze. It's the little things that you expect to find and don't that make me say it doesn't point to a stranger. Sometimes lack of evidence IS evidence.

Yeah, having a couple carat's of diamonds in ones ears kind of negates robbery. Or even any kind of . If someone is going to take a souvenoir of their crime, I'd sooner take a pair of earings over a couple right shoes was it? :seeya: