State v Bradley Cooper 4-26-11

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
so at one point this morning there were at least 3 people in the courtroom who had sexual relations with HM?
 
Just sayin', what exactly about 'playing nekkid kissy face' is a mischaracterization?

The witness testified under oath that it was a 'sexual encounter'. I'll go with the characterization of it from a participant in the act testifying under oath. You can go with a soft-pedalled characterization, doesn't change what it actually was though...
 
Certainly, people connected with this case have sky high emotions on both sides. It is only human. Regardless of where one stands, each has the right to their own opinions.
Testimony coming up is likely to stir the kettle.....with people on both sides calling the kettle black. Doesn't change a thing IMO. It is part of the arena.
 
Depending on how drunk JP was that night, it might be that the spirit was willing but the flesh did not cooperate, if you catch my drift.

Possibly, but I doubt it. If the "flesh did not coorperate" I think they would have BOTH said to each other "no worries, we didn't actually 'do it'".
 
I will go back sometime today and see if I can find the affidavit that contains this.

That's ok...I can look for it. I "assume" NC told this to one of her friends? Or, a person she thought was a friend? I'm beginning to think the word "friend" had a different meaning in that neighborhood than it does elsewhere....:crazy:
 
I might be missing it, but does it matter what they actually did on the couch? Is it b/c of the timing of the act? Otherwise, I'll just assume they did what they were meaning to do.

Is this a big topic just b/c of the delay in moving forward while the tape is reviewed before being played to the jury?
 
I don't know how old you are, nor your situation, but remember back to a time when you were with a man who was too drunk to remember anything. Often times, when men are that drunk, *stuff* just doesn't work the way they'd like it too.......

'nuff said?

:floorlaugh:


So why does it matter what actually happened if the intent was there? How does that make it any different? If his "equipment" failed or not, the intent was the same. And if there are two people naked on a couch you don't have to make a big leap as to why they are there.
 
so - back to SH...

In the oft-linked and referred to motion by the defense, wasn't he one of the folks that they wanted any and all information pertaining to him having a sexual relationship with NC? And also CD?

Were either of these witnesses asked anything regarding these allegations (or - more properly, defense assertions) during their testimony?

If these items in the oft-linked motion were in fact all REAL - would not the defense have questioned these witnessed while they were on the stand?

we see the JP testimony - and that appears to have been already "known" but so far nothing has been presented to confirm the other MANY assertions....

just sayin'
 
a "sexual encounter" can be comprised of many things. It doesn't only mean intercourse and it may not necessarily include intercourse. The allegation that JP could have or might have been the youngest daughter's bio father relates to that detail. Of course she looks just like BC so that alone makes that rumor stupid.
 
That's ok...I can look for it. I "assume" NC told this to one of her friends? Or, a person she thought was a friend? I'm beginning to think the word "friend" had a different meaning in that neighborhood than it does elsewhere....:crazy:

I know that the defense crossed Diana D. about the incident.
 
I might be missing it, but does it matter what they actually did on the couch? Is it b/c of the timing of the act? Otherwise, I'll just assume they did what they were meaning to do.

Is this a big topic just b/c of the delay in moving forward while the tape is reviewed before being played to the jury?

I think the timing matters based on the birth of NC's second child.
 
I might be missing it, but does it matter what they actually did on the couch? Is it b/c of the timing of the act? Otherwise, I'll just assume they did what they were meaning to do.

Is this a big topic just b/c of the delay in moving forward while the tape is reviewed before being played to the jury?

jinx!
 
FYI, don't know if this has been shared before, but here is a link that lists every wintess, theday they testified, and which parts of the video:

http://frictionpowered.wordpress.com/file-cabinet/nancy-cooper-murder-trial/


This is terrific -- when complete, assuming that it will be, the entire list (if it's allowed) along with a link should be put on a Sticky, IMO. It's a great resource.

Thanks!!
icon14.gif
 
How ironic to call SH and JP back to back! Would have been even better if they had called Jezebel herself, HM, right in between the two!
 
Could he 'remember' more than being naked in his second interview? I don't remember him ever actually remembering? Nor do I remember Nancy ever actually remembering either. And of course, she's not here to ask.......

Just sayin', what exactly about 'playing nekkid kissy face' is a mischaracterization?

I dunno but I'm kind of confused at the point of getting naked if they are just going to kiss.

Just saying.
 
I don't know how old you are, nor your situation, but remember back to a time when you were with a man who was too drunk to remember anything. Often times, when men are that drunk, *stuff* just doesn't work the way they'd like it too.......

'nuff said?

:floorlaugh:

hate to break it to you, but it depends on who they're with :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
1,643
Total visitors
1,835

Forum statistics

Threads
606,756
Messages
18,210,785
Members
233,959
Latest member
JoyH
Back
Top