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

[SleuthyGal]

speak in absolutes about his guilt

I speak in absolutes about my BELIEF that he's guilty. And I fully understand that all the evidence will need to be presented. It just drives me crazy when I see people state that "there is no evidence that proves he's guilty..." simply because we havent' SEEN 95%+ of the evidence yet!

 

[rwesafe]

I speak in absolutes about my BELIEF that he's guilty. And I fully understand that all the evidence will need to be presented. It just drives me crazy when I see people state that "there is no evidence that proves he's guilty..." simply because we havent' SEEN 95%+ of the evidence yet!

Well, then it seems only fair that you understand that it drives other people crazy that you believe he is guilty when you have not seen 95%+ of the evidence. At least those that have only seen 5% of the so called evidence have maintained an open mind to the possibility that he might just be innoncent and not yet seen fit to condemn him.

 

[ncsu95]

I speak in absolutes about my BELIEF that he's guilty. And I fully understand that all the evidence will need to be presented. It just drives me crazy when I see people state that "there is no evidence that proves he's guilty..." simply because we havent' SEEN 95%+ of the evidence yet!

Thank you for clarifying....and you know I consider you a "friend" on here, so please don't take offense to any of my posts.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Well, then it seems only fair that you understand that it drives other people crazy that you believe he is guilty when you have not seen 95%+ of the evidence. At least those that have only seen 5% of the so called evidence have maintained an open mind to the possibility that he might just be innoncent and not yet seen fit to condemn him.

We have seen some things even though the evidence in the criminal case hasn't been fully rolled out.

Don't forget we have Brad's statements on his affidavits, then his deposition, then witness testimony in the custody case, some search warrants, as well as a little bit of the prosecution's case. We have already caught him in multiple "inconsistencies" between his various statements. There's a whole thread on this forum just covering the lies he told up through the deposition! His lying is an indication of guilt, and that fuels my belief.

 

[rwesafe]

Thank you for clarifying....and you know I consider you a "friend" on here, so please don't take offense to any of my posts.

Good point and I do hope that no one here believes that I came here to make enemies. It has been a good discussion and the fact that we have differing opinions is hopefully the very thing that brings balance to our justice system.

I just hope that we all remember that any crazy set of circumstances coud befall any one of us and we could very well end up in the same seat that Brad sits in today. And should any one of us through some freakish nightmare end up there, I hope we are judged by those with an open mind, those who are not willing to settle for he said, she said, and that what condemns us is the truth that prevails through active, and conclusive investigation and compelling evidence.

Good night all. Thanks for the great discussion. :seeya:

 

[rwesafe]

We have seen some things even though the evidence in the criminal case hasn't been fully rolled out.

Don't forget we have Brad's statements on his affidavits, then his deposition, then witness testimony in the custody case, some search warrants, as well as a little bit of the prosecution's case. We have already caught him in multiple "inconsistencies" between his various statements. There's a whole thread on this forum just covering the lies he told up through the deposition! His lying is an indication of guilt, and that fuels my belief.

This is just strictly my opinion, but when it comes to custody cases in these situations, it is very difficult to determine what is being said out of fear, grief, and pure intent on doing damage control, and in some cases, just pure revenge.

I could not be consistent if I wanted to about what I wore last week, had for lunch, how many times I went to the store or how many bowel movements I produced and that is not because I am aloof or a killer, it is because I am like many people who don't realize that one week of my life all of those details may just determine whether I keep my kids and/or my freedom. I will read them again tomorrow if I get a chance, but if I did not read them and find myself firmly believing he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt the first time, it is doubtful I will the second time...but I will refresh for the sake of discussion

 

[ncsu95]

This is just strictly my opinion, but when it comes to custody cases in these situations, it is very difficult to determine what is being said out of fear, grief, and pure intent on doing damage control, and in some cases, just pure revenge.

I could not be consistent if I wanted to about what I wore last week, had for lunch, how many times I went to the store or how many bowel movements I produced and that is not because I am aloof or a killer, it is because I am like many people who don't realize that one week of my life all of those details may just determine whether I keep my kids and/or my freedom. I will read them again tomorrow if I get a chance, but if I did not read them and find myself firmly believing he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt the first time, it is doubtful I will the second time...but I will refresh for the sake of discussion

I have read them all and watched all of the videos and I'm not convinced of his guilt.

 

[BrownRice]

Because Nancy told everyone that he does absolutely nothing. So him doing it has to be out of the norm. While it might just be that Nancy was exaggerating what he does or does not do to gather sympathy from her friend.

See, this is what I am getting from the defense...IMO they are trying to show Nancy exaggerated about many things, therefore how can we (well, the jury) believe anything Nancy said? Brad woke up early every Saturday to do laundry, often stopped to purchase supplies for Nancy (i.e. tarp), etc. This is what I believe they want the story to be. Not saying I buy it (or don't).

 

[Just the Fax]

Am I the only one who thinks 27,000 on a single credit card in a year is insane?

I would put MYSELF on an allowance at that point.

Yep, and that very dicey $$$ situation eventually contributed to her demise, IMO.

 

[Just the Fax]

Brad claimed Nancy told him she spilled wine on her dress at the party so he washed it. Really? He apparently remembered which dress she wore because he took the time to identify it and then wash it.......Yet, he tells DD just hours later to help him look for a black dress she wore to the party.

Think about this whole senerio folks. Not only would it be totally odd for Brad to wash Nancy's dresses, how could he clearly remember she had the green dress with a stain that needed washing, yet completely forget that fact just hours later:waitasec:

 

[belimom]

..........

I just hope that we all remember that any crazy set of circumstances coud befall any one of us and we could very well end up in the same seat that Brad sits in today. And should any one of us through some freakish nightmare end up there, I hope we are judged by those with an open mind, those who are not willing to settle for he said, she said, and that what condemns us is the truth that prevails through active, and conclusive investigation and compelling evidence.

Good night all. Thanks for the great discussion. :seeya:

I totally agree. And thank God for 'innocent until PROVEN guilty' here in this wonderful country.

Having said that, I do think he is guilty. And if any of us here happen to find ourselves in such a terrible situation as being blamed for a spouse's death, I doubt there would be a background of such fear and control that the deceased spouse locked the bedroom door each night out of fear, had had passports of the kids taken away, had expressed concern over personal safety, and was in the middle of a contentious divorce.

When you look at the whole picture, it just seems that - just like in so many of these cases - what are the chances? Of course the things I mentioned are circumstantial, but really - what are the chances that then this person would end up murdered and it would have nothing to do with all of the other issues?

I hope he is convicted and that justice is served.

JMHO.

 

[otto]

Here we go again ... here's the link for anyone that doesn't have it handy: http://www.wral.com/news/video/9247382/#/vid9247382

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thank you for clarifying....and you know I consider you a "friend" on here, so please don't take offense to any of my posts.

No worries, NCSU95, I don't take offense.

 

[CyberPro]

He was controlling about her going back to Canada with his kids. And for that, I say good for him. Those are his kids too.

There was no choice in this matter. She moved to the US on the strength of being married to him and he was here as a result of a job with Cisco and a work visa. If they were no longer married, she could no longer stay in the US. Added to that was that other than BC and the friends she had made here, she had no support mechanism. Her family was in Canada.

 

[ncsu95]

Brad claimed Nancy told him she spilled wine on her dress at the party so he washed it. Really? He apparently remembered which dress she wore because he took the time to identify it and then wash it.......Yet, he tells DD just hours later to help him look for a black dress she wore to the party.

Think about this whole senerio folks. Not only would it be totally odd for Brad to wash Nancy's dresses, how could he clearly remember she had the green dress with a stain that needed washing, yet completely forget that fact just hours later:waitasec:

But according to the defense, he was doing a lot of laundry. So if she came home, took off the dress, sprayed it with some type of stain remover like spray-n-wash, and put it in the pile to wash....it would make sense that it got washed.

 

[ncsu95]

There was no choice in this matter. She moved to the US on the strength of being married to him and he was here as a result of a job with Cisco and a work visa. If they were no longer married, she could no longer stay in the US. Added to that was that other than BC and the friends she had made here, she had no support mechanism. Her family was in Canada.

So that gives her the right to take their kids to another country? She had no choice at the moment, but based on testimony given so far, they were working on getting her a green card. Once that happened, she could have stayed in the states and worked.

 

[raisincharlie]

Good point and I do hope that no one here believes that I came here to make enemies. It has been a good discussion and the fact that we have differing opinions is hopefully the very thing that brings balance to our justice system.

I just hope that we all remember that any crazy set of circumstances coud befall any one of us and we could very well end up in the same seat that Brad sits in today. And should any one of us through some freakish nightmare end up there, I hope we are judged by those with an open mind, those who are not willing to settle for he said, she said, and that what condemns us is the truth that prevails through active, and conclusive investigation and compelling evidence.

Good night all. Thanks for the great discussion. :seeya:

Is Brad's position today worse than what befell Nancy on 12 July 2008 ?

Have there been anymore joggers gone missing in Cary ?

This is very premature, as yet we do not know what actual evidence the DA has, at that point it is no longer he said/she said is it ? Unfortunately the victim does not have the same benefit as the accused in that she can no longer speak for herself, or breathe for that matter. Regardless of whether Nancy embellished stories a bit or not, she, nor anyone else deserves to die for it. Her story also deserves to be heard.

 

[CyberPro]

See, this is what I am getting from the defense...IMO they are trying to show Nancy exaggerated about many things, therefore how can we (well, the jury) believe anything Nancy said? Brad woke up early every Saturday to do laundry, often stopped to purchase supplies for Nancy (i.e. tarp), etc. This is what I believe they want the story to be. Not saying I buy it (or don't).

NC may well have exaggerated things, but when she showed up dead in the ditch beside the cul-de-sac, that was making a bit too much of a play for attention, don't you think?

If she did not commit suicide, then someone else killed her. I take that as a fact at this point. If someone killed her, then someone is guilty. True, we have not seen concrete proof that it was BC, and while I am leaning that way, I am not at 100% yet. Statistically, most people who wind up murdered are killed by someone they know. So, you start there with the investigation, and see where it leads you.

Even if you are completely in the SODDI camp, you have to admit that if you were an investigator, and found the victim was not getting along with the spouse, then when you start checking things out, you see that there was a lot of stressors like infidelity, finances, pending divorce you would be derelict in your duty if you did not pay very close attention to that. Not exclusively, but Lo, you start finding evidence, things that don't add up, feelings and impressions that you and others notice. Pretty soon, like it or not, you have a suspect.

 

[raisincharlie]

So that gives her the right to take their kids to another country? She had no choice at the moment, but based on testimony given so far, they were working on getting her a green card. Once that happened, she could have stayed in the states and worked.

We don't know that about the green card. All we know is that is the story Brad gave Nancy which she repeated. They were here for 8 years, she still had no green card. They were in financial trouble, and she still had no green card. Seems like Brad should have pushed Cisco long ago about that, not wait until it was entirely too late. Just sayin.

 

[snowshuze]

ARGGG. I'm late.


Jessica back on the stand. Towel w/paint stains introduced into evidence. Jury sent out/defense objection. Judge admits into evidence.