Testimonies 10/16/08

[momto3kids]

With regards to him taking the stand...I think if this was in front of a jury, he would have needed to. This was just a judge, and the judge really shouldn't take emotion into the decision.

I know when we hear the verdict we will say...(a) good he didn't take the stand he got the girls back or (b) he should have taken the stand he might have won them back. It is a Catch 22 situation.

 

[momto3kids]

8 or 9k for interior house paint?

For the "Bear" painting NC ordered out of Canada.

 

[rwesafe]

For the "Bear" painting NC ordered out of Canada.

Ah. I was thing Behr paint....I was about to say...Holy Moly...that would have been about 250 gallons of paint...:crazy:

 

[momto3kids]

When we got back from lunch the Rentz's & KL w/ attorneys went into a private room off the courtroom. BC w/ attorneys went into another private room. SG & I just knew a deal was being made...maybe extension? SG & I sat in front of Det. Daniels and 3 of Town of Cary members....they also expressed a deal in the making.

NO deal was made as we all know. We don't know if an attempt was made or what actually occured.

 

[rwesafe]

I know when we hear the verdict we will say...(a) good he didn't take the stand he got the girls back or (b) he should have taken the stand he might have won them back. It is a Catch 22 situation.

You are so right about that.

IMO, if he had taken the stand, it would have been like this forum in the sense that it is difficult to stay on topic....it could have easily transitioned from a custody hearing into a murder trial. IMO it would have turned into a series of objections and no progress would have been made. His intent was a given, he does not have to prove his love for his children....I can't really see what benefit it would have been for him to sit in a room full of people who are convinced that he did it...who hate him and are bitter towards him and articulate the love he has for his children. How easy would it be for any of us to sit among an audience of people who hate us..period?

 

[Skittles]

8 or 9k for interior house paint?

No, for a painting of a bear by a Canadian artist.

 

[Anderson]

I still don't see how he is considered controlling? Her dad had to tighten the purse strings and said in a court of law that it seemed reasonable given her spending habits that BC needed to as well. So we can see that there was reason to put her on an allowance. So how is this controlling an abusive?$300 a week is hardly a measly amount of money to purchase food and incidentals with.

Beyond the money thing, that even her father had to reign in, she had tons of freedom. She vacationed with friends, ran, stayed out late with the girls, took vacations with her family....where exactly is this abusive control? She had the most expensive clothes, cars, jewelry, art....cell phone....

Additionally, I think it is safe to say that NC exaggerated a bit because I truly don't think her friends had any idea about their debt. I think NC was ashamed of it and tried to make it seem like BC was trying to control the finances because it is just a bit too humiliating to tell the jones' that you can no longer keep up.

As far as the suicide thing...Perhaps after he fessed up about the affair he made a comment to the effect that it was a stupid mistkae and I could just kill myself for being so stupid....an off handed comment that was again delivered to her friends with more exaggeration than merit. I hear lot's of people use that off handed remark when they make a stupid mistake....Heck, I myself say it all the time...I better quit it...just in case .Two doctors stated that he was not suicidal.

rwesafe, you and I already had quite a discussion about the control issue in the 'not convinced thread 1.' I direct anyone who wants to look at that discussion to that thread. I think that there are plenty of reasons to believe that he was controlling, as do many others who contributed to that discussion. Some agree with you. I have not changed my mind.

As far as the suicide thing goes, even before the doctors weighed in, I suggested that suicide threats were the real issue because this is another control mechanism (do a quick google search on the subject or go to 'not convinced' thread 1 for details/sources). I still think that JD's affidavit, which supports the suicide threats, may be considered by the Judge.

I posted a response to your speculation on the exaggeration issue yesterday in 'not convinced thread' 2. Unfortunately, the two main affidavits (MH and SH) that were filed on the issue (besides BC's) made references to poor examples that do not illustrate that NC was prone to exaggerations (see 'not convinced' thread 2 for details). They merely demonstrate that NC had a GSOH. MH and SH were not able to comment first hand on some of the issues that you are discussing above.

As far as the spending issue goes, both NC and BC had expensive tastes (too expensive to me). However, NC should not be singled out here. They both chose to live in a social situation that was economically demanding. NC couldn't work, so you have to keep that in mind. Please revisit KL's affidavit for more details. Besides money, Brad also controlled a passport, so that Nancy couldn't leave. NC wanted to leave. That is controlling behaviour.

 

[SleuthyGal]

IMO, if he had taken the stand, it would have been like this forum in the sense that it is difficult to stay on topic....it could have easily transitioned from a custody hearing into a murder trial.

IMHO, no way. Judge Sasser had absolute control over that courtroom and the lawyers played by her rules (or risk contempt). Nope. She would have guided/limited discussion as to where it needed to go based on the law and the rules. However, if the defense had opened the door...well...that would have been a mistake. It's all moot since he didn't take the stand and neither did Det. Daniels.

 

[rwesafe]

rwesafe, you and I already had quite a discussion about the control issue in the 'not convinced thread 1.' I direct anyone who wants to look at that discussion to that thread. I think that there are plenty of reasons to believe that he was controlling, as do many others who contributed to that discussion. Some agree with you. I have not changed my mind.

Yes we did and I was really hoping to discuss it with someone else this time as I know that your opinion is set in stone. If there are plenty of reasons to believe it, feel free to list them and I will be sure to read them with an open mind. It is not my intention to change your mind. And you do not need to remind me ad nauseum that "Some agree with you".


As far as the suicide thing goes, you cut off the portion of my post that said that I do not not think that he would commit suicide and that I think JD's affidavit will still be taken into account in your response. Even before the doctors weighed in, I suggested that suicide threats were the real issue because this is another control mechanism (do a quick google search on the subject or go to 'not convinced' thread 1 for details/sources). I still think that JD's affidavit, which supports the suicide threats, may be considered by the Judge.


I don't need to do a google search. I was simply making the point that these so called suicide threats could have just as easily have been off handed comments that were relayed as "threats" as opposed to the perhaps intended "off hand comment".

As far as the spending issue goes, both NC and BC had expensive tastes (too expensive to me). However, NC should not be singled out here. They both chose to live in a social situation that was economically demanding. NC couldn't work, so you have to keep that in mind. Please revisit KL's affidavit for more details. Besides money, Brad also controlled a passport, so that Nancy couldn't leave. NC wanted to leave. That is controlling behaviour.[/QUOTE]
No one is denying that they both had expensive taste, but it was not BC's parents who had to tighten the purse strings and NC's father stated himself that NC had issues with spending. So she could not work, so what? Even more reason to be cognizant of your spending habits if you are a single income family. NC wanted to take their children with her. Just because a man does not want to have his children leave the country without him does not make him controlling. Perhaps just because you might be ok if your husband or wife (assuming you have either one or the other) wanted to take your children (assuming you have one or more)out of the country,limiting how much you could see them that you would be okey dokey with that....Most of us would not be cool with that and would fight to keep that from happening. That is not controlling.

 

[Anderson]

No one is denying that they both had expensive taste, but it was not BC's parents who had to tighten the purse strings and NC's father stated himself that NC had issues with spending. So she could not work, so what? Even more reason to be cognizant of your spending habits if you are a single income family. NC wanted to take their children with her. Just because a man does not want to have his children leave the country without him does not make him controlling. Perhaps just because you might be ok if your husband or wife (assuming you have either one or the other) wanted to take your children (assuming you have one or more)out of the country,limiting how much you could see them that you would be okey dokey with that....Most of us would not be cool with that and would fight to keep that from happening. That is not controlling.

If you wish, why don't you start a thread about the control issues?

I think we are getting off topic and should stay focused on the testimonials. As I mentioned above, I feel that we have already discussed the control issue in 'not convinced thread 1'. If anyone wants to review the discussion, then they can just go to that thread. I see no reason to duplicate it here.

BTW, I thought that your comments were directed toward me, because it was a response to my post. That is why I responded to your post. I am sure that there are others that will weigh in. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[momto3kids]

You are so right about that.

IMO, if he had taken the stand, it would have been like this forum in the sense that it is difficult to stay on topic....it could have easily transitioned from a custody hearing into a murder trial. IMO it would have turned into a series of objections and no progress would have been made. His intent was a given, he does not have to prove his love for his children....I can't really see what benefit it would have been for him to sit in a room full of people who are convinced that he did it...who hate him and are bitter towards him and articulate the love he has for his children. How easy would it be for any of us to sit among an audience of people who hate us..period?

I don't totally agree. He has had the chance to change peoples opinions, but not taking the opportunity to do it.

Testimony from JA & HP, they communicated and tried to help BC all they could with the girls beginning July 12th. They admitted they never saw, heard or witnessed him being physical or verbal with NC or the girls. This is (1) in BC favor IMO.

They testified to what they felt was control issues, mainly financial. But her own dad told he was going to tighten the purse strings on NC and he appeared to have known their financial situation better than friends. Other control issues such as passports, phone monitoring, water turn off, etc were discussed, but he could deny the phone issues and explained passports to have his family remain and work on the marriage, as well as the water turned right back on being an oversight of payment. #(2) in BC favor IMO.

After hearing all the plaintiff's testimony, I really think their thoughts, feelings, etc changed towards BC and his involvement in NC murder that week. His actions during the week of NC missing, found murdered and the memorial services. They would express his mannerism, no communication, no attendance, etc. IDK if they would feel so strong he is connected if he had done different in that week, especially attend the services.

A good strategic attorney who knew they had 3 hours and 15 minutes of testimony would call him last and ask BC 1 question....

Sandlin...Mr Cooper do you want Bella & Katie back and why?
BC...Yes, and he tells the court he loves them, he felt it was in the best interest of his girl's for the past 3 months to be in Canada away from the media, etc, he has never been inappropriate to them, he has financially done all he can do, he took the passports not to control, but he realized he was loosing his family, and ends...damn I have tried I have really tried. I've lost my wife and now my kids? Shows some emotion.

Wade Smith has little to no time to advance the questioning to murder and murder is not the trial here. He can try, but he is running out of time as the clock ticks.

Sasser rulings were fair and I believe even calling Det. Daniels she was only going to allow testimony to advance to a certain point.

So I have to wonder what is going to come along and bite BC in the butt. What is he so scared of? What is he hiding? Why will he not challenge the CONTROL and MOTIVE issues?

"Actions speak louder than words" and IMO this is exactly what is occuring with this case.

 

[rwesafe]

If you wish, why don't you start a thread about the control issues? I think we are getting off topic and should stay focused on the testimonials. As I mentioned above, I feel that we have already discussed the control issue in 'not convinced thread 1'. If anyone wants to review the discussion, then they can just go to that thread. I see no reason to duplicate it here.

Primarily because I think that the testimony (which is on subject with this thread) that Mr. R gave has some bearing on the "control issue" since the majority, if not all of the control that was discussed was based on him (BC)controlling the spending of NC. I think that in light of Mr. R's testimony, that he deemed it reasonable that BC put NC on an allowance to control spending...it may be worthy of additional discussions. None of the other testimony that has been revealed here in these forums, indicates that her friends witnessesed any other form of control or inappropriate behavior towards NC or the children.

 

[Anderson]

Primarily because I think that the testimony (which is on subject with this thread) that Mr. R gave has some bearing on the "control issue" since the majority, if not all of the control that was discussed was based on him (BC)controlling the spending of NC. I think that in light of Mr. R's testimony, that he deemed it reasonable that BC put NC on an allowance to control spending...it may be worthy of additional discussions. None of the other testimony that has been revealed here in these forums, indicates that her friends witnessesed any other form of control or inappropriate behavior towards NC or the children.

Good point with regard to the testimony issue. If the issue is tied to the testimony's of witnesses, then it is on topic.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Mr. Rentz testified that he had given money to Nancy & Brad in the form of checks (which of course went to Brad because he controlled the accounts), and when he saw Nancy in person, he gave her some cash. Rentz also testified under cross that he was going to cut back on the amount of money he gave to his daughter, though he didn't specify how much he was going to cut back or exactly when/how. He also didn't say if he was going to stop giving Nancy cash in person.

Just because the plaintiffs think the motive was about money doesn't mean that was the actual motive--money was a certainly big point of contention in the Cooper marriage, but as to what caused the final break...it could have been something else just as easily as something financial. They fought about a lot of things besides just money. Unfortunately Brad isn't telling us and Nancy is dead so .... guessing is as good as one can do.

 

[SleuthyGal]

The sense I got during the hearing is that Nancy felt so helpless during that last trip w/her family because she really wanted to leave and be able to bring the kids with her and she cried that she couldn't because the passports were hidden. THAT is the testimony that was given during the hearing.

It sounds like the Rentz' could have gotten her out of her home (meaning they could probably afford to help her out financially), but she & the girls were trapped due to the passport issue.

Whether or not people agree that she was controlled or not, she said to her family and others that she felt trapped--that was her state of mind the last couple weeks of her life.

And it's true that Brad took both passports and hid them (in his office at Cisco, where he went to retrieve them after her disappearance). Nancy could not leave and take the girls with her--not without their passports. That is not disputed.

 

[momto3kids]

I think that there are plenty of reasons to believe that he was controlling, as do many others who contributed to that discussion. Some agree with you. I have not changed my mind.

As far as the spending issue goes, both NC and BC had expensive tastes (too expensive to me). However, NC should not be singled out here. They both chose to live in a social situation that was economically demanding. NC couldn't work, so you have to keep that in mind. Please revisit KL's affidavit for more details. Besides money, Brad also controlled a passport, so that Nancy couldn't leave. NC wanted to leave. That is controlling behaviour.

Anderson...I agree about the control issues and how many types there are as well as how they are used against someone else.

Only a few control issues were testified to in court and anything not on the affidavits were not admissible.

NC friends and family are trying to get word out how controlling he was to NC, but is getting ruled hearsay.

This control occured between 2 people, BC to NC. NC is no longer here to tell her side to the degree of control he used. Sandlin did make an objection to how much hearsay was occuring in the courtroom.

 

[momto3kids]

SG...help me out.
The trip was Charlotte (lake house) then to HH then back to Charlotte for a flight? Is this correct how it was? Or was the lake house somewhere else? Also was it 14 people gathered?

 

[rwesafe]

The sense I got during the hearing is that Nancy felt so helpless during that last trip w/her family because she really wanted to leave and be able to bring the kids with her and she cried that she couldn't because the passports were hidden. THAT is the testimony that was given during the hearing.

It sounds like the Rentz' could have gotten her out of her home (meaning they could probably afford to help her out financially), but she & the girls were trapped due to the passport issue.

Whether or not people agree that she was controlled or not, she said to her family and others that she felt trapped--that was her state of mind the last couple weeks of her life.

And it's true that Brad took both passports and hid them (in his office at Cisco, where he went to retrieve them after her disappearance). Nancy could not leave and take the girls with her--not without their passports. That is not disputed.

No it's not disputed.

I have never really known any woman that was a SAHM that was divorcing that did not feel trapped. It is unfortunately par for the course. It is also a common feeling with women who are not equal of chief breadwinners in the family.

They were his children too and ensuring that he did not come home from work one day to find that she had taken them out of the country does not seem like a controlling thing to do. What person, who loves their children, would not take similar steps to prevent that from happening? I get the feeling in this forum that the custody of the children should be hers exclusively that he had absolutely no right to his own children. Until those legal papers were signed and custody had been established legally, I think I would have taken the passports too.

 

[Anderson]

The sense I got during the hearing is that Nancy felt so helpless during that last trip w/her family because she really wanted to leave and be able to bring the kids with her and she cried that she couldn't because the passports were hidden. THAT is the testimony that was given during the hearing.

It sounds like the Rentz' could have gotten her out of her home (meaning they could probably afford to help her out financially), but she & the girls were trapped due to the passport issue.

Whether or not people agree that she was controlled or not, she said to her family and others that she felt trapped--that was her state of mind the last couple weeks of her life.

And it's true that Brad took both passports and hid them (in his office at Cisco, where he went to retrieve them after her disappearance). Nancy could not leave and take the girls with her--not without their passports. That is not disputed.

I can see how some would feel that it is okay for a husband to take the passports away, so that his kids will stay in the country. Of course it would be very difficult to be in that position for BC, or any parent for that matter. Anyone would think so. However, when the wife in that situation ends up murdered, then you have to start asking questions.

At one point Brad was supporting Nancy's move back to Canada and then changed his mind. I believe it was around that time that Brad took the passports. Their marriage was on the rocks at that point and now she had to wait longer. Did Krista talk about being followed to the gas station and the store by Brad so that he could pay for everything in her testimony? How terrible for Nancy to have to go through that, IMO.

I suppose that NC would have had to legally sort this out before she could get the passports back from BC. Unfortunately, Nancy didn't get the chance. Unfortunately, Nancy ended up murdered. For that reason, it doesn't make Brad look good. Personally, I hope that the Judge strongly considers DR's testimony about Nancy's state at the airport.

 

[momto3kids]

No it's not disputed.

I have never really known any woman that was a SAHM that was divorcing that did not feel trapped. It is unfortunately par for the course. It is also a common feeling with women who are not equal of chief breadwinners in the family.

They were his children too and ensuring that he did not come home from work one day to find that she had taken them out of the country does not seem like a controlling thing to do. What person, who loves their children, would not take similar steps to prevent that from happening? I get the feeling in this forum that the custody of the children should be hers exclusively that he had absolutely no right to his own children. Until those legal papers were signed and custody had been established legally, I think I would have taken the passports too.

That was a chance he had to take.
Reasonably speaking at this exact moment every spouse and/or parent is risking leaving their home only to come home to find it empty. It happens every day to innocent people. But BC took it one step further.

Now he will never see Nancy again and possibly his girl's.