State v Bradley Cooper 04/04/11

[Cheyenne130]

Yes of course Cheyenne..They are attracted to all soft tissue and fluids..including blood or sites traumatized that enable the BREAK of integrety of skin or tissue.. Its not just the fluids..but the composition of those fluids..as we all know it does not take long for decomp to start and Blow flys will NOT enter or lay egss in LIVING tissues..:seeya:

It was just something that came to mind because the defense seemed to want to "infer" that there was some major trauma to the back of her head and I'm pretty sure there was nothing about that in the autopsy.

 

[LyndyLoo]

The problem I see here is PROOF...so far in this trial I haven't seen any that indicates WHO Nancy's killer was.. ?,,,I'm talking about EVIDENCE....not gossip and circumstance, Brad very well could have, But I haven't seen any REAL evidence to indicate he did it. ?
Maybe I am nieve or not as good a sluther as you guys, but at this point I really need some solid evidence.Also how do you explain all the in-approiate actions by the Cary P.D. ?,If he did do it...they arent helping by destroying evidence(NC's,BB), and fabricating the straw on the rug?...I am not taking sides,and am truly in the middle,as if I am a juror who has no prior knowledge of the case( WHICH IS THE TRUTH) vaguely remember reading it when it first happened back in 2008

I think it comes down what YOU think is proof..IF you need to have a video of him doing the deed, or a visual by someone who saw him dumping the body..then circumstantial evidence means nothing to you or is difficult for you to digest.....There is plenty of Circumstantial evidence pointing directly at Brad, and NONE that point to a stranger..who would have no motive..So it all comes down to what would move you to see things in a "Common Sensical Manner"...

 

[DogWood]

Again, I haven't watched Krista's testimony today...but someone on here mentioned there was a gift from her parents of $24,000. When was that?

Didn't Kurtz say something in opening about $24,000? She spent that exact amount? And he made it seem like she was outspending Brad's salary?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Again, I haven't watched Krista's testimony today...but someone on here mentioned there was a gift from her parents of $24,000. When was that?

Didn't Kurtz say something in opening about $24,000? She spent that exact amount? And he made it seem like she was outspending Brad's salary?

The Rentz' gifted each of their 4 children $24,000. Nancy got 'permission' from Brad to use the remaining funds from that $24K gift to make payments to get the bear painting, after using the funds to pay off debts. The bear painting was not paid for by BRAD. Further, both of them (NC and BC) wanted that painting because they loved a similar one the Rentz' had at their house. Funds to purchase the painting came out of the $24K gift from Donna & Gary Rentz. That was the testimony.

 

[lib's mom]

I'm so tired of all the talk of Nancy and her spending.....it frankly makes me sick as if the defense is saying she was a spoiled diva! I don't even care if she did spend a lot of money....does that makes if understandable for Brad to kill her then???? He cut her off of their accounts and dished out money to her.....in a foreign country....when she could not get a job...but people want to slam her cuz she wanted a manicure!!!!! Women should be furious for Nancy as a woman being treated like this.... It is just BS to me, they both spent money! And the only money that has anything to do with Nancy's murder is the alimony and child support Brad was going to have to pay. All the other money talk is only to degrade the victim JMO

I am tired of it, too. I'm so very sick of the word "allowance" I could scream! The very word implies (by design, I'm sure) that is was Nancy, and Nancy alone, who was a problem. Spoiled, lazy, irresponsible Nancy! Brad had to reign her in! He was just being a good, responsible husband and father, trying to plan for his family's future! BULL*****! When did he begin this "allowance" system? In Feburary. When did Nancy tell him she was done? In Feburary. Suddenly her name was off the accounts, her cards were cancelled and she was on an "allowance." This wasn't an attempt to control expenses, it was an attempt to control Nancy. I imagine he had lots of fun playing with her mind over when she would and would not get her allowance.

I've also grown exceedingly tired of the word "indulge" due to Brad's use of it in his deposition. Nancy made "requests" and he always tried to "indulge" her. Again, it makes Nancy sound like a spoiled child, stomping her feet and holding her breath until Brad, God bless him, indulged her once again.

 

[Tipstaff]

I remember during the Scott Peterson trial feeling like the defense just tore the prosecution apart during the states presentation. Then the defense put on their case and the prosecution ripped them apart. It seems that people are more impressed with the minutea that diminishes a point than they are with everything else that makes the point legitimate.

I am personally looking forward to the prosecution finishing with the strongest of their evidence and then on to the defense presentation.

In the David Westerfield trial his supporters put the mother of the murdered child on trial in the court of public opinion. It was horrible to watch.

 

[LyndyLoo]

It was just something that came to mind because the defense seemed to want to "infer" that there was some major trauma to the back of her head and I'm pretty sure there was nothing about that in the autopsy.

That area in the back of her head that seemed to have some colonization of activity could have been caused as you said..pulling of hair to disurb the roots on her head..or could be when she got dropped there something hit her head to cause a break in her skull tissues back there...Obviously it wasnt a huge trauma, like a tire iron..or the like...Suffice to say..enough disturbance for collonization ..Best I can say about that :twocents:

 

[WilkesNC]

If a man kills his wife in his own house and then disposes of her body and cleans, cleans, cleans afterwards, what EVIDENCE do you expect them to find? (Serious question.)

I expect to find a really clean house....so far all the evidence has been to the contrary.... a very messy house ?......please,I am not argumentative...just stating what i have heard in testimony...not taking any sides at this point

 

[sunshine05]

If Nancy was going to JA's house she would have driven her car.

If Nancy was meeting up with ANYONE she would have driven her car.

That is not evidence that someone else killed her. Why take all her clothes except the sports bra? Why leave the earrings? Why roll the sports bra under? Why dump her body so close to her house? Why not take the time to dump the body away from everyday traffic and people?

Those are a few of the many questions I have for the SODDI theories.

I would like to tell you exactly what I think happened but it involves JA and I think moderators here have made it clear we are not allowed to talk about witnesses so I guess we are just going to have to believe things will come out in testimony. I am surprised that more people haven't seen the huge gaping holes in her story by now. I just need to keep this to myself although I really wish I had someone to discuss it with.

 

[DogWood]

The Rentz' gifted each of their 4 children $24,000. Nancy got 'permission' from Brad to use the remaining funds from that $24K gift to make payments to get the bear painting, after using the funds to pay off debts. The bear painting was not paid for by BRAD. It came out of the $24K gift from Donna & Gary Rentz.

Thanks!

Didn't Kurtz say in opening that she spent that much in one year? The exact amount? I thought he was trying to infer that came out of Brad's salary and come to find out it was a gift from her parents.

 

[SleuthyGal]

The gift was either in 2006 or 2007.

 

[wuffin]

I think the difference between many of us (generally speaking, of course) is those posters that KNOW Brad committed the crime, have in some way, shape, or form, identifies with Nancy. Doesn't matter if they knew her or could relate to Nancy's problems - they have a common bond.

Those of us that did not know her, or could emotionally relate to her specific situation, need further actual proof - the ah ha moment - that Brad committed the crime.

Remember, we have not heard his side of the trial yet.

I just think it's easier for us to NEED proof. I'm willing to bet that many believe he did, but there's a difference in "thinking" and "proving".

I meant no offense to the previous poster that may have thought I was being disrespectful to Nancy. I'm sorry.

 

[less0305]

I'm so tired of all the talk of Nancy and her spending.....it frankly makes me sick as if the defense is saying she was a spoiled diva! I don't even care if she did spend a lot of money....does that makes if understandable for Brad to kill her then???? He cut her off of their accounts and dished out money to her.....in a foreign country....when she could not get a job...but people want to slam her cuz she wanted a manicure!!!!! Women should be furious for Nancy as a woman being treated like this.... It is just BS to me, they both spent money! And the only money that has anything to do with Nancy's murder is the alimony and child support Brad was going to have to pay. All the other money talk is only to degrade the victim JMO

Thank you. I'm sick of hearing the victim in this case degraded and slammed and demeaned. I thought Websleuths was all about protecting the victim and that victim bashing wasn't allowed. But it's rampant in this thread.

 

[Lori59]

In the David Westerfield trial his supporters put the mother of the murdered child on trial in the court of public opinion. It was horrible to watch.

That was horrible to watch. Their marriage didn't survive either. I don't know how Nancy's family sits there and listens to some of this trial. I wonder if I could behave........

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks!

Didn't Kurtz say in opening that she spent that much in one year? The exact amount? I thought he was trying to infer that came out of Brad's salary and come to find out it was a gift from her parents.

He did say that. Specifically $24K on her American Express card in one year.

 

[sunshine05]

Didn't CC testify that Nancy told her on Friday she had plans to paint on Saturday?

There are holes in her story too. I know you guys don't want to hear this, I'm sorry. She did not report her knowledge of NC's plans to paint with JA until August. She was questioned by police the day NC went missing and said not a word about those plans. I'm sorry. There are more holes in JA's story than BC's and that is why I have HUGE doubt about the state's case.

Now will come posts about how CC forgot and then later remembered,etc. I don't buy it!

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am tired of it, too. I'm so very sick of the word "allowance" I could scream! The very word implies (by design, I'm sure) that is was Nancy, and Nancy alone, who was a problem. Spoiled, lazy, irresponsible Nancy! Brad had to reign her in! He was just being a good, responsible husband and father, trying to plan for his family's future! BULL*****! When did he begin this "allowance" system? In Feburary. When did Nancy tell him she was done? In Feburary. Suddenly her name was off the accounts, her cards were cancelled and she was on an "allowance." This wasn't an attempt to control expenses, it was an attempt to control Nancy. I imagine he had lots of fun playing with her mind over when she would and would not get her allowance.

I've also grown exceedingly tired of the word "indulge" due to Brad's use of it in his deposition. Nancy made "requests" and he always tried to "indulge" her. Again, it makes Nancy sound like a spoiled child, stomping her feet and holding her breath until Brad, God bless him, indulged her once again.

Coincidentally, although they were married for over 7 years, he didn't feel the need to reign her in until after his affair was known and she wanted a divorce, five months before she was murdered.

 

[WilkesNC]

I think it comes down what YOU think is proof..IF you need to have a video of him doing the deed, or a visual by someone who saw him dumping the body..then circumstantial evidence means nothing to you or is difficult for you to digest.....There is plenty of Circumstantial evidence pointing directly at Brad, and NONE that point to a stranger..who would have no motive..So it all comes down to what would move you to see things in a "Common Sensical Manner"...

First off let me say I am absoutley OFFENDED by your suggestion that I have no " COMMON SENSE"....If you were ever the innocent victim of circumstance , you would never make such an assumption..I am done here...will continue to lurk, or just drop this site completely

 

[LyndyLoo]

Thanks!

Didn't Kurtz say in opening that she spent that much in one year? The exact amount? I thought he was trying to infer that came out of Brad's salary and come to find out it was a gift from her parents.

YES indeed..and it appears that the bulk of it went to THEIR DEBT not just for Nancy's selfish spendings...Brad should have been grateful for the reprieve of some debt load..but appears not :loser:

 

[lib's mom]

Was there other jewelry of Nancy's found in that same drawer?:waitasec:

I remember her pearl necklace, a necklace with a butterfly on it, her necklace with the diamond pendant, a ring with a heart on it and her "flat" ring with the diamonds and sapphires.