State vs Bradley Cooper 4-21-11

[WolfpackWoman]

Are you referring to him not telling the girls their mom was dead? If so, I find it a bit odd too. But he's odd. He doesn't appear to have a lot of social skills and I would think this conversation would be one of the most heartbreaking, unpleasant tasks a parent could ever have. Maybe he just couldn't do it?

I'd like to clear this up from the Rentz's testimony and Carrie's together. I gathered from the two that Brad attempted to talk to Bella, but she did not want to listen. The Rentz's needed to leave for the memorial, and Bella did not want to hear the "story" anymore. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this after the Rentz's had filed for emergency custody, so Brad didn't have the girls anymore? Or was it before? I can't keep the days straight. I believe he tried to tell them, but it wasn't allowed to be in his home, and the girls didn't want to listen in a public place, and it was probably heart-wrenching on the entire family.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Those who don't think Brad did it. Who else had all three.....means, motive and opportunity? And be real here.

We aren't allowed to name those people here but I can reasonably say at least 3 possibly 4. The 4th I don't know their whereabouts on Sat morning so can't pin down opportunity yet.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

We aren't allowed to name those people here but I can reasonably say at least 3 possibly . The 4th I don't know their whereabouts on Sat morning so can't pin down opportunity yet.

To add to this-- motive, means, and opportunity aren't the elements of murder, so I don't know why they keep getting repeated. Random killings don't have to have motive. And there are plenty of people who knew both NC and BC who did (despite not being required) have all three.

 

[cityslick]

I agree with this 1000%.

Actually, we do have testimony that she didn't think much of his father skills because she told AS as such in an email to her (he's trying to be 'father of the year').

I agree if he's guilty of murder he didn't care anything for those kids to take their mother away from them.

 

[less0305]

I feel compelled to jump back into the discussion here....

The state is asking these 12 men and women to put BC in jail for the rest of his natural life. They must weigh all the facts put before them in the same light, regardless of their emotions. I think a lot of the posters here are trying to do that as well, to put themselves in the shoes of the jury. That means looking at all the evidence as it is presented with an open mind and without emotion. And that might include working with facts that are not so favorable to NC, the victim. It is simply a part of the evidence. It does not have any less weight because some feel offended by it.

I find it appalling that there are others that based on the weight of their emotions deem it acceptable to be insulting to those who would like to view the case in it's entirety before making a decision as to his guilt or innocence. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I would think that civility would call for you to think before you type. And for those of you wondering what the Innocence Project is doing in court, they are there in essence to ensure that this case is handled as it should be without the influence of any sort of BDI biases and persuasions.

I think it's more that a lot of people here have literally put their heart and soul into this case for over 3 years. They have poured over documents, affidavits, news accounts, depositions, and feel very strongly that most of the facts have been out there for quite some time. Granted something *new* might come to light in the trial. The google map search was *new*, but many had already guessed based on previous homicide cases that something of an incriminating nature would be found on a computer. Those darn computers tend to trip up a lot of people. But unless there's a Perry Mason moment when some other witness stands up and says, "Okay. You got me. I did it!!!" I don't think there's much else that's going to come out. We all know that the first defense is the "cops bungled the case" defense. Okay... like we haven't heard that one a million times before. And the defense will do their utmost best to try to paint the police as bungling, inept, corrupt. It is their only defense. Half-hearted witnesses who proclaim BC a "good dad" - okay, that's what they saw back in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Seems as though most of those witnesses don't have much to offer in 2008 when Brad got the unpleasant news that his pockets were about to be empty for a very long time. The budget wasn't going to be working once NC left and he had no more control and had to hand that control over to the State of N.C. through the court system as to just how much he would be demanded to pay.

So those very passionate people here that have been here a long time have a hard time putting the forest aside to entertain looking at one leaf of one tree and proclaiming that it could mean this and it could mean that, just because someone came here in the last few days and is fueled by curiosity over what they've read on Twitter or GOLO. It's tantalizing to want to go through all the mud and muck of Nancy and Brad's life if you're new to the case. I can accept that. There was enough mud on both sides.

I will do my utmost best to bypass those posters whom I disagree with and give them ample opportunity to say and post what they want to post here. I would ask for the same respect when I post my thoughts. My thought = Guilty! I mean the burn-in-he11-you-rotten-sob-kind-of-guilty.

 

[jrb0124]

There's some misogynistic blood-thirsty folks out there that behaved really bad. Unfortunately those seem to be the same people grasping at conspiracy theories and taking tiny bits of CE individually, in a vacuum. It's almost like this has polarized people into those who believe in order and LE and statistics and people's good nature, versus those who have a grimmer view of society, where everyone lies, LE is corrupt, and justice isn't possible. That's why it's so emotional I reckon.

You may not have noticed, that some of the folks who are not dismissing other theories out of hand (that you describe as "misogynistic") are women. Quite a few in fact, so you may want to rethink your thesis.

Additionally you see the field as:

"those who believe in order and LE and statistics and people's good nature versus those who have a grimmer view of society, where everyone lies, LE is corrupt, and justice isn't possible."

This is a very skewed way of looking at things and I will bet there is no one on here who truly has all the traits you listed for a group to the exclusion of any in the other.

Personally, in a court of Law, I would value Justice over "order and LE", Facts and Evidence over "statistics", people's real intentions over "people's good nature".

 

[Bottle Cap]

Still watching testimony from yesterday and two things struck me. One is, there doesn't seem to be one single defense witness who was capable of making the decision to call the police on their own. They seem to, every one of 'em, have had to consult with a husband or wife or somebody else. If I see something relevant to a missing person case or murder, I don't have to run it by somebody. Not sure why this makes me uncomfortable, but it does. Like, they weren't really convinced it was relevant until someone else convinced them.

Something else is standing out. Brad couldn't make phone calls to his in-laws or talk to his parents or go to the memorials. But what he could do is communicate just fine with people who he thought could benefit him. The old friend who provided an affidavit. The psychologist friend, the babysitter, all people who testified for him. To whoever said he was calculating, that's what that looks like to me.

 

[RaleighNative]

Anyone know about the rumor that NC slept with her sister's husband? Lots of people around here state it as fact, but I have no idea where that story orignated or if it is valid.

Just curious, because people keep talking about this locally.

 

[sunshine05]

Morals...........Respect............Free speech. How far does someone go to defend BC?
What is off limits.........or does anything go? It is a new low in our community.

Personally, I don't think BC killed his wife. I started to believe he did at one point, based on the google search but now that computer tampering has been shown, I'm back to "not guilty". That is my opinion. I'm allowed to have my own opinion, otherwise, how is this forum any different than the bullying that went on with JA coercing everyone to write negative affidavits. I don't need to be in the BDI "clique".

 

[Bottle Cap]

You may not have noticed, that some of the folks who are not dismissing other theories out of hand (that you describe as "misogynistic") are women. Quite a few in fact, so you may want to rethink your thesis.

Additionally you see the field as:

"those who believe in order and LE and statistics and people's good nature versus those who have a grimmer view of society, where everyone lies, LE is corrupt, and justice isn't possible."

This is a very skewed way of looking at things and I will bet there is no one on here who truly has all the traits you listed for a group to the exclusion of any in the other.

Personally, in a court of Law, I would value Justice over "order and LE", Facts and Evidence over "statistics", people's real intentions over "people's good nature".

I didn't mean here so much as I meant that other unnamed place thats affiliated with a local tv station. Thats why I'm here, couldn't take it over there. But I don't think it's impossible for women to be misogynistic in their vocal opinions of the women in Nancy's neighborhood.

 

[jrb0124]

I feel compelled to jump back into the discussion here....

The state is asking these 12 men and women to put BC in jail for the rest of his natural life. They must weigh all the facts put before them in the same light, regardless of their emotions. I think a lot of the posters here are trying to do that as well, to put themselves in the shoes of the jury. That means looking at all the evidence as it is presented with an open mind and without emotion. And that might include working with facts that are not so favorable to NC, the victim. It is simply a part of the evidence. It does not have any less weight because some feel offended by it.

I find it appalling that there are others that based on the weight of their emotions deem it acceptable to be insulting to those who would like to view the case in it's entirety before making a decision as to his guilt or innocence. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I would think that civility would call for you to think before you type. And for those of you wondering what the Innocence Project is doing in court, they are there in essence to ensure that this case is handled as it should be without the influence of any sort of BDI biases and persuasions.

Bravo.

 

[cityslick]

I think it's more that a lot of people here have literally put their heart and soul into this case for over 3 years. They have poured over documents, affidavits, news accounts, depositions, and feel very strongly that most of the facts have been out there for quite some time. Granted something *new* might come to light in the trial. The google map search was *new*, but many had already guessed based on previous homicide cases that something of an incriminating nature would be found on a computer. Those darn computers tend to trip up a lot of people. But unless there's a Perry Mason moment when some other witness stands up and says, "Okay. You got me. I did it!!!" I don't think there's much else that's going to come out. We all know that the first defense is the "cops bungled the case" defense. Okay... like we haven't heard that one a million times before. And the defense will do their utmost best to try to paint the police as bungling, inept, corrupt. It is their only defense. Half-hearted witnesses who proclaim BC a "good dad" - okay, that's what they saw back in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Seems as though most of those witnesses don't have much to offer in 2008 when Brad got the unpleasant news that his pockets were about to be empty for a very long time. The budget wasn't going to be working once NC left and he had no more control and had to hand that control over to the State of N.C. through the court system as to just how much he would be demanded to pay.

So those very passionate people here that have been here a long time have a hard time putting the forest aside to entertain looking at one leaf of one tree and proclaiming that it could mean this and it could mean that, just because someone came here in the last few days and is fueled by curiosity over what they've read on Twitter or GOLO. It's tantalizing to want to go through all the mud and muck of Nancy and Brad's life if you're new to the case. I can accept that. There was enough mud on both sides.

I will do my utmost best to bypass those posters whom I disagree with and give them ample opportunity to say and post what they want to post here. I would ask for the same respect when I post my thoughts. My thought = Guilty! I mean the burn-in-he11-you-rotten-sob-kind-of-guilty.

My only comment to this is just because someone hasn't been posting on this forum for the past 3 years doesn't mean they haven't been following the case closely. For example, I didn't even know this site existed until last month. But I've read the affidavits/watched the deposition as it they were published.

I believe he's guilty too, but I believe in the truth as well and I understand that sometimes the truth may not coincide with what I believe in initially.

 

[cody100]

I'd like to clear this up from the Rentz's testimony and Carrie's together. I gathered from the two that Brad attempted to talk to Bella, but she did not want to listen. The Rentz's needed to leave for the memorial, and Bella did not want to hear the "story" anymore. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this after the Rentz's had filed for emergency custody, so Brad didn't have the girls anymore? Or was it before? I can't keep the days straight. I believe he tried to tell them, but it wasn't allowed to be in his home, and the girls didn't want to listen in a public place, and it was probably heart-wrenching on the entire family.

He asked for advice on how to tell them, he made good attempt at doing so but it wasn't working so well. Perhaps he was emotional himself. In any case, he made an attempt to tell his daughters about their mom. Mr. Rentz said so. SOmetimes it is easier for someone like Mr. Rentz to finish the job. No doubt it was heart-wrenching for the entire family.

 

[RaleighNative]

I didn't mean here so much as I meant that other unnamed place thats affiliated with a local tv station. Thats why I'm here, couldn't take it over there. But I don't think it's impossible for women to be misogynistic in their vocal opinions of the women in Nancy's neighborhood.

Oh yes, that unnamed place has many disburbing comments, which lead me to this forum as well! But that place is also FULL of trolls, and it's really not reflective of the people here. There IS hope for society!:great:

 

[ncsu95]

In court they showed through the AT&T witness every call made by Nancy on 7/11/08, which tower it pinged off of, and the who she called.

And didn't it show it pinging off all 3 of the towers, basically at random?

 

[ncsu95]

The horrible comment sections of articles, the inflammatory and non factual statements as truth.....that is why I am here. I am a member of a nearby community, have lived here all my life, avidly read the papers daily, and have NEVER seen this in my life. What's happening? So strange. I reviewed this forum from the beginning, and when I started to see the same thing going on, I had to do what I don't do.....join a Social Media site.

Questioning the victims behavior in the years leading up to the murder is not bashing the victim. Especially not when the defendant is her husband, and most of the "evidence" against him dealt with his behavior in the years leading up to the murder. As I've said before, I believe his behavior fueled her actions, and her behavior fueled his actions (I am not including the murder in that statement....I'm talking about actions within the marriage). You can't simply ignore her actions because she was murdered. That doesn't place the blame of the murder on her. There is nothing that she did or could have done to deserve being strangled and dumped half naked in a drainage ditch like a piece of garbage. But her actions play an important role in this trial.

 

[ncsu95]

BC is not dead here. NC has no life on earth. Facts are facts.....innuendo, inflammatory remarks, restating details of her naked body on the couch......please. that doesn't get to anything, but someone's titillation.

It has as much relevance to the murder as BCs naked body in a closet with HM.

 

[WolfpackWoman]

Questioning the victims behavior in the years leading up to the murder is not bashing the victim. Especially not when the defendant is her husband, and most of the "evidence" against him dealt with his behavior in the years leading up to the murder. As I've said before, I believe his behavior fueled her actions, and her behavior fueled his actions (I am not including the murder in that statement....I'm talking about actions within the marriage). You can't simply ignore her actions because she was murdered. That doesn't place the blame of the murder on her. There is nothing that she did or could have done to deserve being strangled and dumped half naked in a drainage ditch like a piece of garbage. But her actions play an important role in this trial.

I'd like to take this one step further. I don't think I have seen anyone on this forum state that Nancy deserved death. And I am appalled if I read that in other places. But, I do think, since her statements are being used in a murder trial, that the veracity of those statements should be evaluated. It is not bashing the victim to gauge her statements for truth, that is actually following the court's instructions. I do believe she had a tendency to exaggerate. I don't think stating that is bashing her. We shouldn't be able to put away someone for life because his deceased wife stated "he gave me no money" if that is in fact not true.

I in no way feel Nancy is responsible for her death, whether it is husband, friend, former lover, or random killing.

 

[less0305]

Still watching testimony from yesterday and two things struck me. One is, there doesn't seem to be one single defense witness who was capable of making the decision to call the police on their own. They seem to, every one of 'em, have had to consult with a husband or wife or somebody else. If I see something relevant to a missing person case or murder, I don't have to run it by somebody. Not sure why this makes me uncomfortable, but it does. Like, they weren't really convinced it was relevant until someone else convinced them.

Something else is standing out. Brad couldn't make phone calls to his in-laws or talk to his parents or go to the memorials. But what he could do is communicate just fine with people who he thought could benefit him. The old friend who provided an affidavit. The psychologist friend, the babysitter, all people who testified for him. To whoever said he was calculating, that's what that looks like to me.

Your first paragraph is striking to me - because you are right, they had to have someone else tell them "call the police." I also think those same husbands/wives/coworkers fueled them with "have you talked to the police" "what did the police say" "did you meet with the police," and this fueled the attitude that they were being neglected by the police. It wasn't juicy enough to go back and say, "yes, I called and gave them my information." We all know how people want to *know* someone who has inside knowledge, has an edge to the story, is in-the-know. So I think the witnesses who are testifying that the police never contacted them were egged on by other friends who couldn't understand why their wife/husband/coworker didn't come back with the top-secret info that nobody else had.

And to the Food Lion gentleman - if he was so curious about a van of Hispanics turning around on a female jogger, why didn't he turn around and attempt to find out if she was okay. Nah, he just went on to work - until someone else told him he probably should contact the police.

 

[ncsu95]

Motive, means and opportunity......no one else had all three. He was the last reported to have seem NC by his own words. He could never clear himself. His deed, his results.

That's not necessarily true. If someone other than Brad did it, you have no idea what there motive is, or what opportunity or means they had to accomplish it. If she left that house to go jogging, Brad no longer had the means and opportunity to do it. Random murders do happen. Crazy people do kidnap and kill other people. (and I'm not saying he didn't do it)