State v Bradley Cooper 03/31/11

[ncsu95]

JohnFear, you trust Nancy's mom. I hope you extend the same courtesy to her father too.

The Rentz family believes (I'd say they know but I'm assuming) that the murderer of their daughter is Brad.

No grieving parent wants to have to believe, let alone face, the horrid thought that their son-in-law murdered their daughter. One would imagine they would hope it WAS someone else, because the pain increases exponentially that someone you trusted and loved took the life of your precious child.

And yet they believe/know. Think they might know something we, the general public, don't yet know, that hasn't been testified to yet? I'd say yes.

You said you trust Nancy's mom, Donna. Donna knows Brad killed Nancy. Trust THAT!

She believes it, but she doesn't know it. The only people that know it are Brad Cooper, and/or the person that did it if it wasn't Brad Cooper.

 

[Lori59]

You couldn't see the necklace in the picture. How does that make it a lie?

You don't think that was on accident do you??

 

[gracielee]

Lochmere always seemed to me pretty safe in the a.m. Friendly people out and enough that as pointed out by SG it'd be hard to make an abduction without a witness. At night, it got a bit more sketchy.

When I first came back to Raleigh, I got an apartment at The Park which sounds nice and backs up to Lochmere (and is across the street from the subject HT), but it had its adventures in tenants.

LOL, I bet it did. I never walk without my dogs, so I usually feel pretty safe. One is an 85 lb. Rottie/German Shepherd mix and the other is a 90 plus lb. Catahoula Leopard Dog. Yes, I walk them together. I was a bit concerned about a pit bull I'd seen, so I asked a deputy I met about mace or bear spray. He suggested I wear a holster and pack my revolver. That 'as long as it wasn't concealed I would be legal.' :seeya:

 

[gracielee]

She believes it, but she doesn't know it. The only people that know it are Brad Cooper, and/or the person that did it if it wasn't Brad Cooper.

And his mother, if he did it. Mother's always know.

 

[RoughlyCollie]

You're equating a murder to a separation/divorce? Witnesses are on the stand, under oath, to tell the truth. They are offering what they know, what they were told, which provides state of mind of the VICTIM. The judge is applying the law to allow these statements in.

The main victim in this case is the deceased.

I realize you have had experiences with other people and divorces and all of that, but this... is not that. This is not a divorce.

Well, the state of mind of the victim, which could have occurred only before she was murdered, did have to do with the contemplated divorce. So I think what she said to her friends may have skewed toward turning them against Brad. In a divorce situation, which this was previous to NC's murder, each side has a story to tell, and it is highly colored with emotion.

A person does not have to maliciously intend to turn people against their spouse. That can naturally occur when the listener is told specific facts that particularly irritate or hurt the spouse (but leaves out facts that show the other spouse in a better light or the talking spouse in a poorer light), especially when the listener empathizes or sympathizes with the emotions generated by the circumstances s/he is being told about.

Then, when the listener observes the other spouse and what they see tends to shore up what the talking spouse said, they can erroneously conclude that they see the entire picture. But they don't. That is impossible, unless one routinely witnesses the spouses interacting with one another in the privacy of their own home, and the spouses do not realize they have a witness.

The high intensity of the emotions generated in a divorce situation can certainly color the facts. I've seen that happen often, and I don't think it is unusual. Unfortunately, it can also lead to murder.

 

[ncsu95]

You call the cops BEFORE someone gets killed and they say 'there's nothing we can do because nobody's been hurt'. Words to that effect. Believe me, I've tried it in the past.

I did read your second scenario. Still processing it, cause you knocked the wind out of me with the first. Have to think about it some more. I tend to think the murder happened earlier than you though. It's hard for me to comprehend the brutality of strangulation, will say that. The sheer strength it takes to strangle someone. Something I've never contemplated, because it's something I know I could never do, physically I mean.

There is nothing the cops can do...but it at least provides some "history" of this. And the guy that had the cops called on him would be fully aware of where he stood. That might actually prevent him from doing anything.

 

[ncsu95]

Looks like possibly a description for a softphone... (pc based).

Correct. I use a similar PC Client.

 

[ncsu95]

You don't think that was on accident do you??

I don't think it was photoshopped.

 

[FullDisclosure]

In general, no. It is a violation of the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution protection AKA double jeopardy.

Exactly. Which is why the DA here generally takes for-friggin-EVER to bring something to trial (case in point - J Young).

 

[borndem]

If he does walk this time around, can't the state just re-indict and try him again later (e.g. after finding some more evidence or something)? Not sure what the NC rules are on that one...

Double jeopardy...No ...

Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). "

www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

If he has received a verdict for murder (or whatever) the cannot be tried for the same crime again. Try, try again does not apply. Her family could sue him for Wrongful Death -- civil suit -- and be awarded $$ damages based on many things that were taken away when the person died.

 

[gracielee]

Double jeopardy...No ...

Being tried twice for the same offense; prohibited by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). "

www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm

If he has received a verdict for murder (or whatever) the cannot be tried for the same crime again. Try, try again does not apply. Her family could sue him for Wrongful Death -- civil suit -- and be awarded $$ damages based on many things that were taken away when the person died.

I'm hoping the Timothy Hennis verdict sticks, this time.

 

[borndem]

I'm hoping the Timothy Hennis verdict sticks, this time.

Here's a big ME, TOO on that one, Sistah.
:rocker:

 

[borndem]

fftobed:

 

[gracielee]

Exactly. Which is why the DA here generally takes for-friggin-EVER to bring something to trial (case in point - J Young).

And Ann Miller! I thought that one would never get justice for Eric Miller.

 

[gracielee]

fftobed:

Me too!

fftobed:

 

[carolinalady]

Here's my final thought (or at least for now) on Hannah P. and her just knowing that those earrings were screwbacks. I honestly, with the timing and wording, thought maybe she'd read something on the internet about the single diamond earring reported on the autopsy (maybe she, like us, didn't know that LE had the other one) and came back with the same gut feeling that many posters here have had...that they just had to be screwbacks b/c they were diamond studs and she felt like that was the norm. I didn't feel like she intentional lied, just that maybe she was being sleuthy like many of us and came to her own conclusions. Now, I didn't like her "just knowing" statement and wish it had been something like "Nancy showed them to me". The things that really gave me pause was the timing of the statement and her adding that they were really complicated to get off (which would've been true if they were screwbacks and/or if she had witnessed Nancy putting on/taking off her earrings).

I definitely think Hannah loved her friend and just like all of us is looking for justice for Nancy. And I don't want anyone to misconstrue that I am bashing the witness, I am not. These are the feelings I came away with after that bit of testimony.

 

[Star12]

I find it odd there weren't screw backs on. I've had mine for 20 yrs and they came with them back then. Everyone else I know that has diamonds, have screw backs.

ETA: I wonder who ended up with Nancys?

I have sold tons of diamond earrings (I am an Accredited Jewelry Professional, GIA) and can say that some but not all diamond earrings come with screw posts, and a screw post has nothing to do with quality. My own diamond earrings are not screw posts nor would I want them to be - it's just too difficult for me to get the back on straight. However, for those that wish, regular posts can be replaced with screw posts.

BTW, here's a hint. When buying diamond studs don't be sucked into high quality stones. Look for a good cut, which gives the great sparkle you want, but you can come down in color and clarity with no loss of beauty while saving significant money.

And Nancy's earrings are in evidence.

 

[kellyroll]

But here's my major problem with all of this. You guys are going to tell me that there were THIS many warning signs ahead of this and NOT A SOUL dared to step in and keep it from happening? I don't buy it. Not for a second.

You guys keep saying "These are great friends" "I can't believe they are tearing down such wonderful friends".

I don't think they are good friends. I think they suck. I think that they were just petty enough to let it play out and keep details on it, but no one had the stones to do a thing about it. The only ones I hold completely faultless are the family folks in Canada. There was NOTHING they could do. (If Brad killed her)

But, these snide little folks who are getting on the stand (all of them) and shaking and pointing their fingers and crying and saying they knew he did it and they saw it leading up to it and it's GOT to be him are the saddest, poorest, creepiest excuses for witnesses that I have seen in a very long time.

Why? Because they did NOTHING and then casually (sometimes heartbreakingly) sit their in hindsight and act as thought they knew all along.

I don't trust any of them but Nancy's mom. The rest are wallowing in guilt or making it up as they go.

Wow, wish I could double thanks.

 

[azwildcat]

What did you think about the defense attorneys putting a picture of NC on their website claiming it was proof that she didn't always wear the necklace when the other friend proved to them that she did in fact have the necklace on in that picture? That to me is a lie.

Was this photo viewed in court? I missed it if it was.

 

[Tipstaff]

Wow, wish I could double thanks.

Take the opportunity to go to the website for victims of Domestic Abuse and read the guidelines, for lack of a better word, for friends and family living in the type of situation.

You can let them know they have food, shelter, friends, assure them they are not at fault and on and on.....BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE THEM LEAVE.

These friends and family offered Nancy these comforts but in her own words she did not believe she would be harmed. Unfortunately she was wrong. This does not reflect on the friends or the family.