State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[sunshine05]

Simple answer: They saw the pain in her face during their vacation and knew she needed to get out of there and come back to Canada with those kids, but she was trapped and there was nothing they could do to help because he would not do a separation agreement so she had to stick around and try to figure out how else she could get back there. That's why the boxes were never unpacked that whole time, she was figuring out how to get out of there.

Well, according to JA she had plans to help NC unpack and organize the weekend she disappeared.

As far as saying goodbye to her parents, throughout my life I've often felt homesick and longed to be back near my family so there have been times that I've said "oh, I wish I could go home with you" just because I miss my parents and miss the town where I grew up. But I never really wanted to go back. It's just tough to say goodbye when you don't see family very often.

 

[NCEast]

Well, according to JA she had plans to help NC unpack and organize the weekend she disappeared.

As far as saying goodbye to her parents, throughout my life I've often felt homesick and longed to be back near my family so there have been times that I've said "oh, I wish I could go home with you" just because I miss my parents and miss the town where I grew up. But I never really wanted to go back. It's just tough to say goodbye when you don't see family very often.

I am not placing too much emphasis on what JA said about anything anymore.
I believe Nancy wanted to leave Brad, leave Cary, and move in with her sister just as they had planned.

 

[sunshine05]

And the ornithologist? And the Cisco guy's testimony would only be rebuttal to the state's own witness testimony as they were the ones who asserted what kind of routers would be needed to make the call and that those routers were not found in the house nor ever found and that there was no real way to account for that equipment being at Cisco or anywhere else.

I was thinking the same thing, that the rebuttal would be to their own witnesses.

It's confusing to me because it seems as though the state is moving forward with their plans to introduce more evidence, almost assuming for sure that it will be allowed. But I don't really understand that because they rested their case. Can the judge allow more testimony that is NOT rebuttal material?

 

[Fairy1]

Are there no mods around here?

 

[sunshine05]

I am not placing too much emphasis on what JA said about anything anymore.
I believe Nancy wanted to leave Brad, leave Cary, and move in with her sister just as they had planned.

Then why did she call the RE agent to find a new place, and why did she ask BC to work on her green card? She had a lot of friends here, I'm not so sure she wanted to leave and deal with the visitation from another country.

 

[NCEast]

While I have grown so fond of the regular posters on here, I will be so very happy when this trial is over. Will miss some of you, hope to see others of you on the JY trial.
I think I'm finished for the night.

 

[gritguy]

I was thinking the same thing, that the rebuttal would be to their own witnesses.

It's confusing to me because it seems as though the state is moving forward with their plans to introduce more evidence, almost assuming for sure that it will be allowed. But I don't really understand that because they rested their case. Can the judge allow more testimony that is NOT rebuttal material?

He could, just as he could have reversed himself on the expert ruling (which I wish they had figured out some path to that). I agree it seems the expectation is the evidence will come in, and indeed even Kurtz said it was not the state's fault the evidence wasn't there yet. All curious indeed.

It could be a tempest in a teapot anyway, not knowing what it is at present.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I commented that I liked the way the children's clothes smelled. NC told me it was All Free & Clear.

Does that really make any sense to anybody?

 

[less0305]

Well, they knew she was terribly unhappy in that marriage and wanted to move in with K.L. And who else in the world, other than a complete stranger on her run, would have motive other than Brad. I still find it extremely hard to imagine that somebody grabbed her on a run, I actually will never believe that unless somebody comes forward in the next 25 years and confesses to it out of the blue. And no, I will never believe either that JA did it.

No, I'll never believe that either.

 

[gritguy]

JP: 'then we started intercourse'

Go here: http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-due-date-calculator

Enter 10/31 using the date of conception calculator.

"Congratulations! Your baby is due on or around:
Monday, July 23, 2012"

but hey, I must be a lowlife for thinking there is any chance the father is JP...:waitasec:

I'm going to go with you weren't meant as the lowlife. At least, certainly not in my opinion.

 

[NCEast]

Then why did she call the RE agent to find a new place, and why did she ask BC to work on her green card? She had a lot of friends here, I'm not so sure she wanted to leave and deal with the visitation from another country.

We don't know the whys behind her call to the RE agent, but I think that was going to be a short term thing. Just to get out of that house, ASAP. And then move back to Canada with KL.
But I really think, above all, that Nancy didn't know what she wanted from one day to the next. She was miserable in her marriage and that's the only sure thing she felt.

 

[Danielle59]

FYI - JA talking about the necklace and how NC never took it off, and also her discussion of the ducks and sticks that were there on the 11th.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9274055/#/vid9274055
(Ducks and sticks at approx 5:30-6:42)

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9273562/#/vid9273562
(necklace at 31:00-32)

She also mentions never removing the necklace on the first video above at the 10 minute mark.

 

[sunshine05]

He could, just as he could have reversed himself on the expert ruling (which I wish they had figured out some path to that). I agree it seems the expectation is the evidence will come in, and indeed even Kurtz said it was not the state's fault the evidence wasn't there yet. All curious indeed.

It could be a tempest in a teapot anyway, not knowing what it is at present.

I imagine the jury will not be happy about this, which will probably drag out the case at least a few more days. And BZ always tells the judge "Judge, the jury has been waiting back there a long time" as if he's so concerned with that but now he wants to drag the case out to infinity.

 

[sunshine05]

I commented that I liked the way the children's clothes smelled. NC told me it was All Free & Clear.

Does that really make any sense to anybody?

I was thinking that too! I use All Free and Clear for my boys because they have some allergies and it leaves NO smell on the clothing.

P.S. Don't tell anyone we only use All. We also use Tide (I promise).

 

[gritguy]

I imagine the jury will not be happy about this, which will probably drag out the case at least a few more days. And BZ always tells the judge "Judge, the jury has been waiting back there a long time" as if he's so concerned with that but now he wants to drag the case out to infinity.

It certainly appears they expected the case to move along more quickly and they see the length having to do with readiness. I agree, I would do what I could to keep them from smoking out that I was adding more days due to stuff I was just getting. Likewise, probably we won't see any attorney around 4:55 say, "This might be a good point to break, your honor" like they normally would.

 

[DB in FV]

I was thinking the same thing, that the rebuttal would be to their own witnesses.

It's confusing to me because it seems as though the state is moving forward with their plans to introduce more evidence, almost assuming for sure that it will be allowed. But I don't really understand that because they rested their case. Can the judge allow more testimony that is NOT rebuttal material?

What is Cisco guy thought to be bringing to court? If he testifies that a router log shows BC's computer was accessed via a remote connection on July 15th, that would go a long way toward rebutting JW's testimony regarding all the "potential security issues" on BC's network. Especially if it was accessed from SH's Cisco connection. If he testifies that some Cisco internal log shows that BC accessed something at Cisco with a router/FXO on July 11th, then it rebuts any defense witness who talked about not seeing such a router in photos of equipment from the house.

I have no idea what the ornithologist would testify to, but unless it is to rebut something that the defense talked about I would expect his testimony to be disallowed.

 

[ncsu95]

Why would reinforcing the importance of the necklace be a problem? The friends and family said she wore it all the time. The defense showed what they believe is evidence that she was not wearing it on that Friday. If the prosecution shows that in fact she was wearing it, it goes back to the statements that she always wore it. We know that she was not wearing it on Saturday but there are no pictures of that.

Because I don't think there is any angle, blown up or not, that you can clearly make out a necklace in that video. So if they try to do so and expect the juror to guess at what they are seeing, despite the video showing nothing, then they are showing themselves to be desperate because the necklace is so important to their case. It's magnified more because of the duck fiasco.

 

[gritguy]

I commented that I liked the way the children's clothes smelled. NC told me it was All Free & Clear.

Does that really make any sense to anybody?

Hmm not really. Maybe bounce or something in the dryer with a scent? Or maybe just someone who appreciates like I do a lack of perfume in detergent. Just give me the unscented chemicals please. :crazy:

 

[sunshine05]

He could, just as he could have reversed himself on the expert ruling (which I wish they had figured out some path to that). I agree it seems the expectation is the evidence will come in, and indeed even Kurtz said it was not the state's fault the evidence wasn't there yet. All curious indeed.

It could be a tempest in a teapot anyway, not knowing what it is at present.

Also, I wonder IF the state is allowed to present this, will the judge allow the defense witness from today to keep things fair? Any guesses?

 

[ncsu95]

I'm not seeing any sparkle from her diamond earrings either though.

I don't think she is wearing any. She is going to the pool. I also don't think anyone has made the assertion that she always wears earrings either.