State v Bradley Cooper 3.10.2011

[SleuthyGal]

I met the dog walking guy and his wife. They were sitting behind me. Very nice folks. His dog died in Jan 2010 (a large tumor was found).

 

[SleuthyGal]

The defense's opening was sooo long...too long by at least an hour. I saw people zoning out, including some on the jury. People were getting very antsy. The judge looked annoyed and when Kurtz started arguing, he got upbraided a few times. That didn't look good in front of the jury! I couldn't believe they presented the rumors in the case. I also couldn't believe they started discussing what the prosecution would present. Not sure how it played online, but I can tell you inside the courtroom people were bored that last 45+ min.

However, we have confirmation that there WAS NO 4:20AM VISIT TO HARRIS TEETER. None. Nada. That info was wrong.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Not sure what else to say. I guess if anyone has questions I can try and answer them.

 

[Just the Fax]

The defense's opening was sooo long...too long by at least an hour. I saw people zoning out, including some on the jury. People were getting very antsy. The judge looked annoyed and when Kurtz started arguing, he got upbraided a few times. That didn't look good in front of the jury! I couldn't believe they presented the rumors in the case. I also couldn't believe they started discussing what the prosecution would present. Not sure how it played online, but I can tell you inside the courtroom people were bored that last 45+ min.

However, we have confirmation that there WAS NO 4:20AM VISIT TO HARRIS TEETER. None. Nada. That info was wrong.

I saw the first 2 segments or so. Kurtz is such a dweeb, I couldn't even push myself to open part 3 on the net. I will say he raised reasonable doubt on nearly all the main points from yesterday. Of course, the evidence is what will count in the end.

 

[raisincharlie]

I met the dog walking guy and his wife. They were sitting behind me. Very nice folks. His dog died in Jan 2010 (a large tumor was found).

They seemed like nice people. I felt bad for them as I can't imagine walking into that scene or hearing and seeing all those birds. Very disturbing description.

Could you clarify if you can, did the wife see the white truck with it's lights off Friday night or Saturday or Sunday? I can go back and listen later, trying to take the easy way out

 

[SleuthyGal]

I think she said Friday night.

eta: I wasn't paying close attention. :-O

 

[raisincharlie]

I think she said Friday night.

eta: I wasn't paying close attention. :-O

That's what I thought she said. When I get a bit of time I am going to go back and listen again. I found it interesting. Guess the DA stole the thunder on that one. Diana Duncan looked and sounded terribly nervous, sure would not want to be in her shoes.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I was honestly starting to zone out a bit myself in the afternoon. Plus it was kind of hard to hear some of the questions at times. And, I didn't have anything with which to take notes. Not a good recipe for catching the details.

Cummings, in particular, is very soft spoken. And not a dynamic type at all. I can understand why they didn't have him do the opening.

 

[SleuthyGal]

For those who are curious, when they showed the crime scene photos, they made sure that no one in the gallery could see anything. They used 2 or 3 8 x 10 photos and Cummings held each photo up in front of his chest, in front of the jury. No one but the jury and the lawyers standing near him could see the pictures. At all other times the photos were face down and put away.

 

[otto]

It's building the foundation to her filing for divorce.

It is, and then I suppose we'll hear about all the dirty laundry that was to be part of their divorce. I understand that there were serious problems in the marriage. The argument will be that Brad was so angry with Nancy that he murdered her ... but this is a first degree case, so I'm waiting for some evidence of planning - something more than dirty laundry. Right now, the stage seems to be set for a sudden argument in the middle of the night that ended in murder.

The defence opening statement included something about a tarp. It seems the prosecution alleges the tarp was intended to be part of the murder, but the defence will argue it was for painting. It wasn't used in the murder, so suggesting that it was bought to be used in the murder seems off ... but I'm getting ahead of myself.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Brad purchased a tarp the day before the murder. Kurtz claimed it was for Nancy so that when she painted at J.A's house she wouldn't get paint all over. That strains credulity on every level (Brad doing anything for Nancy and doing anything to help Nancy with her painting project). Brad was not happy that Nancy was helping to paint and earning some spending money. It doesn't make sense that he would go to Lowe's a purchase a tarp to 'help' her with this painting stuff.

If he was thinking of using the tarp to cover or dispose of her body (which it sounds like what the prosecution believes), then yes, he was pre-planning her murder.

 

[Skittles]

For those who are curious, when they showed the crime scene photos, they made sure that no one in the gallery could see anything. They used 2 or 3 8 x 10 photos and Cummings held each photo up in front of his chest, in front of the jury. No one but the jury and the lawyers standing near him could see the pictures. At all other times the photos were face down and put away.

The camera was focused tightly on Nancy's parents during much of that testimony. Mrs. Rentz kept her head bowed.

 

[SleuthyGal]

The camera was focused tightly on Nancy's parents during much of that testimony. Mrs. Rentz kept her head bowed.

Yes, she did. I can't imagine the pain of hearing someone describing finding your child's mostly nude body dumped in a drainage area.

 

[ncsu95]

The defense's opening was sooo long...too long by at least an hour. I saw people zoning out, including some on the jury. People were getting very antsy. The judge looked annoyed and when Kurtz started arguing, he got upbraided a few times. That didn't look good in front of the jury! I couldn't believe they presented the rumors in the case. I also couldn't believe they started discussing what the prosecution would present. Not sure how it played online, but I can tell you inside the courtroom people were bored that last 45+ min.

However, we have confirmation that there WAS NO 4:20AM VISIT TO HARRIS TEETER. None. Nada. That info was wrong.

The funny thing about this is that anyone that even remotely challenged mt3k on her information was banned or threatened. She was so adamant about this.

 

[raisincharlie]

WRAL has done a nice job of breaking down today's testimony. The Boyer's are in a single segment.

The wife did say she and her Mum saw the white truck on Friday night around 8:45 pm. No lights.

 

[ncsu95]

Brad purchased a tarp the day before the murder. Kurtz claimed it was for Nancy so that when she painted at J.A's house she wouldn't get paint all over. That strains credulity on every level (Brad doing anything for Nancy and doing anything to help Nancy with her painting project). Brad was not happy that Nancy was helping to paint and earning some spending money. It doesn't make sense that he would go to Lowe's a purchase a tarp to 'help' her with this painting stuff.

If he was thinking of using the tarp to cover or dispose of her body (which it sounds like what the prosecution believes), then yes, he was pre-planning her murder.

It's a ridiculous argument all the way around. Why even bring the tarp up? It wasn't used in the murder or disposal of the body. If he did this, and did this in the house, why wouldn't he have used the tarp if that is why he bought it?

 

[raisincharlie]

Brad purchased a tarp the day before the murder. Kurtz claimed it was for Nancy so that when she painted at J.A's house she wouldn't get paint all over. That strains credulity on every level (Brad doing anything for Nancy and doing anything to help Nancy with her painting project). Brad was not happy that Nancy was helping to paint and earning some spending money. It doesn't make sense that he would go to Lowe's a purchase a tarp to 'help' her with this painting stuff.

If he was thinking of using the tarp to cover or dispose of her body (which it sounds like what the prosecution believes), then yes, he was pre-planning her murder.

Why do you think the Prosecution believes this ? The only mention I've heard of it was from Kurtz. Do you think Kurtz raised it to try and cover it before the Prosecution brings it up through testimony ?

 

[otto]

Brad purchased a tarp the day before the murder. Kurtz claimed it was for Nancy so that when she painted at J.A's house she wouldn't get paint all over. That strains credulity on every level (Brad doing anything for Nancy and doing anything to help Nancy with her painting project). Brad was not happy that Nancy was helping to paint and earning some spending money. It doesn't make sense that he would go to Lowe's a purchase a tarp to 'help' her with this painting stuff.

If he was thinking of using the tarp to cover or dispose of her body (which it sounds like what the prosecution believes), then yes, he was pre-planning her murder.

The obvious question is: why didn't he use it if that's why he bought it? It's a bit of a stretch to believe that buying a tarp, that wasn't used, indicates pre-meditation.

I also have to wonder why he wouldn't want Nancy to work. She was working before they moved to NC.

 

[BrownRice]

For a brief moment (until my young son came in the room) I listened to the defense (I think) today talk about Nancy having an affair with a neighbor (John?) and him having a STD (and the wife verified it) and something about the STD test results for Nancy laying out in view in their house? What is all that about? I don't want to listen to 3 hours worth of testimony to find it.

 

[ncsu95]

My thoughts on today. I realize that opening statements are not testimony...but I'm assuming the defense has evidence to back up the statements made in the opening.

1. The 16 eye witnesses that say they saw her. That is a huge number of people. Hard to believe all 16 are mistaken. Several are absolutely positive it was her. Add the one that saw a van turn around after passing her and it can lead to reasonable doubt. I'm curious how the prosecution is going to handle that one.

2. The phone calls from Nancy to Brad's cell. Defense says it wasn't voip calls, but were made from the regular home phone. Even though there are ways to initiate the calls, I believe it will be on the prosecution, since it is their burden, to prove he somehow initiated these calls. If Nancy made the calls, he couldn't have killed her. This is a huge point in this trial.

3. The actions of JD Young. It's beyond comprehensible that he erased the data from 2 phones, and had to erase the data twice from the blackberry. It's also unbelievable that he signed an affidavite to get a search warrant to search a phone that he already searched and already knew the data was gone. That ought to be a criminal offense and really brings the competency of the CPD into question and could show a rush to judgement. The pictures of the CPD in the house without foot coverings (but with gloves on) adds to this.

4. The tire tracks at the crime scene that don't match any of the Cooper vehicles. If true, it could be actual physical evidence pointing to a different murderer.

5. The HT trips and the change of shoes. I thought the defense did a good job of explaining both. If they did always remove their shoes (which should be easily proven or disproven), it's reasonable to think he had sandles at the garage entrance and and put them on because he was taking trash out.

Both sides have a lot to overcome, but I thought the defense put out some compelling things during the opening..