State vs Bradley Cooper 4-21-11

[Madeleine74]

He would not have access to things like which cell tower was being used. Remember them mapping his movements. They did not have that info on Feb 16, 2011.

In court they showed through the AT&T witness every call made by Nancy on 7/11/08, which tower it pinged off of, and the who she called.

 

[cody100]

The affair thing is really not that odd to me. I personally felt testimony showed that Nancy in the beginning stages of the marriage had an emotional affair. Brad had a sexual affair in his own house, with the children in another room. Takes it to a whole new level. However, I do not believe either side was right at all. Just my take why NC was so adamant that the affair was a big deal.

Kelly

Thanks for the input on that. I think your points might be exactly on target. No, neither of the two were right. I like your earlier take that NC expressed different viewpoints to various people depending on who they were.

 

[unc70]

The affair thing is really not that odd to me. I personally felt testimony showed that Nancy in the beginning stages of the marriage had an emotional affair. Brad had a sexual affair in his own house, with the children in another room. Takes it to a whole new level. However, I do not believe either side was right at all. Just my take why NC was so adamant that the affair was a big deal.

Kelly

Nancy was naked on her own living room couch with JP in October 2005. I expect we will probably hear from JP next week between the cell phone forensic expert and the Google expert.

That calls into question a lot about things going to this new level.

I believe that Nancy's early affair was emotional and sexual.

ETA: We haven't heard in court yet of NC sleeping with her sister's boyfriend, now husband.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

The horrible comment sections of articles, the inflammatory and non factual statements as truth.....that is why I am here. I am a member of a nearby community, have lived here all my life, avidly read the papers daily, and have NEVER seen this in my life. What's happening? So strange. I reviewed this forum from the beginning, and when I started to see the same thing going on, I had to do what I don't do.....join a Social Media site.

 

[BrownRice]

It's certainly everyone's right to post here, even if it reveals ignorance (as in, lack of knowledge about this whole case, and posting things that teeter on bashing the victim). It's very hard for me to keep myself out of TO right now, so I yield the floor to the newbies.

Wow. Good morning to you too! Just because an intelligent discussion is going on weighing both sides of evidence, we're ignorant? Ok. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd rather you kept it to yourself. Or wait, keep it going so you will get a TO.

 

[momof7]

Nancy was naked on her own living room couch with JP in October 2005. I expect we will probably hear from JP next week between the cell phone forensic expert and the Google expert.

That calls into question a lot about things going this new level.

I believe that Nancy's early affair was emotional and sexual.

Yes, I do agree with that. JP will probably shed some light on just what exactly their 'relationship' was.

Kelly

 

[less0305]

I think the "everyone else" is the majority of posters who thought he was guilty from day 1 and object to any other testimony that doesn't fit into their theory.

I object to the "day 1" reference. I, for one, came to the missing Nancy Cooper thread because she was from N.C., a mom, and missing. I think the "day 1" is a mischaracterization of the majority of us who came here concerned to find a missing woman -and after months and months and years of following the case, the media reports, the evidence released all along, came to my conclusion that Brad was the only person with means, opportunity, and motive. He wanted her dead and out of his life. He looked at that separation agreement and saw nothing but a ball and chain for the foreseeable future. He was clearly in love with someone else (whether he would eventually have that woman or not, remains to be seen). $75,000 wouldn't have erased the entire debt, but it would have helped in the interim to get himself back on stable ground. Up and coming technology executive needed to shed himself of the one person who didn't respect him, didn't love him, didn't want him - and then was going to take him to the cleaners in the process. I'd love to know if anywhere in the "I should sue the *****," conversations about HM if somewhere along the lines NC might have actually used those same words to BC regarding the possibility of an alienation of affection lawsuit and boom, BC wasn't going to let that happen. That's been crawling through my head for quite some time. I know there has been no testimony of such, but it seems odd that HM was sued subsequently by another wife of a husband she conquered.

 

[jmflu]

Calling posters ignorant for having different opinions isn't fair. I think he's guilty just like you, but I don't think it's wrong to examine the testimony as it comes through and makes opinions as such. That's the whole point of a trial. I came into this on the fence and have been trending toward guilty. That doesn't mean my mind can't change. It at least gives me the opportunity to examine both sides of an argument.

Calling someone "ignorant" and "ignorant of all the facts" are two different things, and I stated the latter, Cityslick.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Morals...........Respect............Free speech. How far does someone go to defend BC?
What is off limits.........or does anything go? It is a new low in our community.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I am very interested to hear from JP and SH.

 

[BrownRice]

According to testimony, NEITHER parties kept their marriage vows. If we believe the FL story and the guy NC brought to the wedding, NC broke the vows first. But it's water under the bridge, imo. They didn't want to be married to each other. Being in a bad relationship can bring out the worst in a person. I'm sure if BC and NC were married to more compatible mates, their personalities would have been a lot different.

I don't get the HM thing. We know they had an affair. Ok, next? Why keep bringing it up. To me, it would have been a lot more relevant (and worthy of repeating), if there was any sign he wanted to have a future relationship with her. But there's NO evidence that is true. This doesn't lead to motive for me at all. Nor does the $75k life insurance policy. Sure, we know she hated him (with good reason imo - he isn't very likable in my book), but we haven't heard he hated her at all (he had affairs, very disrespectful, but a lot of husbands do). Sure, he disrespected her (a lot), but that's not motive? He desire to be rid of her was almost there - divorce!

 

[jmflu]

Wow. Good morning to you too! Just because an intelligent discussion is going on weighing both sides of evidence, we're ignorant? Ok. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'd rather you kept it to yourself. Or wait, keep it going so you will get a TO.

I was not speaking of ignorant people, and I certainly wasn't speaking of you!

 

[SleuthinNC]

Morals...........Respect............Free speech. How far does someone go to defend BC?
What is off limits.........or does anything go? It is a new low in our community.

I'm not completely sure what you are talking about. People here are discussing details of the case as presented in court and in court documents.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

BC is not dead here. NC has no life on earth. Facts are facts.....innuendo, inflammatory remarks, restating details of her naked body on the couch......please. that doesn't get to anything, but someone's titillation.

 

[BrownRice]

I was not speaking of ignorant people, and I certainly wasn't speaking of you!

Thanks for the clarification. I think the word "ignorant" is offensive to most people though. :crazy: We're all trying to have a nice discussion on this Good Friday!

I for one need to be cleaning because the Queen Bee (mother in law) is arriving and I can't get off this site!

 

[less0305]

BTW, when she testified that BC called her to ask how to tell the girls about their mother, I had wondered why he picked her vs. anyone else to ask for advice. Turns out she's not just a psychologist, she's a child psychologist. So it makes sense to ask her.

He called her, but why? He didn't follow her advice.

 

[BrownRice]

I'm not completely sure what you are talking about. People here are discussing details of the case as presented in court and in court documents.

Yeah, I'm having a hard time following this poster's comments as well. Not sure exactly what is being said.

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Motive, means and opportunity......no one else had all three. He was the last reported to have seem NC by his own words. He could never clear himself. His deed, his results.

 

[less0305]

Thanks for the clarification. I think the word "ignorant" is offensive to most people though. :crazy: We're all trying to have a nice discussion on this Good Friday!

I for one need to be cleaning because the Queen Bee (mother in law) is arriving and I can't get off this site!

Agreeing with the "can't get off this site"!!!!

 

[LAWsy_ME]

Airing dirty laundry is one thing....and that is the stuff of nasty divorces....but beating dead horse when it does not solve the murder just puts more of that stinky stuff on the line.