The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[zenreaper]

Just wanted to weigh in and say that I am grateful to the judicial process that found BC guilty of first degree murder. I cannot understand the agenda of some posters who insist on continuing the debate, and that we are somewhat dearranged to believe in the justice system and by not being able to see the conspiracy...but each to his own and I have learned so much in the process.

Personally I think it would have been interesting to have had more background knowledge on BC, and his family dynamics. It was interesting to see how his mother shrugged off Mrs. Rentz when she went over after the verdict and placed her hand on Mrs. Cooper's arm...The extroverts going to the introverts, but I suspect there's more to that than a label of "introvert". I find the phychology of the killer facinating. His deposition tapes told me an awful lot about him when I analysed his statements. At one point he says "for some reason" FIVE times when he tries to explain why he changed his route the second time to go to HT, that told me that was more than likely when he dumped Nancy's body, RIP.

Anyway, it has been very interesting (addictive) being a part of this site, the first murder trial that I have ever followed. Thanks to everyone who participated and to those who expressed my thoughts and to those who made me laugh out loud-often.

I'm also very happy to have had the lovely surprise of reading per_curiam recently -- and long may each day last for you, mind yourself.

And I have to wonder how, during the trial, most of the BDI crowd, in the abscence of any physical evidence, were CONVINCED that he had every reason to do it, then posted AFTER the verdict, "I wonder why he did it?"

Just out of curiosity, since you are convinced that he dumped the body during the second trip to HT, and the body was dumped in a muddy area, that he managed to not only NOT get substantial mud on himself or his vehicle, and not ONLY leave absolutely no physical trace that he had BEEN there, but also managed to NOT disturb the OTHER signs that someone had been there with a different car and a different sized shoe print?

 

[zenreaper]

Well, independent of that, I'm not sure what the point here is in reference to the testimony about the Windows event log not happening. Your guy was found guilty after only about 1.5 days of deliberations without that even more damning testimony. Were you hoping for something even faster than 1.5 days?

I have never understood how the goole maps were that damning. I posted a while back how it EASILY could have been a mistake, and he ADMITTED to having seen the place on a map in his deposition.

 

[gracielee]

Many WS'ers, including me, are returning to the Jason/Michelle Young case since his murder trial will start soon. It's already on WS from back when all of this started. Michelle Young was brutally beaten to death in their home while their 3 (??) year old daughter was there. This case will have some direct evidence such as bloody footprints of a man's shoes and a little girl's bare feet. Oh, she was badly, badly beaten and hubby was out of town on business... :no: :shakehead:

I will definitely be at the Jason Young trial board. More so than Nancy Cooper, this one captured my interest immediately. Michelle Young reminded me a lot of Laci Peterson, same dark hair and big wide smile. The thought of her child, pattering around in her mothers blood, horrified me. And listening to Michelle's sister making that 911 call, with the child in the background. :maddening: Poor sister, in live time, on the phone, coming to grips with the horror before her. I was so glad when she and her mother got custody of the child, finally. I can't recall anymore why the DA isn't seeking the DP on this one. I'd volunteer to stick the needle in myself.

 

[gracielee]

They would not have been alowed to testify because they were not forensically qualified. Remember JW?

JW no longer worked for cisco and hadn't for quite some time. I feel sure there would have been current Cisco employee's far more *certified* than JW and his *borrowed equipment/software & uncertified lab*.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I have never understood how the goole maps were that damning. I posted a while back how it EASILY could have been a mistake, and he ADMITTED to having seen the place on a map in his deposition.

I'm lost. I thought that we were talking about the Windows Event Log info, not the Google Maps. The Windows Event Log was what the rebuttal witness who was unavailable would have testified about.

 

[otto]

I'm still having problems understanding where domestic violence fits in. It has been said that after moving to N.C., Brad wouldnt' buy Nancy a car. He did buy her a car, but I guess it didn't happen fast enough. From another perspective, we have two 27 year olds that were working prior to transferring to N.C. I haven't heard that Nancy attended any post-secondary schools, so I'm guessing that Nancy had been working for 9 years. We know that the marriage was a bit of a quicky so Nancy could live in N.C. and that within months Nancy was already looking at other men. Brad had attended 5 years post-secondary schools and may have had student loans to repay. I'm a little surprised that under these circumstances, Brad was criticized for not buying a car for Nancy. We hear nothing about controlling behavior from that incident in 2001 until April, 2008, when the separation draft was given to Brad. Then we hear that Nancy was put on a reasonable budget, and Brad did not agree with his children being taken to another country. This is then again interpreted as controlling behavior. There is nothing in those incident that spells "domestic violence" for me.

 

[otto]

That was another thing I found difficult to understand. The prosecution spent 6 weeks presenting their case, and after TWO weeks with the defense, all of a sudden the trial is taking too long. Considering the pros was willing to bring WITNESS after WITNESS to testify to NOTHING, why would one more day, to prove something without a doubt, be an issue?

I have some questions about that as well. In retrospect, it appears that the jury had made up their minds and were not interested in hearing defense arguments.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I'm still having problems understanding where domestic violence fits in.

I suspect that to most, killing your wife qualifies as domestic violence.

 

[zenreaper]

I'm still having problems understanding where domestic violence fits in. It has been said that after moving to N.C., Brad wouldnt' buy Nancy a car. He did buy her a car, but I guess it didn't happen fast enough. From another perspective, we have two 27 year olds that were working prior to transferring to N.C. I haven't heard that Nancy attended any post-secondary schools, so I'm guessing that Nancy had been working for 9 years. We know that the marriage was a bit of a quicky so Nancy could live in N.C. and that within months Nancy was already looking at other men. Brad had attended 5 years post-secondary schools and may have had student loans to repay. I'm a little surprised that under these circumstances, Brad was criticized for not buying a car for Nancy. We hear nothing about controlling behavior from that incident in 2001 until April, 2008, when the separation draft was given to Brad. Then we hear that Nancy was put on a reasonable budget, and Brad did not agree with his children being taken to another country. This is then again interpreted as controlling behavior. There is nothing in those incident that spells "domestic violence" for me.

While it is the first time I have seen the "abuse excuse" applied like this, it is far from the first time it has been used to garner public sympathy. Look at Mary Winkler and Clara Harris. Albeit, different outcomes, but still public sympathy shifts when a woman claims abuse, even if there is no evidence that it ever occured.

The whole "He took and hid the children's passports" always bugged me, for a couple of reasons. First, they are CHILDREN, and being such, anything they "own" is actually owned by their PARENTS. So the passports were JUST as much his as hers. Moreso, if you consider that she was here on a non-working visa, with BC as her sponsor, and thusly the children's sponsor as well. Yet HER locking them in the car was okay, him having them in the house and his office was labeled as menacing and a sign of control.

I also NEVER got an answer from ANY of the BDI crowd to the simply question, "Would you agree to allow your spouse to leave the country with your two children?"

 

[zenreaper]

I suspect that to most, killing your wife qualifies as domestic violence.

That would make sense if it were not for the fact that the OUTCOME was based, in part, on claims of domestic violence in the first place, of which there was ZERO evidence. Essentially, what happened was, "He is an abuser, so he might have killed her.", then, "See, he is guilty of killing her, so he is an abuser."

 

[otto]

I suspect that to most, killing your wife qualifies as domestic violence.

It most certainly does, but it has been alleged that the marriage was defined by domestic violence, and I don't see that. I see the marriage as a War of the Roses.

 

[SleuthSayer]

It most certainly does, but it has been alleged that the marriage was defined by domestic violence, and I don't see that. I see the marriage as a War of the Roses.

I believe that it was alleged that the marriage was defined by domestic abuse, not domestic violence. The further allegation is that domestic abuse ultimately ended in domestic violence.

 

[otto]

While it is the first time I have seen the "abuse excuse" applied like this, it is far from the first time it has been used to garner public sympathy. Look at Mary Winkler and Clara Harris. Albeit, different outcomes, but still public sympathy shifts when a woman claims abuse, even if there is no evidence that it ever occured.

The whole "He took and hid the children's passports" always bugged me, for a couple of reasons. First, they are CHILDREN, and being such, anything they "own" is actually owned by their PARENTS. So the passports were JUST as much his as hers. Moreso, if you consider that she was here on a non-working visa, with BC as her sponsor, and thusly the children's sponsor as well. Yet HER locking them in the car was okay, him having them in the house and his office was labeled as menacing and a sign of control.

I also NEVER got an answer from ANY of the BDI crowd to the simply question, "Would you agree to allow your spouse to leave the country with your two children?"

I completely agree. It is viewed as perfectly acceptable for Nancy to take the passports, lock them in her car and prevent Brad from having access, but when he retrieves them and suggests they each hold one passport to prevent either parent from taking the children to another country, it's perceived as "controlling" and "domestic violence". It is such an obvious double standard. If anything, the "controlling act" was Nancy locking the passports in her car.

There are laws in place in most countries that prevent one parent from taking the children and leaving the country for a very good reason. The fact that Brad was exercising his right should not be perceived as "contolling" or "domestic violence", yet it is.

 

[otto]

I believe that it was alleged that the marriage was defined by domestic abuse, not domestic violence. The further allegation is that domestic abuse ultimately ended in domestic violence.

As zenreaper points out, the allegations of domestic violence were used to justify guilt, and the guilty verdict was used to justify the allegations of domestic violence.

Are there any actual examples (excluding the passport and budget) of "controlling" behavior and "domestic violence" in the marriage? I heard the term "emotional abuse" tossed around, but what is there to justify that? Should we look at the fact that Nancy occupied the master bedroom and locked Brad out as an example of "emotional abuse"? Where was the abuse? We heard repeated testimony that she was not afraid of him, so that does not seem to be the reason for him being locked out of the master bedroom.

 

[zenreaper]

As zenreaper points out, the allegations of domestic violence were used to justify guilt, and the guilty verdict was used to justify the allegations of domestic violence.

Are there any actual examples (excluding the passport and budget) of "controlling" behavior and "domestic violence" in the marriage? I heard the term "emotional abuse" tossed around, but what is there to justify that? Should we look at the fact that Nancy occupied the master bedroom and locked Brad out as an example of "emotional abuse"? Where was the abuse? We heard repeated testimony that she was not afraid of him, so that does not seem to be the reason for him being locked out of the master bedroom.

If a woman feels trapped or emotionally abused, she can go to any shelter and seek assistance. Although, having worked with abused individuals in the past, I can say that if a person, male or female, pulled up in a high end car, claiming such abuse as was claimed in the trial, they would be laughed out of the shelter.

The most oft, IMO, repeated phrase about the controlling behavior was the holding of the passports, which indicated that she could not leave the country. But was was not pointed out was that she simply could have driven to the closest Canadian Embassy (perhaps DC? 12 to 14 hours away MAYBE),and had the whole thing resolved almost immediately.

 

[SleuthSayer]

As zenreaper points out, the allegations of domestic violence were used to justify guilt, and the guilty verdict was used to justify the allegations of domestic violence.

Are there any actual examples (excluding the passport and budget) of "controlling" behavior and "domestic violence" in the marriage? I heard the term "emotional abuse" tossed around, but what is there to justify that? Should we look at the fact that Nancy occupied the master bedroom and locked Brad out as an example of "emotional abuse"? Where was the abuse? We heard repeated testimony that she was not afraid of him, so that does not seem to be the reason for him being locked out of the master bedroom.

I think that whether some specific actions are considered abusive varies depending on whether you are on the giving or receiving end of those actions. I am in no position to say whether NC felt abused or not.

 

[zenreaper]

I think that whether some specific actions are considered abusive varies depending on whether you are on the giving or receiving end of those actions. I am in no position to say whether NC felt abused or not.

Because she cannot speak for herself, we have to infer, from her actions, what her "feelings" were. Other than the claims to her "friends", which have been proven to be "nanerisms", even by them, what actions of hers are you using to determine she felt "emotionally abused"?

 

[SleuthSayer]

Because she cannot speak for herself, we have to infer, from her actions, what her "feelings" were. Other than the claims to her "friends", which have been proven to be "nanerisms", even by them, what actions of hers are you using to determine she felt "emotionally abused"?

I'm pretty sure that I said that, unlike others here, I don't consider myself to be in a position to know how she felt.

 

[otto]

If a woman feels trapped or emotionally abused, she can go to any shelter and seek assistance. Although, having worked with abused individuals in the past, I can say that if a person, male or female, pulled up in a high end car, claiming such abuse as was claimed in the trial, they would be laughed out of the shelter.

The most oft, IMO, repeated phrase about the controlling behavior was the holding of the passports, which indicated that she could not leave the country. But was was not pointed out was that she simply could have driven to the closest Canadian Embassy (perhaps DC? 12 to 14 hours away MAYBE),and had the whole thing resolved almost immediately.

We also need to keep in mind that Nancy had t least $7500 in April. That money would have gone a long ways towards making positive change in her life.

 

[zenreaper]

I'm pretty sure that I said that, unlike others here, I don't consider myself to be in a position to know how she felt.

I misunderstood, my bad, I am sorry.