State v Bradley Cooper 4-5-2011

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Relating to the discussions of Brad controlling the money, I think it is interesting to note that he did spend (somewhat lavishly, IMO, considering their financial situation) on NC's behalf. Below are expenditures that BC claims he made after NC made special requests for items outside her $300/wk allowance.

5/7/08 - Uniquities Boutique - $693.88
5/19/08 - Victoria's Secret - $47.99
6/9/08 - Nordstrom's - $186.82
6/8/08 - Sak's - $82.59

This doesn't strike me as the behavior of a manipulative control freak. It does beg the question: if these are expenditures she wanted to make bad enough to "ask permission", how much more would she have spent if she had free reign with the credit cards??
 
SleuthyGal said:
Correct. They were two different incidences. Cummings effed up again, failing to clarify the times to bring home the point that this was not only ONE incident.
Click to expand...

I understood it as two incidents. Both kids in NC's car second time. First time kids in BC's car.
 
Hi guys - I've been lurking for quite some time and have finally decided to jump into the fray. Love the culture of the group here and enjoy all the banter. This trial for several reasons hits home for me which is probably why I find it so darn interesting.

BTW - I know both the "bug" and "rock" experts personally and have a little insight into their testimony that didn't necessarily come out yesterday. I attended yesterday's hearing in person and found it absolutely riveting. I love the science stuff as another poster commented yesterday.

Regarding today's testimony, I'll be the first to admit that Brad (and Nancy) could have handled the separation *much* better w.r.t preschool parking lot antics in front of the kids, passports, allowances, neighborhood gossip, money, etc.

I've been through a similar divorce over the same time frame and what you have to understand is that this can be a *very* emotional time for all involved parties. It's unfortunate, but all of this divorce-related fighting (especially if there's infidelity, a dependent spouse, and/or kids involved) pretty much fits a pattern that has been replicated many, *many* times over. Nothing I've seen during testimony that led up to NC's disappearance has shocked me...in fact many times I find myself nodding in quiet understanding and agreement..."been there, done that".

My ex and I didn't fight to the extent that these guys did but there were times that it came close. And much of the same behavior occurred - not only for me, but a lot of my friends who were facing divorce. You can bet I would have yanked my ex-wife's passports if she threatened to leave the country with my kids...even though I was the bread winner and she was the stay at home mom raising the kids. And there were times her friends thought she was in danger even though there was *zero* physical or emotional abuse history over the 20 years I've known this woman. Things get frantic and there are situations that quite frankly just get embellished and overly dramatic. It's just what happens.

That said - it appears that BC and NC took it to a whole other level that unfortunately escalated out of control and resulted in complete disaster. Thank God most marriages don't end this way.
 
uncfan said:
Relating to the discussions of Brad controlling the money, I think it is interesting to note that he did spend (somewhat lavishly, IMO, considering their financial situation) on NC's behalf. Below are expenditures that BC claims he made after NC made special requests for items outside her $300/wk allowance.

5/7/08 - Uniquities Boutique - $693.88
5/19/08 - Victoria's Secret - $47.99
6/9/08 - Nordstrom's - $186.82
6/8/08 - Sak's - $82.59

This doesn't strike me as the behavior of a manipulative control freak. It does beg the question: if these are expenditures she wanted to make bad enough to "ask permission", how much more would she have spent if she had free reign with the credit cards??
Click to expand...

#1. I distrust it because Brad CLAIMS it.
#2. If he wasn't a manipulative control freak, why didn't he just give her the money?
 
uncfan said:
Relating to the discussions of Brad controlling the money, I think it is interesting to note that he did spend (somewhat lavishly, IMO, considering their financial situation) on NC's behalf. Below are expenditures that BC claims he made after NC made special requests for items outside her $300/wk allowance.

5/7/08 - Uniquities Boutique - $693.88
5/19/08 - Victoria's Secret - $47.99
6/9/08 - Nordstrom's - $186.82
6/8/08 - Sak's - $82.59

This doesn't strike me as the behavior of a manipulative control freak. It does beg the question: if these are expenditures she wanted to make bad enough to "ask permission", how much more would she have spent if she had free reign with the credit cards??
Click to expand...


I'm curious, are there similar lists as to what Brad spent on *Brad*?
 
Watching this thing unfold and learning about the dysfunction, etc, I'm now convinced the only way to deal with someone like 'a Brad type' is to agree with everything he says. This type seems to live to create controversy and angst and be oppositional and difficult just for the sake of being so; dealing with them means not confronting anything directly and openly but being subversive and getting together a plan in total secret for escape.

"You want custody of the kids?" Fine by me! (suddenly the idea won't be as appealing to a guy who works fulltime).

"You're in love with another woman?" Well then you must explore this and be with her. The heart wants what it wants, I get it!

"You want to take the kids to school?" Sure. Okay. No problem. You guys have fun.

In the meantime...a plan has to be put in place to be able to reach escape velocity. Hide important documents OFF SITE in a secret location, or at a friend's house in a locked safe. Start saving money (secretly) out of whatever little bits you get. Act as if there is no problem--no nagging at home, if the guy doesn't do anything around the house, no big deal. It's all to buy time to get that plan in place to escape as peacefully and completely as possible.

Cause as HP said, "you just never know what a crazy person is going to do next."
 
the necklace discussion is a mute point the picture of Nancy Cooper on this website home page she doesn't have necklace on ...but who knows when picture was taken
 
Welcome, grommet. I'm sure everyone will be interested in your "bug" and "rock" enlightenment.
 
Palomine said:
Nancy had to have had a separate account or else her lawyer would never had emailed her sensitive documents he had to actually intercept her mail from her personal account
Click to expand...

I do not agree. Some lawyers confidentially communicate with clients via email and cell phones, neither of which I think is a good idea because it does not maintain client confidentiality, IMO.

The smart client whose live-in spouse is her adversary in a (potential) case will get a post office box, a separate and secret checking account, and a gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail email address to be accessed only at the library. She will also get a cell phone, like Net 10, and keep that a secret, too.

If I were involved in an adversarial divorce with my husband, you'd better believe I'd be doing all I could to find out what was going on with him, including reading his email, etc. Meanwhile, since I own the attorney/client privilege, I would do everything I could to make sure my communications with my attorney remained secret.
 
RoughlyCollie said:
I do not agree. Some lawyers confidentially communicate with clients via email and cell phones, neither of which I think is a good idea.

The smart client whose live-in spouse is her adversary in the case will get a post office box, a separate and secret checking account, and a gmail, Yahoo, or Hotmail email address to be accessed only at the library. She will also get a cell phone, like Net 10, and keep that a secret, too.
Click to expand...

seriously who would think their husband adversary or not would hack their email account???
 
Just before we all get back to live stuff..I wish to address all this for some seem a ???? for them..But in a circumstantial case..its the culmination of the whole that speaks to common sense..

The geological stuff..of course doesnt say IT has to be Brad..although that Mica peculiar to THAT site was found..doesnt condem Brad BUT IT DOESNT RULE HIM OUT EITHER.. Then The Bug evidence...IT too give a possible timeframe of Nancy being dead before that call to Brad's phone...Brad's team think they nutralized that..NOPE..all they did was say is is only possible..so again Brad CANNOT BE RULED OUT..

As far as their contentious relationships and the money controls..doesnt prove he murdered Nancy..But what it does PROVE BRAD FELT NO LOVE for Nancy nor helping her in Homemaking, and childcare..ONLY when he wanted.

Brad's monitoring Nancy's emails or may also be her cell phone activities..doesnt put his hands around her neck..but it DOES PROVE he had total knowledge of what Nancy's business was...

Brad expertise of puter will be shown eventually..so will wait to comment on that.....

So far I only see pointers toBrad..No one else had a motive, means or opportunity at this point...JMO to this point..
 
Is there any reason this det didn't run a check on NCs SUV?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 152 more.
Total: 2,475 (members: 153, guests: 2,322)

Online statistics

Members online
153
Guests online
2,322
Total visitors
2,475
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,841
Messages
18,100,173
Members
230,936
Latest member
earworm
Back
Top