The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here
- Thread starter Salem
- Start date
- Status
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
As I recall, you didn't do your duck bit until the day they were brought up in court.
Do you really think they only brought the ducks up to counter evidence of a struggle in the foyer in response to YOUR posts? LOL
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
Someone being framed is "weak"? I hope it never happens to you.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
Yes I did watch that. I've seen variations of that method of demonstrating to the jury just how long it take's to kill someone by strangling them. Anyone who thinks a female the size of JA or HM could possibly strangle a female with the strength, tenacity, fight for life of nancy cooper, is sadly mistaken. Three to four solid minutes is a long LONG time. Strangulation murders are up front and personal, and take enormous strength and endurance to accomplish. Especially ones that don't involve a ligature of some sort. Bare-handed strangulations involve 'iron men' with very large, very strong hands IMO.
Cheyenne130
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,823
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't see it as a sudden attack. I think people have been critical of Kurtz throughout the entire trial. I have seen multiple comments beginning 2 months ago that indicated people felt he was out of his league and in over his head. MOO
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
I haven't read any posts I thought sounded as if anyone felt 'threatened' by Kurtz' interview? Perhaps you could direct me to some? The people I see still arguing this case are the BII posters. I know I don't feel the least *threatened* by Kurtz. I said it while the trial was ongoing and I repeated it somewhere in this thread. I think Kurtz came across as an amature when it comes to arguing a first degree murder case. And no, I'd never hire him to be my attorney. As someone else said 'Trenkle perhaps, Kurtz, nope.'
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
Interesting, because I only recall reading criticism of the state's case, their inappropriate character attacks, trying to trip-up witnesses, lying, yelling and swearing for "effect" and manipulating the judge.
WoW, some defensive postering in this post. Do you know these folks who are outraged as you say? If not, what basis do you make such comments? I would love to hear if you sampled the teeth, the credentials , and their educational level to make such comments? If so, please share with us. Don't know that I am outraged, I do know some law, have multiple degrees, and I got all of my "teethies." But I sure would have liked to hear the rest of the defense rebuttal to the computer evidence. Would I be one of these outraged folks about whom you speak so fondly?
fran
Former Member
I read an article recently that said that this area had had X number of homicides in 30 years or so, and had a 100% conviction rate.
Does anyone know how many of these convictions have been overturned?
I understand Scott Peterson is still working on his appeal. IIRC, he was convicted in 2005. Six years since the trial and they're still using the assertion of "He was set up my LE."
I see that other case linked here in Raliegh, the computer expert who a Google search was also used against him, is also claiming he was framed.
Then there's the case I watched last night on Dateline. The Windmer case out of Cincinatti, I think it was. He was found guilty but the verdict was over-turned by a judge when jury misconduct was brought to light after the trial. (it really was true, jury misconduct!). The second trial was a hung jury, but it was like 7-1, so the DA refiled. He was convicted. Of course now he's appealing on LE planting evidence.
Now Kurtz is saying 'planted evidence' by LE!:banghead:
Really? These detectives have given their all to the citizens of that county, and they are perfectly willing to throw it all away, because of ONE case. Their career, their life, their family, their reputation, not to mention they could go to jail for it. For what? Because BC KNOWS he's smarter than them and if he can't win on the evidence because he's SURE he covered his tracts, then he'll accuse LE of planting it.
Right! NOT!
Now, how many of the murder convictions have been overturned?
just wonderin'
fran
PS...LOL, imagine that? That old sneaky judge. EMBELLISHING on his computer knowledge! And all the time the def thought by talking circles around the computer info, the judge would be just toooooo confused. :floorlaugh:
Does anyone know how many of these convictions have been overturned?
I understand Scott Peterson is still working on his appeal. IIRC, he was convicted in 2005. Six years since the trial and they're still using the assertion of "He was set up my LE."
I see that other case linked here in Raliegh, the computer expert who a Google search was also used against him, is also claiming he was framed.
Then there's the case I watched last night on Dateline. The Windmer case out of Cincinatti, I think it was. He was found guilty but the verdict was over-turned by a judge when jury misconduct was brought to light after the trial. (it really was true, jury misconduct!). The second trial was a hung jury, but it was like 7-1, so the DA refiled. He was convicted. Of course now he's appealing on LE planting evidence.
Now Kurtz is saying 'planted evidence' by LE!:banghead:
Really? These detectives have given their all to the citizens of that county, and they are perfectly willing to throw it all away, because of ONE case. Their career, their life, their family, their reputation, not to mention they could go to jail for it. For what? Because BC KNOWS he's smarter than them and if he can't win on the evidence because he's SURE he covered his tracts, then he'll accuse LE of planting it.
Right! NOT!
Now, how many of the murder convictions have been overturned?
just wonderin'
fran
PS...LOL, imagine that? That old sneaky judge. EMBELLISHING on his computer knowledge! And all the time the def thought by talking circles around the computer info, the judge would be just toooooo confused. :floorlaugh:
Before I move over to the other forums, I will admit that I believe there is more to the computer data now.
Did anyone notice a few of the witnesses not called til the rebuttal (possibly to limit their testimony) were very high up in various local tech companies?
It fit my original theory.
LAWsy_ME
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 238
- Reaction score
- 0
look back , starting with physiology of hyoid bone fracture. in their I asked if anyone had seen the ducks or sticks. 2- 3 days earlier.....based on results...all I'm saying. there I suggested use of the ducks as a weapon.....turns out the only "sitting duck" there involved in the slaying.......well you know...Nancy was strangled, and she's buried. that was that! end of her life.
Bottle Cap
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 554
- Reaction score
- 0
UNC70 - Thanks for the long and well thought out response, not going to quote you because of length.
I'm aware that psychopathy isn't a diagnosis in and of itself. Anti-social personality disorder would be a formal diagnosis instead, in place of that. It doesn't matter what you call it, however, the traits are there. It's not so uncommon a disorder, it's just that most people that are personality-disordered in such a way do not usually kill people. Usually the people who live with or are otherwise entangled with these individuals just make themselves scarce as soon as they can.
Inability to form close relationships - straight out of the list of traits, and it's evident in BC. Inability to maintain relationships - where are the people from BC's life to testify to the fact that he's an all-around good guy? Most of the testimony indicated that nobody really knew the real BC. Impulsiveness, irresponsibility - the finances in that household might be a decent indication of such, considering he was the sole breadwinner. Having sex in his bedroom closet, spending one weekend with someone and beginning to make plans to have her move to him or him to her. (I realize people will point to NC's discretions, but NC is the dead one remember.)
Problems with emotional perception - his demeanor through NC's disappearance, murder and the trial speak to this, as does the general tendancy towards lack of empathy and callousness. For these I'd point out to his handling of the finances again - taking NC's name off the accounts without discussion, lying to her for a solid year about an affair he knew she knew about, boxing her in when she was clearly unhappy, for reasons that had nothing to do with anything but his own material concerns.
Egocentric, with a cold demeanor - these are also abundantly evident. The long hours at work without regard to two small children at home, combined with the whole adventuresofbrad nonsense, easy to see. Ditto the cold demeanor part, evident. Distorted sense of the consequences of their actions - they do not believe they will be caught and do not feel remorse. BC has shown no indication that the death of someone he lived with and fathered two children with even registered in his consciousness. They do not change their behaviors upon getting caught, either - the Mike and Drew Petersons will merrily continue to kill wives, which is why its important to get them locked up.
Superficial charm - nobody really knew him beyond a superficial level, but a couple of men testified that he was okay, they never saw him angry or upset. Incapacity for love - he was a bystander in his own family life until the last 3 months of NC's life. Lack of affect - that's beating a dead horse, nobody can argue that. Suicide threats rarely carried out - wasn't there something from his teen years? Grandiose sense of self-worth - this is glaring, if you used one posters link on the Wayback Machine and read even a shred of adventuresofbrad. The previous girlfriend's comments on his personality are about the only real insight into the true BC that anyone has been able to provide.
And I agree with you that some father's rights groups or at least people from them have been vocal on GOLO. If you know anything about them, you will know that they have an enormous contempt for the whole concept of domestic abuse and violence, believing instead that it is a racket designed to strip poor old dads from their children and assets - that women are more frequently the abusers and liars. So it is easy for me to see why NC has come under such fire, even dead.
IMO, the Rentz's have got it just right. A critical aspect of domestic abuse and domestic violence is that it crosses any and all socioeconomic strata. It isn't always easily pinpointed from the outside looking in or indeed, even from the inside looking in. The vocal anti-DV folks use the same tactics that abusers use. The same tactics that the defense has used for BC. Which is, to simplify it, remove any and all accountability from the abuser and place it all on others. The victim is first and foremost in this scenario, but if that one doesn't work, anyone else is fair game.
Also IMO, Kurtz has played to the lowest common denominator, the GOLO posters, who are consumed with conspiracy and on a mission to blame a dead woman for her own death. That it backfired on him is a credit to the jury. I said all along, I thought the prosecution did a great job at addressing conspiracy theories in an indirect manner that apparently was not lost on the jury - soliciting detailed testimony from MH about what he posted here; bringing up JW's Facebook page with its Illuminati references.
I hope BC gets his appeal and there is another trial. I hope his defense and other supporters are forced to delve into alternate scenarios and have to actually make some of them work, rather than just blah blah blah-ing on about how JA did it, JP did it, everybody else did it. I hope there is a general hue and outcry over an unfair trial that results in an appeal and new trial, with a verdict that people will have to accept - that BC killed his wife.
I'm aware that psychopathy isn't a diagnosis in and of itself. Anti-social personality disorder would be a formal diagnosis instead, in place of that. It doesn't matter what you call it, however, the traits are there. It's not so uncommon a disorder, it's just that most people that are personality-disordered in such a way do not usually kill people. Usually the people who live with or are otherwise entangled with these individuals just make themselves scarce as soon as they can.
Inability to form close relationships - straight out of the list of traits, and it's evident in BC. Inability to maintain relationships - where are the people from BC's life to testify to the fact that he's an all-around good guy? Most of the testimony indicated that nobody really knew the real BC. Impulsiveness, irresponsibility - the finances in that household might be a decent indication of such, considering he was the sole breadwinner. Having sex in his bedroom closet, spending one weekend with someone and beginning to make plans to have her move to him or him to her. (I realize people will point to NC's discretions, but NC is the dead one remember.)
Problems with emotional perception - his demeanor through NC's disappearance, murder and the trial speak to this, as does the general tendancy towards lack of empathy and callousness. For these I'd point out to his handling of the finances again - taking NC's name off the accounts without discussion, lying to her for a solid year about an affair he knew she knew about, boxing her in when she was clearly unhappy, for reasons that had nothing to do with anything but his own material concerns.
Egocentric, with a cold demeanor - these are also abundantly evident. The long hours at work without regard to two small children at home, combined with the whole adventuresofbrad nonsense, easy to see. Ditto the cold demeanor part, evident. Distorted sense of the consequences of their actions - they do not believe they will be caught and do not feel remorse. BC has shown no indication that the death of someone he lived with and fathered two children with even registered in his consciousness. They do not change their behaviors upon getting caught, either - the Mike and Drew Petersons will merrily continue to kill wives, which is why its important to get them locked up.
Superficial charm - nobody really knew him beyond a superficial level, but a couple of men testified that he was okay, they never saw him angry or upset. Incapacity for love - he was a bystander in his own family life until the last 3 months of NC's life. Lack of affect - that's beating a dead horse, nobody can argue that. Suicide threats rarely carried out - wasn't there something from his teen years? Grandiose sense of self-worth - this is glaring, if you used one posters link on the Wayback Machine and read even a shred of adventuresofbrad. The previous girlfriend's comments on his personality are about the only real insight into the true BC that anyone has been able to provide.
And I agree with you that some father's rights groups or at least people from them have been vocal on GOLO. If you know anything about them, you will know that they have an enormous contempt for the whole concept of domestic abuse and violence, believing instead that it is a racket designed to strip poor old dads from their children and assets - that women are more frequently the abusers and liars. So it is easy for me to see why NC has come under such fire, even dead.
IMO, the Rentz's have got it just right. A critical aspect of domestic abuse and domestic violence is that it crosses any and all socioeconomic strata. It isn't always easily pinpointed from the outside looking in or indeed, even from the inside looking in. The vocal anti-DV folks use the same tactics that abusers use. The same tactics that the defense has used for BC. Which is, to simplify it, remove any and all accountability from the abuser and place it all on others. The victim is first and foremost in this scenario, but if that one doesn't work, anyone else is fair game.
Also IMO, Kurtz has played to the lowest common denominator, the GOLO posters, who are consumed with conspiracy and on a mission to blame a dead woman for her own death. That it backfired on him is a credit to the jury. I said all along, I thought the prosecution did a great job at addressing conspiracy theories in an indirect manner that apparently was not lost on the jury - soliciting detailed testimony from MH about what he posted here; bringing up JW's Facebook page with its Illuminati references.
I hope BC gets his appeal and there is another trial. I hope his defense and other supporters are forced to delve into alternate scenarios and have to actually make some of them work, rather than just blah blah blah-ing on about how JA did it, JP did it, everybody else did it. I hope there is a general hue and outcry over an unfair trial that results in an appeal and new trial, with a verdict that people will have to accept - that BC killed his wife.
I remember more criticism of the prosecution, both BZ and HC. Strange how some facts are getting twisted since Kurtz's interview.
Then why would so many people care what he said or give it the least thought? I remember more negatives toward the prosecution. Or do you remember those pesky ducks and HC, and BZ trying to trip up witnesses such as the psychologist?
I look forward to eventually hearing from the jurors...after they have been able to digest all the information that they were not privy to, in particular the assertions by the defense expert who wasn't allowed to testify about tampering. I wonder if any will feel any differently.
As for Kurtz, I think he did a fantastic job. What he had to do over the past 2 and 1/2 years was far from easy and I give credit to him and his entire team. I doubt many of you could have handled it as well as he did. So you really should just chill out with the nastiness towards him. And I think this case is far from over, so all your victory laps may be premature.
As for Kurtz, I think he did a fantastic job. What he had to do over the past 2 and 1/2 years was far from easy and I give credit to him and his entire team. I doubt many of you could have handled it as well as he did. So you really should just chill out with the nastiness towards him. And I think this case is far from over, so all your victory laps may be premature.
I suspect that it was mere coincidence that the ducks appeared then. From what I know, the defense and prosecution knew about the return of the pesky ducks since first or middle of April. They just suddenly made their appearance when the defense put BC's mom.
gracielee
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 4,095
- Reaction score
- 8
'Sudden attack on Kurtz'? What exactly is *sudden* about it? I've said all along I thought Kurtz was out of his element on this case. I've stated I thought his questions were often times poorly worded, unable to understand, and worded in such a way as to elicit an objection as to form of question from the prosecution. A number of times either Trenkle, the judge, and even one of the prosecutors had to make suggestions as to how to word the question properly. IMO, if I'm on trial for a first degree murder charge, I'd like a properly *seasoned* defense lawyer. MOO One could tell Trenkle has 'been through the trenches before', kurtz, not so much. MOO
per_curiam
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2008
- Messages
- 326
- Reaction score
- 0
For those few good WS buddies that asked if I died, I did not! I found that not posting, just reading the posters whom I chose to read...is all I need. I'm glad you cared enough to ask and to say nice comments about me. That was unexpected and nice of you.
As to the Brad Cooper, I really really got tired of reading the same old things over and over, even after he's rec'd the guilty verdict. I will say that I had no idea what would be coming as a verdict, and I was pleasantly surprised.
Now, on to the next trial of Jason Young.
I do wonder what goes on in these criminal minds. Also, wonder what it smells like in Central Prison, do the inmates smell dirty (or are they required to wear deodorant, etc.), is the food really awful, do you really have to watch your back at all times, etc. I would love a "day in the life" documentary of Brad or some other prisoner who is doing life at Central.
Seriously, I could not make it. The first thing that would do me in is the lack of privacy on that toilet in the middle of the room. I would be learning the bedsheet ties to hang myself from a pipe on the ceiling. But then, I could not do that either.
I guess you must pay with a life of hell on earth for doing the deeds that get you into prison in the first place. Karma.
ETA: <mod snip>
Some of you know what I mean by this: In about three or so weeks I will find out my answers. There will either be: try chemo again, but there's no cure, or HOSPICE.
As to the Brad Cooper, I really really got tired of reading the same old things over and over, even after he's rec'd the guilty verdict. I will say that I had no idea what would be coming as a verdict, and I was pleasantly surprised.
Now, on to the next trial of Jason Young.
I do wonder what goes on in these criminal minds. Also, wonder what it smells like in Central Prison, do the inmates smell dirty (or are they required to wear deodorant, etc.), is the food really awful, do you really have to watch your back at all times, etc. I would love a "day in the life" documentary of Brad or some other prisoner who is doing life at Central.
Seriously, I could not make it. The first thing that would do me in is the lack of privacy on that toilet in the middle of the room. I would be learning the bedsheet ties to hang myself from a pipe on the ceiling. But then, I could not do that either.
I guess you must pay with a life of hell on earth for doing the deeds that get you into prison in the first place. Karma.
ETA: <mod snip>
Some of you know what I mean by this: In about three or so weeks I will find out my answers. There will either be: try chemo again, but there's no cure, or HOSPICE.
Thank you for this post. I agree totally with your comments. I too don't think this case will go away like so many probably wish it would.
sunshine05
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 1
I read an article recently that said that this area had had X number of homicides in 30 years or so, and had a 100% conviction rate.
Does anyone know how many of these convictions have been overturned?
I understand Scott Peterson is still working on his appeal. IIRC, he was convicted in 2005. Six years since the trial and they're still using the assertion of "He was set up my LE."
I see that other case linked here in Raliegh, the computer expert who a Google search was also used against him, is also claiming he was framed.
Then there's the case I watched last night on Dateline. The Windmer case out of Cincinatti, I think it was. He was found guilty but the verdict was over-turned by a judge when jury misconduct was brought to light after the trial. (it really was true, jury misconduct!). The second trial was a hung jury, but it was like 7-1, so the DA refiled. He was convicted. Of course now he's appealing on LE planting evidence.
Now Kurtz is saying 'planted evidence' by LE!:banghead:
Really? These detectives have given their all to the citizens of that county, and they are perfectly willing to throw it all away, because of ONE case. Their career, their life, their family, their reputation, not to mention they could go to jail for it. For what? Because BC KNOWS he's smarter than them and if he can't win on the evidence because he's SURE he covered his tracts, then he'll accuse LE of planting it.
Right! NOT!
Now, how many of the murder convictions have been overturned?
just wonderin'
fran
PS...LOL, imagine that? That old sneaky judge. EMBELLISHING on his computer knowledge! And all the time the def thought by talking circles around the computer info, the judge would be just toooooo confused. :floorlaugh:
That means we're due for one.
Kurtz would not make a bold statement regarding the computer frame job unless he had evidence to back it. Who would? And why? It would be a foolish thing to do.
- Status