Testimonies 10/16/08

[rwesafe]

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.

But isn't it somewhat arrogant of us as a society to condemn a person because they don't act or respond the way "we" think they should. Because they don't say what "we" think they should? Is it not possible that as an innocent man he feels that the truth is on his side and it shall set him free? Is is instinctive for an innocent man to feel compelled to defend himself against speculation? If he did come out swinging, would this forum not just redirect to " An innocent man would not go to such great lengths to try and prove his innocense." He is between a rock and a hard spot. It does not matter what he does, fault will be found. And again, I will state for the record, I don't know if he did it....nothing of significance has been revealed to convince me that he did it.

 

[Anderson]

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.

I completely agree with you. I think he went too far when he took the passports.

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

 

[Anderson]

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.

Interesting. It sounds like some of the recounted events were first hand knowledge (e.g., Krista [stays at the house] and Donna [the airport] and Hannah [the list]). I hope that these will be considered by the Judge.

It sounds like JD's affidavit will also not be considered?

 

[rwesafe]

I completely agree with you. I think he went too far when he took the passports.

I understand that some may have a different view and accept that Brad took the passports. However, because Brad took the passports and Nancy ended up murdered, at the very least you have to start asking some questions about BC's behaviour.

What behavior specifically?

 

[Anderson]

Mom, could TS have called Det. Daniels to the stand?

 

[momto3kids]

But isn't it somewhat arrogant of us as a society to condemn a person because they don't act or respond the way "we" think they should. Because they don't say what "we" think they should?
Is it not possible that as an innocent man he feels that the truth is on his side and it shall set him free? He has nothing to be set free from,this is not an arrest in a criminal matter. Is is instinctive for an innocent man to feel compelled to defend himself against speculation? He came out swinging when the affidavits were done, why not in court? If he did come out swinging, would this forum not just redirect to " An innocent man would not go to such great lengths to try and prove his innocense." No, I would commend him for having the baxxs to finally stand up and speak his piece. He is between a rock and a hard spot. It does not matter what he does, fault will be found. And again, I will state for the record, I don't know if he did it....nothing of significance has been revealed to convince me that he did it.

You call it arrogance, I call it common sense based again on 'actions speak louder than words.' It is members from society who will determine his fate if put on trial. They are going to use common sense in their decision making, and not arrogance because they are a juror. As I posted earlier, how many times do we hear a juror interviewed after a case and their decision was based on actions of the defendent and not taking the stand?

This is not about Brad any longer, which is has been for a long time. It is about 2 little precious girls and a mother that has been murdered.

This is a highly intelligent person who needs to drop his arrogance for the time being and fight for his girl's. He also has a legal team who should have had a strategy in place once they saw the direction this case was going in court the 16th. Some testimony and rulings actually were a benefit to BC IMO. This might have been his best opportunity to change the minds of society. IMO much of the testimony was based on BC actions...cleaning, passports, memorial services, etc. Personally I think NC friends were on the fence about BC, but as the week continued his actions answered their questions of who did this to NC. Of course this is JMO.

 

[momto3kids]

Mom, could TS have called Det. Daniels to the stand?

Only as a rebuttal witness. He was there the entire time sitting behind us in case he was needed.

 

[piedmont]

Actually, reading thru these posts, it's sinking in just how in control of the situation BC was. NC and the girls spent a week with her family, then she let them leave for Canada without her. As awful as her situation was, she obviously decided to hang in there thru whatever else she'd have to go thru to end things with him. She was extremely unhappy, but he was running the show.

I guess I'm trying to say something had to happen to change who had the power for him to get to the point of murdering her. His control was working-she was still there although wanting desperately to leave. He would have had no reason to do ANYTHING other than what he was already doing. It was working.

 

[momto3kids]

Interesting. It sounds like some of the recounted events were first hand knowledge (e.g., Krista [stays at the house] and Donna [the airport] and Hannah [the list]). I hope that these will be considered by the Judge.

It sounds like JD's affidavit will also not be considered?

JD never took the stand. I have NO idea why not when she had heard directly about suicidal thoughts with BC.
Krista and Mrs Rentz testimony was allowed...but only what Krista witnessed or direct contact by NC. Not any specualtion.
Most of KL testimony was about the girls, how they are adjusting, etc.
Time was at a premium as the judge told them continually how many minutes they had left remaining.
HP & JA were not allowed NC hearsay or speculation.
1st hand witness or knowledge was allowed.

 

[Anderson]

Only as a rebuttal witness. He was there the entire time sitting behind us in case he was needed.

I see now.

 

[Anderson]

JD never took the stand. I have NO idea why not when she had heard directly about suicidal thoughts with BC.
Krista and Mrs Rentz testimony was allowed...but only what Krista witnessed or direct contact by NC. Not any specualtion.
Most of KL testimony was about the girls, how they are adjusting, etc.
Time was at a premium as the judge told them continually how many minutes they had left remaining.
HP & JA were not allowed NC hearsay or speculation.
1st hand witness or knowledge was allowed.

I do see what you mean about the proceedings working to BC's benefit. At least HP could talk about the list. It sounds like KL did not really use the time on the stand to talk about BC's behaviour towards Nancy.

Will the Judge take into account the full range of information that she does have access to in her decision? I wonder.

Thanks for answering all the questions!

 

[momto3kids]

Actually, reading thru these posts, it's sinking in just how in control of the situation BC was. NC and the girls spent a week with her family, then she let them leave for Canada without her. As awful as her situation was, she obviously decided to hang in there thru whatever else she'd have to go thru to end things with him. She was extremely unhappy, but he was running the show.

I guess I'm trying to say something had to happen to change who had the power for him to get to the point of murdering her. His control was working-she was still there although wanting desperately to leave. He would have had no reason to do ANYTHING other than what he was already doing. It was working.

There is one area of testimony that I feel Sandlin hurt BC rather than helped him...a possible reason for BC to snap.

Sandlin pressured JA about her calendar. Accusing her of not having Saturday marked as painting with NC. Other days were marked and times, also Sunday to help NC organize her home. Saturday was blank.
JA testfied she had just confirmed it on Friday with NC and not yet put it on her calendar...why, tell us why Ms. Adams....Sandlin pushed.
JA told her I just failed to do it, just hadn't done it yet, I don't know why.

Sandlin then proceeded to tell JA that BC had tennis plans so who would have the children? JA didn't know, she guessed BC would pick them up after like he did during the week once he finished playing.

Remember NC told JA during the week she didn't want to rock the boat with BC and the painting?

Did this escalate when she got home since she told him he could play tennis, but had to get the girl's after that?

 

[momto3kids]

OT...Have a good night everyone. I have a dozen things to take care of....hint, new appliances delivered not long ago.

 

[Anderson]

It really seems to me that the main strategy used by Brad's lawyers was to control the information that would be admitted. That included Brad not testifying, so that there was no chance that additional information would come out. Some of that information may have possibly connected BC to the murder.

I hope that there is a way for the Judge to consider all of the information that she has in front of her. At least we know that the deposition videos are being considered.

 

[raisincharlie]

Cross exam notes, so it was Sandlin who had him read it to the court. He was trying to convert the amount in his head from Canadian $ to American $ for the court. He mentioned several amounts, I heard $8K and figures to $9K. Maybe SG can recall the exact amount in US dollars.

I don't remember who signed, but I imagine NC since she was the one who ordered and the one home every day.

In regards to JWB affidavit, Sasser reviewed it during break when the plaintiff's rested their case and had asked for it to be part of their evidence. After break Sasser announced she would not allow it.

Yes, Hilkey got his say in on the JWB affidavit and that can't be ignored.

Thanks Mt3K - see this is the problem I have - if this painting was ordered,(internet maybe?), then who can say for sure that it was Nancy who ordered it ? Nancy's not here to answer that question, all we have is Brad's say so. Brad says Nancy always ran with two sports bras too, but only one was reported as being on her body prior to the autopsy. Brad is not so believable.

The JWB affidavit, and Dr. Hilkey saying it was consistent with his findings is huge - long time problem. Thanks

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks Mt3K - see this is the problem I have - if this painting was ordered,(internet maybe?), then who can say for sure that it was Nancy who ordered it? Nancy's not here to answer that question, all we have is Brad's say so.

One possible hint to that is in the separation agreement it was Nancy who was getting that particular Bear painting, along with some others as well. Since it was her attorney who drew up the agreement, I'm assuming she asked for the paintings she really wanted/liked.

 

[rwesafe]

Thanks Mt3K - see this is the problem I have - if this painting was ordered,(internet maybe?), then who can say for sure that it was Nancy who ordered it ? Nancy's not here to answer that question, all we have is Brad's say so. Brad says Nancy always ran with two sports bras too, but only one was reported as being on her body prior to the autopsy. Brad is not so believable.

The JWB affidavit, and Dr. Hilkey saying it was consistent with his findings is huge - long time problem. Thanks

Apparently it was obvious that NC had ordered/purchased it, otherwise it would not make sense that Sandlin had Mr. R read it to the court.

Brad did not say "always"...

 

[raisincharlie]

Only as a rebuttal witness. He was there the entire time sitting behind us in case he was needed.

This is IMO, exactly why Brad did not take the stand. He and his lawyers knew very well from the affidavit alone that Detective Daniels filed, that the Detective was prepared to point out the inconsistencies between Brad's interviews with LE and what he chose to tell Ms. Stubbs. It also explains why MH didn't repeat his accusation about LE attempting to coerce him when he was on the stand.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

No, BC controlled a passport so that NC couldn't leave the country with his kids. I'd have done the same darn thing. She could have left if she want, she just couldn't have taken his kids to another country. That isn't controlling and it is rational in my opinion. If she had gone to Canada, it's possible he would have never seen them again.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

It's pretty pathetic that a parent had to give money to a couple that had taxable income last year of $170k.