State v Bradley Cooper 3.14 .2011 - 3.?.??

[Albert]

I don't know who is lying...but if NC said that CD hit on her and he is swearing that did not happen...someone has/had a problem with exaggeration or flat out lying.

Or, quite possibly, a Canadian felt Scottish humor was an inappropriate advance? This is why the Scot feels like he did not hit on her?

 

[otto]

Or, quite possibly, a Canadian felt Scottish humor was an inappropriate advance? This is why the Scot feels like he did not hit on her?

Was this man Canadian, or is there some other reason for saying that he is Canadian?

 

[Albert]

There is a lot of focus on the $300 "allowance" and how Brad was trying to be controlling and did it to curb Nancy's spending. What if he was limiting access to funds and monitoring gas because he was genuinely concerned she may try to skip town and take the girls to Canada or elsewhere without his knowledge?

How certain is the $300 allowance per week? My grocery bill for a larger/older family does not come close to 300/week. Surely I could get my own gas with $300/week!

 

[otto]

How certain is the $300 allowance per week? My grocery bill for a larger/older family does not come close to 300/week. Surely I could get my own gas with $300/week!

$1200 a month for food for a family of 4, including 2 small children, should be plenty. Nancy should have had money left over for gas, pocket money.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Anyone know who started the laundry that morning?

Brad's affidavit item #167 claims he noticed they were out of laundry detergent. However, that affidavit didn't specify who was doing laundry 'first.'

You'll have to listen to that portion of his deposition to see what he stated about doing laundry...I don't have the patience to go back and listen, but it's on Video 7 of 10 at 19min 5 seconds into that video.

 

[Cheyenne130]

How certain is the $300 allowance per week? My grocery bill for a larger/older family does not come close to 300/week. Surely I could get my own gas with $300/week!

I'm not sure that the amount of the allowance has any relevance to the crime. (And I thought it was much more expensive with babies than when they were older. Baby food and diapers are not cheap!) The only relevance that I see is that he denied her the allowance on the Friday before she died. Whether it was $50 or $500 wouldn't make any difference in terms of the formula for a fight.

 

[raisincharlie]

Plus he had 2 versions.
One was he had a load on and saw they ran out.
The other version was Nancy discovered they were out, got mad and told him to go back to the store.

Darn those depositions Brad gave

 

[LaLaw2000]

I spent much of Sunday reading all of the documents in this case again. When I put it all together at one time rather than just reading it in bits and pieces over time, it is easy to see that the tension had been building and building. It was bound to come to a head sooner or later, IMO.

Brad was the odd guy out seemingly by his own choice. Everyone seemed to become fast friends while Brad was busy with his own interests. I do have to say that the Masters program could not have been easy, so I can understand why a lot of time had to have been spent on acquiring his Masters Degree. BUT, in the quest for more earning potential, he seemed to drift away from his family. It almost seems as if he no longer could relate to them, or even cared to try.

I do see Brad as a very disciplined man and one who likes to be in control. He also seems to me to be a very selfish man. I read the Separation Agreement again Sunday. I honestly believe that agreement caused Brad to decide that no matter what he had to do, he certainly wasn't going to lose so much of what he had worked for in a divorce. There was a slow boil going and it finally came to a head that night after the party. I think Brad lay in wait for Nancy with the lights off, and he killed her.

I think that the undercover FBI agents have a good idea what happened to Nancy when she came home that night. LE has a good idea what happened to Nancy that night. What we have heard to date is setting the stage for the evidence the Prosecution will present. So far, all that has been done is an introduction to Nancy as a person and her life with Brad. With the evidence we will be introduced to Nancy, the victim.

Brad has relied heavily on the phone calls that Saturday morning to attempt to prove Nancy was alive and went running. If there is a 'smoking gun' in this case, it will be that the phone calls were staged by Brad and it will be proven that they were. That is just my speculation. Brad is an intelligent man, but has no common sense, IMO. He went to such great lenghts to 'stage' and attempt to outsmart LE that he forgot that if HE could think it up, then so could LE and the FBI. I think the phone call staging will be his undoing.

Sorry for the long post. I wanted to put my two cents worth in.

Time will tell, and I cannot wait! Nancy, her babies, her family, and friends deserve justice.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Darn those depositions Brad gave

Yes, the truth remains the same no matter how many times you tell it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Brad has relied heavily on the phone calls that Saturday morning to attempt to prove Nancy was alive and went running. If there is a 'smoking gun' in this case, it will be that the phone calls were staged by Brad and it will be proven that they were. That is just my speculation. Brad is an intelligent man, but has no common sense, IMO. He went to such great lenghts to 'stage' and attempt to outsmart LE that he forgot that if HE could think it up, then so could LE and the FBI. I think the phone call staging will be his undoing.
.

I will be shocked if the calls turn out to be staged. VoIP calls are completely traceable and Brad would know that.

 

[Just the Fax]

How certain is the $300 allowance per week? My grocery bill for a larger/older family does not come close to 300/week. Surely I could get my own gas with $300/week!

I feel sure Nancy liked to buy nice clothes/things for the girls too.
Remember, she and Brad were not a couple. She probably had nice lunches, dinners and shopping trips with her more affluent buds. This lifestyle, along with buying household groceries would stretch $300 a bit.

 

[jmflu]

I spent much of Sunday reading all of the documents in this case again. When I put it all together at one time rather than just reading it in bits and pieces over time, it is easy to see that the tension had been building and building. It was bound to come to a head sooner or later, IMO.

Brad was the odd guy out seemingly by his own choice. Everyone seemed to become fast friends while Brad was busy with his own interests. I do have to say that the Masters program could not have been easy, so I can understand why a lot of time had to have been spent on acquiring his Masters Degree. BUT, in the quest for more earning potential, he seemed to drift away from his family. It almost seems as if he no longer could relate to them, or even cared to try.

I do see Brad as a very disciplined man and one who likes to be in control. He also seems to me to be a very selfish man. I read the Separation Agreement again Sunday. I honestly believe that agreement caused Brad to decide that no matter what he had to do, he certainly wasn't going to lose so much of what he had worked for in a divorce. There was a slow boil going and it finally came to a head that night after the party. I think Brad lay in wait for Nancy with the lights off, and he killed her.

I think that the undercover FBI agents have a good idea what happened to Nancy when she came home that night. LE has a good idea what happened to Nancy that night. What we have heard to date is setting the stage for the evidence the Prosecution will present. So far, all that has been done is an introduction to Nancy as a person and her life with Brad. With the evidence we will be introduced to Nancy, the victim.

Brad has relied heavily on the phone calls that Saturday morning to attempt to prove Nancy was alive and went running. If there is a 'smoking gun' in this case, it will be that the phone calls were staged by Brad and it will be proven that they were. That is just my speculation. Brad is an intelligent man, but has no common sense, IMO. He went to such great lenghts to 'stage' and attempt to outsmart LE that he forgot that if HE could think it up, then so could LE and the FBI. I think the phone call staging will be his undoing.

Sorry for the long post. I wanted to put my two cents worth in.

Time will tell, and I cannot wait! Nancy, her babies, her family, and friends deserve justice.

Very well said, LaLaw.

 

[ncsu95]

I have felt that the questions asked by the defense have been to try and make Nancy look bad in order to make Brad look good. To be very honest if I was the defense attorney I would ask very few questions of these witnesses. My line would be something like this:

1. Did you feel uncomfortable having Brad around your family?
2. Did Nancy leave Bella and Katie in the care of Brad?
3. Did you have any reason to believe that Brad was going to harm Nancy?

If anyone answered in the positive to the last question I would ask for specifics. I really feel that the defense has dug a bigger hole with their line of questioning. Just because they have a law degree doesn't mean they know people. I want justice in this case and I don't believe this defense attorney is doing his client any favors at this point.

I think they have tried to show that she exaggerates and wasn't afraid of him.

 

[jmflu]

I will be shocked if the calls turn out to be staged. VoIP calls are completely traceable and Brad would know that.

Wouldn't he also know how to get into his own voice mail?

 

[rwesafe]

There are two kinds of evidence. Direct Evidence and Circumstantial Evidence. Direct evidence is: eyewitness, confession, videotape of the crime. Circumstantial is everything else that isn't Direct. Most murders are 'circumstantial' cases. Circumstantial cases are often the most powerful!



In most relationships, one spouse doesn't turn up murdered.



So you continue to believe that CPD has no evidence, the DA took the case with no real evidence, because people 'exaggerated' or 'lied,' and that's the norm. Okie Dokie. I don't believe that rumor can get someone convicted of murder *if* there is evidence that ties them to the crime. And again, if there is no evidence, then WHY is Colin Willoughby wasting taxpayer $$$?



No.

Your husband would be investigated if your death was determined to be a homicide. If there was evidence that tied your hubby to your murder then the noose would tighten. If there was enough evidence to tie your husband to your homicide, the Wake County DA would take the case to a grand jury. And if there was enough evidence that the DA felt would prove your husband killed you, the DA would take that case to trial where he would have to prove that case.

If you can cope with someone being sent to jail based on circumstantial evidence then more power to you. I personally could not. If I was having an affair with a neighbor who might own the same lot of twine and hack saw that my hubby and I bought a month prior to my death...I would hope that both of them would be investigated on that circumstantial evidence because both of them could be considered likely with the same murder instruments housed in their garage. One could be compelled to kill me for cheating the other compelled because he could not have me...it is all relative and worth investigating is all I am saying. It is the FAIR thing to do. If you don't investigate all potential perps, how do you even know if there is evidence to indict or not? Perhaps the actual evidence will tell a different story. I will consider him innocent until PROVEN guilty.


It does not matter that one spouse does not typically end up murdered. The point and the fact is that most couples in the midst of a divorce or economic ruin that speak to each other in a harsh manner is the norm not the exception and does not automatically denote murder by spouse.

I did not, at any time, say the CPD had no evidence. I said I have not seen any yet and therefore will not act as judge, jury and executioner because all I have seen is a bunch of drinking buddies and prating women testify to "state of mind" based on nothing more than what they were told by NC or each other. To make a judgement based on what we have seen so far would not only seem premature, IMO, but criminal.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I think they have tried to show that she exaggerates and wasn't afraid of him.

If that was the intent, I don't believe they have succeeded. I would recommend backing up and regrouping before they dig the hole any deeper.

 

[ncsu95]

Absolutely his sworn deposition can be used as long as his answers are relevant to the criminal case. That is why it was so dumb on his part, imo.

I agree with was dumb. But I guess he had no choice except to willingly give up custody of his kids.

 

[ncsu95]

Absolutely his sworn deposition can be used as long as his answers are relevant to the criminal case. That is why it was so dumb on his part, imo.

Also, can they be used by the defense if the prosecution doesn't use them? Can they introduce his testimony as a way to have him testify without the state being able to cross-examine him. The questions in the deposition obviously weren't asked by the state.

 

[SleuthyGal]

If you can cope with someone being sent to jail based on circumstantial evidence then more power to you.

It appears you just don't understand the definition of circumstantial evidence even though I provided the definition. Seriously, what you are saying is that the only way you can 'cope' with someone being sent to jail is if there is DIRECT evidence? That means if there is no eyewitness, no confession, and/or no videotape of the crime, the person shouldn't have to go to jail? Because everything else...is 'circumstantial' evidence. That is the definition.

DNA? circumstantial

Fingerprints? circumstantial

Blood? circumstantial

Computer searches? circumstantial

Ballistics / bullet matching? circumstantial

Defendent having the exact same weapon as the murder weapon? circumstantial

Fibers, hair, and other trace evidence linking the suspect to the crime scene and/or the victim? circumstantial


Courts every day in this country convict people of crimes on those and additional circumstantial evidence.

 

[ncsu95]

Was this man Canadian, or is there some other reason for saying that he is Canadian?

The Canadian he was talking about is Nancy. He was saying Nancy might have mistaken his Scottish humor as hitting on her.