The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
cody100 said:
I both see it and understand it as well as commend NCCADV for its work. I understand that this was a homicide and BC has been found guilty. Ergo, this is domestice violence. No brainer on that part. My question to PSA was to detail what parts of the deposition were indications of spousal abuse by BC? Hopefully she will address that next time she is in the chat area.
Click to expand...


Hopefully you'll have read my response and seen you took my post right out of context. There was nothing to do with spousal abuse there. There were Bradgette's lies. Full of them.

otto brough up not reading those mid-way thru spousal abuse posting...

And hopefully you'll concede erroneous reading, dear friend ?

Thanks in advance (TIA)

:)
 
I don't think there was domestic abuse in that marriage either. I didn't see any evidence of it frmo BC to NC.

I also think that the definition for DV seems to be explanding and expanding to the point that anytime someone wants to use it, valid or not, it has to be so because a woman said so, or a friend of a woman said so and you are supposedly not to question it. It is losing its meaning and impact. If you look at your spouse and they decided that day they don't want you to glance at them it seems it can now be considered DV. Just because someone doesn't like a decision made in a family about money, when severely in debt, should not be considered DV.

Unfortunately, if it continues to be used for things that are not really DV it is going to lose its impact, and I think it is already.
 
PolkSaladAnnie said:
oh Cody, I didn't sound the bugle and play The Last Post. I wrote "it's HIGH TIME I get outta here...". High time. Not "the time" Goes to show people read what they want to believe than what is actually written. But sure as the sun sets and rises ... on my last legs in here, friend.

1. Apropos the above, you've taken my post out of context.
Otto advised "skimming" through the records and not seeing the depo in full (unless I misconstrued otto's post).

2. My post above has *nothing* to do with spousal abuse, correct. Nor does the depo tapes mention it. We all *know* that. Rather, it's all to do with 7 hours odd of typical Bradspeak. Which translates to BS. Whenever he opens his mouth. We know when he's lying ------> his lips move.

3. There are no more BDDI and BDIs. He did it. Proven in a court of law. As for appeal? Don't see it, ever. Ever. In 10 years, Brad may be called Braid. Or ... Bradgette. But whatever he's called, he'll be looking over his shoulder the rest of his days.

Karma.
Click to expand...

LOL. Perhaps I did misunderstand your statement that this would be your last comment on the case. Anyway, you always offer an interesting twist on things. Good, my radar is not terribly down on the depo tapes. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. I disagree with point 3 in this respect. There will always be the folks who believe he did not do it and those who believe he did it. The verdict is not whether he did it or not, but what 12 jurors decided based on their interpretation of the information. I accept that, honestly. I just do not understand why folks still need to defend their position so vigorously. I will not close the door and put up the wine just yet then.
 
Danielle59 said:
I don't think there was domestic abuse in that marriage either. I didn't see any evidence of it frmo BC to NC.

I also think that the definition for DV seems to be explanding and expanding to the point that anytime someone wants to use it, valid or not, it has to be so because a woman said so, or a friend of a woman said so and you are supposedly not to question it. It is losing its meaning and impact. If you look at your spouse and they decided that day they don't want you to glance at them it seems it can now be considered DV. Just because someone doesn't like a decision made in a family about money, when severely in debt, should not be considered DV.

Unfortunately, if it continues to be used for things that are not really DV it is going to lose its impact, and I think it is already.
Click to expand...

:waitasec:

Errrrr .... what's wrong with this picture? BC & NC married ... Brad Cooper murders his wife .... in their home. Their residence. Their local domicile ... right?

At that's not domestic violence?

Oh. OK.
 
cody100 said:
LOL. Perhaps I did misunderstand your statement that this would be your last comment on the case. Anyway, you always offer an interesting twist on things. Good, my radar is not terribly down on the depo tapes. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. I disagree with point 3 in this respect. There will always be the folks who believe he did not do it and those who believe he did it. The verdict is not whether he did it or not, but what 12 jurors decided based on their interpretation of the information. I accept that, honestly. I just do not understand why folks still need to defend their position so vigorously. I will not close the door and put up the wine just yet then.
Click to expand...

Lol - your apology is accepted, copy. Thank you, El Vino Muchacho ....

Not defending positions - moreso, I guess, being perplexed that there are a few who won't or can't see Brad away for the rest of his life. Just tossing out reasons and reminders ... doesn't seem to work. But then, we know each other here, to a degree. Those jurors didn't know BC. What they had presented to them was as clear as daylight.

Personally, I think I see sore, or hard-done-by losing side. I may be wrong. But cases past, the denial and anger waft on some and eventually the case clangs shut behind cold metal bars. Look at Scot Peterson as one poster pointed out ... Mark was ready to find the Real Killahs the next day ... nah. Wasn't going to happen. The def failed in Brad's case - and I don't think they like that - so of course they're going to make a rucus. End of story, I'd suppose.

Althooooo ... lol, cody ... in a way it's a good thing we're continuing to post here as I mentioned to Madeleine. Kurtz may well need our comments for his impending appeal ... LOL :D
 
PolkSaladAnnie said:
Hopefully you'll have read my response and seen you took my post right out of context. There was nothing to do with spousal abuse there. There were Bradgette's lies. Full of them.

otto brough up not reading those mid-way thru spousal abuse posting...

And hopefully you'll concede erroneous reading, dear friend ?

Thanks in advance (TIA)

:)
Click to expand...

You are so correct that your original post was lumped in with spousal abuse and the tapes. Understandably, I assumed your comments about how horrified folks were from listening to it had to do with spousal abuse. My apology if I upset you on this matter. Tensions certainly are high in here lately. You did answer my legitimate question though as to were there indications of spousal abuse in the deposition. What exactly do you mean by Bradgette?
 
Danielle59 said:
I don't think there was domestic abuse in that marriage either. I didn't see any evidence of it frmo BC to NC.

I also think that the definition for DV seems to be explanding and expanding to the point that anytime someone wants to use it, valid or not, it has to be so because a woman said so, or a friend of a woman said so and you are supposedly not to question it. It is losing its meaning and impact. If you look at your spouse and they decided that day they don't want you to glance at them it seems it can now be considered DV. Just because someone doesn't like a decision made in a family about money, when severely in debt, should not be considered DV.

Unfortunately, if it continues to be used for things that are not really DV it is going to lose its impact, and I think it is already.
Click to expand...

Killing your wife really is DV, I promise. There was no previous violence, but that doesn't preclude emotional abuse prior to the violence.

This sort of mindset is what's going to ensure that domestic abuse never goes away. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If the growing list of dead wives isn't a clear enough illustration for folks, I don't know what is.
 
cody100 said:
You are so correct that your original post was lumped in with spousal abuse and the tapes. Understandably, I assumed your comments about how horrified folks were from listening to it had to do with spousal abuse. My apology if I upset you on this matter. Tensions certainly are high in here lately. You did answer my legitimate question though as to were there indications of spousal abuse in the deposition. What exactly do you mean by Bradgette?
Click to expand...

Again, apology accepted and nope, wasn't tense - just settin the record straight.

Bradgette? Seriously? Cody ... you mean you seriously need an A to Z on that? Well I thought you may have picked up on it. Not Bridgette ... Bradgette. Where he's going, some Inmate may claim him as a partner. The abuser becomes abused? (In this case the familiar saying is the other way around = Karma.)

Now tell me that one really flew straight over your very wise, astute and intelligent head, cody ...
 
PolkSaladAnnie said:
Again, apology accepted and nope, wasn't tense - just settin the record straight.

Bradgette? Seriously? Cody ... you mean you seriously need an A to Z on that? Well I thought you may have picked up on it. Not Bridgette ... Bradgette. Where he's going, some Inmate may claim him as a partner. The abuser becomes abused? (In this case the familiar saying is the other way around = Karma.)

Now tell me that one really flew straight over your very wise, astute and intelligent head, cody ...
Click to expand...

Thanks for your explanation. I like how you tiptoed through there. You will never know whether it flew over my head, will you? :
 
PolkSaladAnnie said:
Lol - your apology is accepted, copy. Thank you, El Vino Muchacho ....

Not defending positions - moreso, I guess, being perplexed that there are a few who won't or can't see Brad away for the rest of his life. Just tossing out reasons and reminders ... doesn't seem to work. But then, we know each other here, to a degree. Those jurors didn't know BC. What they had presented to them was as clear as daylight.

Personally, I think I see sore, or hard-done-by losing side. I may be wrong. But cases past, the denial and anger waft on some and eventually the case clangs shut behind cold metal bars. Look at Scot Peterson as one poster pointed out ... Mark was ready to find the Real Killahs the next day ... nah. Wasn't going to happen. The def failed in Brad's case - and I don't think they like that - so of course they're going to make a rucus. End of story, I'd suppose.

Althooooo ... lol, cody ... in a way it's a good thing we're continuing to post here as I mentioned to Madeleine. Kurtz may well need our comments for his impending appeal ... LOL :D
Click to expand...

Yes we do know each other. And if you have read my recent posts you know I have some serious questions and issues, not necessarily the verdict but what went on in the courtroom. What defense would want to fail? Why couldn't someone in his family pump in the money to hire a forensic expert early on regarding the computer evidence if they had all of the information? Why couldn't they find an ex-FBI forensic guy who know how that computer was analyzed? If the computer evidence was not crucial to the Prosecution, why did they vigorously fight to suppress it? Why did the prosecution brag that the Google search was what did it? I know these things do not bother you, but please respect that many folks do find these points troubling, particularly the exclusion of the defense rebuttal forensic computer expert. I think Kurtz is way smarter than you think he is. But, hey, these are some well laid out points so maybe he will use our ideas for the appeal.
 
PolkSaladAnnie said:
:waitasec:

Errrrr .... what's wrong with this picture? BC & NC married ... Brad Cooper murders his wife .... in their home. Their residence. Their local domicile ... right?

At that's not domestic violence?

Oh. OK.
Click to expand...

The abuse discussion is prior to July 12th. Obviously if a husband strangles their wife to death, they have abused her. But this whole discussion is their relationship up to and including July 11th, 2008. But you knew this already.
 
Nancy told her attorney, Alice Stubbs, about the emotional abuse she was experiencing. Go back and watch A. Stubb's testimony as she details it. Various witnesses detailed the things Nancy told them. One friend on the stand described Nancy and her saying, "He's breaking me." That was in the last few weeks of her life. First he tried to break her spirit.

And then he did. Break her. Physically. It doesn't take multiple episodes of choking for some guys. Some kill the wife on their first attempt.

Jason Young tried before (suspicious car accident in a prior year) but he too made sure he got the job done in 2006.

Regardless of what term you'd like to use for it, some men do kill their wives. Spousal homicide may be a more comfortable term for those who don't believe in DV unless there is a period of months or years of black eyes and purple bruises.
 
For those who would like to donate to a worthy cause (Nancy's Butterfly Fund), in which all monies go to programs run by the NCCADV (North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence), visit this page:

http://www.nccadv.org/make_a_donation.htm

Tax deductible donation and a valuable organization that is helping people across the state.
 
ncsu95 said:
The abuse discussion is prior to July 12th. Obviously if a husband strangles their wife to death, they have abused her. But this whole discussion is their relationship up to and including July 11th, 2008. But you knew this already.
Click to expand...

I am sure that everyone can agree the marriage was disfunctional. Prior to 2008, Brad was pretty much not there much. Between getting his MBA, training for his events and working he had no time for his family but he did have time for a few affairs!! I would think Nancy started to feel trapped... the financial issues were just symptoms of a marriage out of control. The state of the inside and outside of the house were also symptoms of something that is dreadfully wrong. Nancy didn't feel she had a choice here. I believe when you are living something you don't really understand how bad it is until you get out.
This didn't happen overnight....it had been eroding over a long period of time. So you ask was it evident before July 12...I would say most certainly!!
 
"The archetype of the Wild Woman and all that stands behind her is patroness to all painters, writers, sculptors, dancers, thinkers, prayermakers, seekers, finders __for they all are busy with the work of invention, and that is the Wild Woman's main occupation. As in all art, she resides in the guts, not the head. She can track and run and summon and repel. She can sense, camouflage, and love deeply. She is intuitive, typical and normative. She is utterly essential to women's mental and soul health." .....

"She is the Life/Death/Life/force, she is the incubator. She is intuition, she is far-seer, she is deep listener, she is loyal heart. She encourages humans to remain multilingual; fluent in the languages of dreams, passion, and poetry. She whispers from night dreams, she leaves behind on the terrain of a woman's soul a coarse hair and muddy footprints. These fill women with longing to find her, free her, and love her."

"She is ideas, feelings, urges, and memory." ..... "She is the source, the light, the night, the dark, and daybreak. She is the smell of good mud and the back leg of the fox. The birds which tell us secrets belong to her. She is the voice that says, " This way, this way."

"She is the one who thunders after injustice. "

Found on pages 12 and 13 in chapter Singing over the Bones
from book Women Who Run With the Wolves 519 pages
by Clarissa Pinkola Estes Ph.D. copyright 1992
 
ncsu95 said:
The abuse discussion is prior to July 12th. Obviously if a husband strangles their wife to death, they have abused her. But this whole discussion is their relationship up to and including July 11th, 2008. But you knew this already.
Click to expand...

Abuse was "subtle," but definitely present prior to July 11/12....and, I believe that, if you've read the affidavits you know this. NC was afraid of BC...That doesn't happen in a nurturing or respectful relationship.

For a refresher course, pop on over and read Jim Lister's description of Brad's unreasonable description of NC's plane routes and the response given to a request to change them...read the friends (I know, they were exaggerated, liars, whatever you want to call them....). Read the younger sister's description of Brad's college suicide attempt.
Jill's:
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/09/3705284/20081009110741989.pdf
Jim L's:
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/09/3705284/20081009110741989.pdf
Others:
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/23/3258895/Plaintiff_affidavits.pdf

Maybe HP was right. BC was probably a little crazy and didn't know how to handle a normal relationship with anyone. BC is where he belongs...MOO...
 
Anyone who doesn't believe Nancy was abused, thankfully has never been in an abusive relationship
a controlling spouse is the most dangerous spouse and in the words of Nancy's Dad "this isn't going to end well" he said that when Nancy was reported missing

If you don't believe anyone in this trial ..you have to at least believe her parents
 
Tipstaff said:
Has anyone followed a case in the past where a defendant was found guilty, gone to jail, and then has had such a vigorous defense continue by posters/trial watchers continue after the verdict? If so who is/was the defendant? And then has that defendant ever won an appeal?
Click to expand...
There are always going to be people who are so anti Law Enforcement or anti government or anti-anti that they will continue to protest the findings OF THE LAW.

I know I'm also done with this case. He's guilty. Finished. THE END. Why continue to argue with these people? I suggest finding a new event to follow and leave the rest to continue to argue amongst themselves. I'm sure they'll find something to continue to disagree with.

Me? I'm going to go check out Coleman's forum and see how that all plays out.

Bye everyone. Brad's guilty, 12 good people heard all the evidence and agreed on the outcome. Time we all did the same!!
 
Madeleine74 said:
For those who would like to donate to a worthy cause (Nancy's Butterfly Fund), in which all monies go to programs run by the NCCADV (North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence), visit this page:

http://www.nccadv.org/make_a_donation.htm

Tax deductible donation and a valuable organization that is helping people across the state.
Click to expand...

I just made a donation, and I encourage all who are moved by Nancy's story,
those who are reading as guests or just anyone....support Nancy's legacy...it feels good to donate to an organization that is actively supporting an end to domestic violence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 157 more.
Total: 3,758 (members: 158, guests: 3,600)

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
3,600
Total visitors
3,758
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,271
Messages
17,966,489
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top