State v Bradley Cooper 4-27-2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Haven't had time to follow the testimony today, but if the ducks and stick have been explained, and if Nancy told someone she was going running that morning, that is the kind of evidence makes me reconsider guilt.

Yes Nancy told someone at the party that she was going jogging, but after talking with others he changed his testimony. His first statement includes a detailed conversation with Nancy at the party specifically about going jogging in the morning. The ducks are accounted for. Nancy could have opened a bank account in Raleigh. Much of the prosecution case is being successfully refuted.
 
Did Coomings really question why she didn't tell the prosecution?
 
I have to say using Mrs. Cooper to bust the defense attorneys on the duck custody is dicey, very dicey, by the state. Glad that is over.

Defense redirect is powerful.

Also, she is staying at defense attorney's house? pretty decent of that attorney.

Give it up Cummings. Good grief, squared.
 
THO I cant link to proof of this, but I dont think that option was even available before Nancy moved everything down to US..and unfortunately no one else thought of it on her behalf...no need to be testy..I recall from testimony felt she couldnt get any bank account in USA..It comes down to her belief and she cant testify as to what she knew back then...:maddening:

Obviously she could have opened an account. There's no need to look for someone to blame for the fact that she didn't.
 
Keep being nasty to her, Cummins. Working well for the defense
 
Someone tell the prosecutor to back off! He's starting to be a jerk because he doesn't like the fact that ducks have been found.
 
Way to point out that your own theory is no long valid Cummings. You ought to shut up before this gets worse.
 
Okay, it just got worse. This is comical. He just pointed out his own witnesses look like liars now.
 
Oh snap!!! She is busted. Just trying to protect her boy
 
Just to be clear on the second part. A person that met NC on the 11th had a conversation with her that night. In his police interview, he told the detective that NC told him that she was going jogging the morning of the 12th. He said in the interview (they played the interview) that he asked her questions about it and he thought it was odd that she was going the next morning. But it was a conversation. Then, when he got home and told his wife about the interview, she told him that she didn't remember him mentioning that conversation. That caused him to rethink this so he called to make a different statement. Then he went down and said maybe he was mistaken about the conversation about jogging and that maybe he got that idea because he heard on the news that BC said she went jogging that morning. But again, he had specific details of that conversation and how it made him feel during his first interview. And during the 2nd interview, he is 100% sure of everything else he said except the part where she told him about her plans to jog the next morning.

That creates quite an issue for the jury to consider. But all the defense needs is reasonable doubt... things are starting to get interesting.
 
IDK what is going on with your posts because I had tried to qoute your other one and couldn't.

In answer to your question; yes, I do think BC packed them away.

JMO
So...are they claiming that Brad's attorney accepted the ducks as payment?
 
meh. sorry, but after seeing her testimony I am reminded of cindy anthony. jmo.
 
DA = jerk.

She has proof that the state's theory of the ducks was total bunk, and they're mad she didn't tell them before she took the stand?

That was a pretty sorry episode, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
160
Guests online
1,036
Total visitors
1,196

Forum statistics

Threads
602,122
Messages
18,135,042
Members
231,244
Latest member
HollyMcKee
Back
Top