State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[sunshine05]

The theory that he kept the necklace so he could sell it was one of the ideas floated on here.

I thought it was nonsense then too.

Yes, I remember that too. So odd that he would have left that necklace easily accessible if he was planning to sell it. And the ducks. You would think he would have been tearing the house apart to find the necklace and ducks to help clear himself of at least some of this CE. But both were in that house all that time.

 

[cityslick]

Looks like your circle is exactly where I drew the necklace. Doesn't mean it is, but now I'm more inclined to believe it is.

I just think that's too low, even if she's bending over a little. But to each their own.

 

[johnfear]

Why did JA really call NC from BA cell phone late at night when NC was at the party on July 11th? Calling to see if she wanted to leave the party to go to JA to drink wine does not make sense.

You and I are seeing the same "last witness" somewhere in this, I believe.

 

[calgary123]

Those pictures are such low resolution I think it is inconclusive. In some I think I see a necklace. The picture with the line markers for reference look to me like there is one.

Either way, doesn't matter. The necklace testimony was never good quality evidence. The problem is the prosecution went along with Nancy's friends by making a big deal of it.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Where oh where is JA friend Mary? She seemed to be presnet at every critical point in JA testimony.

And how did JA know to flag down KP at the gym when she said she barely knew HP just through preschool and NC?

 

[sunshine05]

Why did JA really call NC from BA cell phone late at night when NC was at the party on July 11th? Calling to see if she wanted to leave the party to go to JA to drink wine does not make sense.

Yes, very strange at 11PM and no reminder of the painting plans and again, NC didn't mention those plans to one single person that night.

 

[otto]

Wouldn't we all like to know! I know the note referenced "we" about the jury. But was this simply a note by one juror, or did several jurors meet to write the note? Anyone have clarification?

It seems strange and irregular. Were they aware of the end of day discussion about adding a new witness and the 300+ page report? I think that was after they left the courtroom, but the timing is interesting. Maybe they made a commitment for 8 weeks and they're expecting this to be done so they can go back to their own lives.

 

[sunshine05]

I 'm holding a space here for <modsnip>, the innocent children in all of this. I know what it is like to raise a young child without one parent due to death, because I live and my husband died of cancer when our son was 4 1/2, <modsnip>, at the time of Nancy's death. I know the sadness the surviving parent experiences. I know the yearning of a child to remember what life was like before everything changed suddenly. It is so hard to explain death to children when they are that young. I feel deeply for <modsnip>. I know what it is like to miss my twin, to yearn deeply for a connection that is no longer there.

Just to not lose sight of these innocent victims, I wanted to post a victim statement.

At some point this trial will be over. Regardless of the outcome, these sad and hard facts of life and death remain, and there really is no justice to make it right. There is no true justice for the children. It is not fair.....but it is what they will grapple with for the rest of their lives. I cry for them and I hold their innocence closely to my own heart. I never knew Nancy.

I agree. It is very sad for them, but they are with people who love them very much and well cared for. I hope, if BC is found not guilty he will be able to get his kids back but still have NC's family involved with them.

 

[ncsu95]

Even if it's moot at this place in the trial, I hope the prosc. has done the same thing with the video as you guys have in trying to find the necklace. Good work.

Actually, that's a big dilemma for them. If they try to show a blow up photo of what might be a necklace, then they reinforce the importance of the necklace. If they don't do anything, then it reinforces Howard saying their witnesses look like liars. I think the best result for the prosecution would be if HP took photos at the pool that day and can show NC wearing it at the pool

 

[ncsu95]

I'm not seeing the necklace

No amount of messing with vibrance, contrast, levels, curves, channels or anything else seems to bring out anything that looks like a necklace.

Think about this as well. You can clearly see her sunglasses reflecting light in that picture. Yet a diamond that would generally sparkle in direct light isn't reflecting anything. To me, that is the clearest indication that she is not wearing a necklace in that picture. It would reflect the same light that her sunglasses are reflecting.

 

[NCEast]

Actually, that's a big dilemma for them. If they try to show a blow up photo of what might be a necklace, then they reinforce the importance of the necklace. If they don't do anything, then it reinforces Howard saying their witnesses look like liars. I think the best result for the prosecution would be if HP took photos at the pool that day and can show NC wearing it at the pool

Since the huge ducks fiasco of yesterday, it would be bittersweet if the prosc. could come back with confirmation that she was, indeed, wearing the necklace on the 11th in the HT video. Just a sentimental thing for me more so than any legal basis.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Actually, that's a big dilemma for them. If they try to show a blow up photo of what might be a necklace, then they reinforce the importance of the necklace. If they don't do anything, then it reinforces Howard saying their witnesses look like liars. I think the best result for the prosecution would be if HP took photos at the pool that day and can show NC wearing it at the pool

Why would reinforcing the importance of the necklace be a problem? The friends and family said she wore it all the time. The defense showed what they believe is evidence that she was not wearing it on that Friday. If the prosecution shows that in fact she was wearing it, it goes back to the statements that she always wore it. We know that she was not wearing it on Saturday but there are no pictures of that.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Think about this as well. You can clearly see her sunglasses reflecting light in that picture. Yet a diamond that would generally sparkle in direct light isn't reflecting anything. To me, that is the clearest indication that she is not wearing a necklace in that picture. It would reflect the same light that her sunglasses are reflecting.

I'm not seeing any sparkle from her diamond earrings either though.

 

[ncsu95]

Well I have lived in pretty much the same situation and I can tell you that I doubt very much he would be doing HER laundry.
I am very willing to look at the evidence. I can see mistakes made on both sides-prosecution and defense. I am worried that the prosecution has failed to make their case. But, I can weigh evidence and still conclude that I believe BC was responsible for Nancy's death...and no amount of bullying will change that for me. Healthy dialogue is so much more productive. I am always open to that.

I'm not bullying you. You are entitled to your opinion. Just respect that others have a different opinion.

 

[calgary123]

Think about this as well. You can clearly see her sunglasses reflecting light in that picture. Yet a diamond that would generally sparkle in direct light isn't reflecting anything. To me, that is the clearest indication that she is not wearing a necklace in that picture. It would reflect the same light that her sunglasses are reflecting.

Its weird. In that photo I see nothing. But when I look at it with the lines for reference, I see something. I do not agree that the diamond would reflect the same light. Only specific parts of the lenses at a same relative angle are reflecting. Most parts of the lenses are not reflecting. We don't know the cut of the diamond, but in any event it is pointing forward, not up.

 

[3doglady]

Think about this as well. You can clearly see her sunglasses reflecting light in that picture. Yet a diamond that would generally sparkle in direct light isn't reflecting anything. To me, that is the clearest indication that she is not wearing a necklace in that picture. It would reflect the same light that her sunglasses are reflecting.

There's a shadow on her chest. Look how much darker it is than her arm or top of her head.

 

[Madeleine74]

The sunglasses are atop her head. They are reflecting the ceiling lights, which is why we can see the light in those glasses. Her neck and upper chest are in shadow, not in direct light, and shadow from her chin obscures the area as well.

 

[CrimeAddict]

I agree, despite what friends said, I never put much in the fact she wasn't wearing the necklace when she was found.

I 100% agree.
My theory is that he took it back that morning during the fight and said he has to sell it to pay bills and give her allowance so she threw it at him!

 

[Tink56]

Actually I think you did. I didn't see anything before but right in the center of your circle, you can see the pendant. It is grey but it's right where you plotted it to be. With the emphasis added with the circle, you can see the "V" of the chain coming off of it. It's not a big deal because I don't think it matters in terms of guilt or innocence but it sure looks like her necklace to me.

LOL....I am reading backwards...starting at the top of each page with the newest posts and scrolling "down" thread (I have no defense for this method-sorry!)...I looked at the enlarged pictures and thought, "Oh I can see it now..."

It's not a big deal, I guess, but it sure appears to be "something" there...

 

[zenreaper]

I understand your point, but I think the Rentz family was influenced by the same people who influenced the police and really believe/(d) (as did the police) that BC was responsible. I don't believe this family is evil. I think they believed, at the time that the kids needed protection. (I can only guess what they may be thinking about this case now).

They felt the kids needed SO much protection that they arranged a fake "meeting" at another location to TAKE the kids? Sorry, if i felt kids needed some kind of protection, you show up at the door with the police, or you ask to spend time with them and not return them.

What they did was SNEAKY, and an attempt to FURTHER throw him off, then go, "Look, he's acting WEIRD!"

ETA: I apologize for the emotion, child custody, and the uphill battle many fathers face is a pet project of mine. It angers me that MEN are seen as the ones dangerous to children, when statistically, children are FAR more likely to be abused/killed by their mother than by their father.