State v Bradley Cooper 4-28-2011

[ncsu95]

Serious question for those who care to answer: why do you think the Rentz family believes Brad is the killer of Nancy?

Yes, things were tense in that marriage and yes, they knew Nancy wanted out.

You saw both of them on the stand, in testimony. They seem like compassionate, decent, caring people. They celebrated Brad's graduation at the end of 2007, threw a party for him.

But do you really believe they want an innocent man in prison?

Because he is the most obvious suspect and they were going through a divorce.

 

[Cheyenne130]

It certainly appears they expected the case to move along more quickly and they see the length having to do with readiness. I agree, I would do what I could to keep them from smoking out that I was adding more days due to stuff I was just getting. Likewise, probably we won't see any attorney around 4:55 say, "This might be a good point to break, your honor" like they normally would.

4:55 might seem acceptable. It's the half hour before court is scheduled to end with the, "This might be a good place to break" that is more frustrating. Those half hours add up. I think they would rather go 15 mintues later instead of ending a half hour or more early.

 

[sunshine05]

What is Cisco guy thought to be bringing to court? If he testifies that a router log shows BC's computer was accessed via a remote connection on July 15th, that would go a long way toward rebutting JW's testimony regarding all the "potential security issues" on BC's network. Especially if it was accessed from SH's Cisco connection. If he testifies that some Cisco internal log shows that BC accessed something at Cisco with a router/FXO on July 11th, then it rebuts any defense witness who talked about not seeing such a router in photos of equipment from the house.

I have no idea what the ornithologist would testify to, but unless it is to rebut something that the defense talked about I would expect his testimony to be disallowed.

The only witness who discussed not seeing the equipment in the house was Detective Young. The photos of the equipment were shown to him on cross. No defense witnesses looked at the computer photos.

 

[gritguy]

Also, I wonder IF the state is allowed to present this, will the judge allow the defense witness from today to keep things fair? Any guesses?

Well Kurtz was asking that up front and that's when the judge went all different fish to fry and other cliches. Where I stand is I think they should have figured out a way to let the defense testify to the MFT stuff. I really do. The google search seems important on the forum (what it could mean, whether it is legit, etc) and if it means that much to the jury, I hate for the defense to not have a real chance to challenge it.

Having said that, I suppose once the new Cisco stuff is fully known, Kurtz can try again on it.

 

[JBean]

Are there no mods around here?

Not 24/7. We do the best we can when we can.

 

[zenreaper]

For me, the last two sentences are inappropriate towards the victim. I'm just a fellow poster though.

Since when does the truth become "inappropriate"? She cheated on him. He cheated on her. He is being portrayed as a BUM for doing so, she is being portrayed as a helpless individual who HAD to cheat to get the love BC was withholding. There has been a double standard applied.

 

[gritguy]

I don't think she is wearing any. She is going to the pool. I also don't think anyone has made the assertion that she always wears earrings either.

I thought I heard JA say (or somebody said she said) that NC had told her that she "never takes her diamonds off" and that was meant, as odd as it sounds to me, to include earrings. Not sure though.

 

[ncsu95]

I think we can all agree that the prosecution needs to come up with something quick to make the defense look foolish for some of this testimony. But the defense needs to stop delaying the trial further by these last minute witnesses because the jury is ready to deliberate.

IMO BC may get off because of the slow moving, really boring testimony of what a bad relationship they had. Too many friends testified, that just wasn't necessary to put everyone at the party on the stand!
I have watched everything and have been on WS every day since before the trial. I am so very disappointed and my heart aches for Nancy. I drive by Lochmere all the time and I am so involved with justice for her that I think about her every time I pass those places. It's a very eerie feeling pulling into that same HT parking lot knowing that all that stuff could have just been dumped in that dumpster there.

I am not going to sit here and dig up all the CE that has been presented and get beaten up for it. I am going to agree that this trial is a mess and will hope the jurors do the best they can with the information received and give it their best shot. Totally sucks a guy's life depends on people who are so in a rush to get back to their lives.

IMO Karma will get him and it won't be pretty if he walks away from this trial a free man.

What last minute witnesses are you talking about? The only one they tried to add was the expert because of the ruling about JW. The defense has not even had the case for 2 weeks yet. I think they deserve the opportunity to put on a case..and they are doing a great job of it. And they are quick and to the point with their witnesses.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Because I don't think there is any angle, blown up or not, that you can clearly make out a necklace in that video. So if they try to do so and expect the juror to guess at what they are seeing, despite the video showing nothing, then they are showing themselves to be desperate because the necklace is so important to their case. It's magnified more because of the duck fiasco.

You don't think that if they show that the private detective used to find evidence to support their case and then it is shown that his evidence is incorrect wouldn't be a big deal? If the video is enhanced, I don't think they will have to guess. MOO

 

[3doglady]

What last minute witnesses are you talking about? The only one they tried to add was the expert because of the ruling about JW. The defense has not even had the case for 2 weeks yet. I think they deserve the opportunity to put on a case..and they are doing a great job of it. And they are quick and to the point with their witnesses.

You thought they were quick with that PI today? I thought they drug it out forever.

 

[JBean]

Since when does the truth become "inappropriate"? She cheated on him. He cheated on her. He is being portrayed as a BUM for doing so, she is being portrayed as a helpless individual who HAD to cheat to get the love BC was withholding. There has been a double standard applied.

KNOCK IT OFF,please. I have removed several posts that were generated off a name calling post and at the victim no less.

Name calling is not allowed under any circumstances. You can state your views as long as you are civil in your discussion and don't make rude remarks about the victim. if you want to express some displeasure about the victims activity,so be it. But when we resort to name calling and other petty BS, it is just not constructive discussion and it derails the entire thread as it has now done.
Hope that helps.

 

[ncsu95]

These are interesting comments but none of them actually answered my question, so let me ask only one question and keep it simple.

Why do you think the Rentz family believes Brad murdered Nancy?

(remember Mr. Rentz said, upon learning Nancy was missing, to his wife, "I don't think this story is going to have a happy ending.")

I answered your question, but wanted to comment about what Mr. Rentz said. Does a missing adult situation ever have a happy ending? Very very rarely.

 

[macd]

If only one file had a bad time stamp, bad watermark, and missing cookie file then I'd say "yep, that file was tampered with or planted". But since every single Google cache file has the same issues, I say "there was a systemic problem with Google or the laptop, but those files are valid.". The theory I'm going with: BC was using a private browsing feature of his browser that malfunctioned and, using today's expert witness term, "dropped" a bunch of files in the cache directory.

 

[otto]

I don't really feel comfortable talking about them at all really. But I do think it's possible that as the case has progressed they may be having doubts. JMO

I doubt it. I didn't see them in the courtroom this afternoon.

 

[sunshine05]

I thought I heard JA say (or somebody said she said) that NC had told her that she "never takes her diamonds off" and that was meant, as odd as it sounds to me, to include earrings. Not sure though.

You are correct. In testimony (I posted it a couple pages back) JA read the part of her police report that states that NC always kept all her diamonds on - rings, necklace and earrings. Personally, I could never sleep in earrings and would be nervous about losing them in a pool. I don't even wear my diamond engagement ring while swimming because I'm afraid I'll lose it in the pool. Again, why did she make a big point of stating this to point the finger at BC? Why not let the case progress naturally? These so called friends were not true friends to NC or they would have been open minded about her husband's guilt/innocence until the police found evidence of something at least. That's why they seem so suspicious to me.

 

[less0305]

You don't think that if they show that the private detective used to find evidence to support their case and then it is shown that his evidence is incorrect wouldn't be a big deal? If the video is enhanced, I don't think they will have to guess. MOO

It seems to me that if I could find the necklace with absolutely no special program, the prosecution could have a rebuttal witness that could take the actual video and enhance it enough to see it. If I were the prosecution, I sure wouldn't let it just drop and end with the private investigator's word without at least trying. But then again, the prosecution hasn't given me much hope lately of anything.

 

[sunshine05]

I doubt it. I didn't see them in the courtroom this afternoon.

That's your opinion. I have mine. They were there this morning, right?

 

[Cheyenne130]

I'm pretty sure that the Grandparents and KM will be in a position to legally maintain contact with the children, and after this much time it would do more harm than good to simply give them to BC with no contact from the Rentzes. First off, BC will need to adjust to being back out in society, find a job, and fight to get his kids back. Second is that pesky little custody order. I haven't read the custody order, but I highly doubt Judge Sasser put a sunset provision in there in the event BC is acquitted. I find the REntz parents to be more reasonable then KM, so who knows what will come of it, but I don't think many people would choose your route.

At the time the custody was granted he had not been charged. It would be difficult to argue that he should have them back because he was found not guilty when "technically" (in law terms) the crime did not enter into the decision. MOO (I'm definitely not a lawyer and would never pretend to be one on the internet.)

 

[ncsu95]

What is Cisco guy thought to be bringing to court? If he testifies that a router log shows BC's computer was accessed via a remote connection on July 15th, that would go a long way toward rebutting JW's testimony regarding all the "potential security issues" on BC's network. Especially if it was accessed from SH's Cisco connection. If he testifies that some Cisco internal log shows that BC accessed something at Cisco with a router/FXO on July 11th, then it rebuts any defense witness who talked about not seeing such a router in photos of equipment from the house.

I have no idea what the ornithologist would testify to, but unless it is to rebut something that the defense talked about I would expect his testimony to be disallowed.

The defense hasn't mentioned the lack of a router being found. They only showed one during JW testimony to show the size of the one that the Cisco expert said would be required to use an fxo card.

 

[gritguy]

You are correct. In testimony (I posted it a couple pages back) JA read the part of her police report that states that NC always kept all her diamonds on - rings, necklace and earrings. Personally, I could never sleep in earrings and would be nervous about losing them in a pool. I don't even wear my diamond engagement ring while swimming because I'm afraid I'll lose it in the pool. Again, why did she make a big point of stating this to point the finger at BC? Why not let the case progress naturally? These so called friends were not true friends to NC or they would have been open minded about her husband's guilt/innocence until the police found evidence of something at least. That's why they seem so suspicious to me.

In regard to JA, in watching some of her testimony this evening (by no means all of it), I didn't see her as connected to the case at all in terms of anything related to the crime. But, she was the one person who sussed out NC might be in bad trouble and happened to be right. Her instincts told her it was BC. From that point, I think she was beyond questioning it, and perhaps understandably viewed her memories in that light. In watching her, we shouldn't have that bias of course. Also, I think LEO/DA should not have relied as much, b/c of that, on some non-critical assertions she made, like the duck/necklace stuff. That ends up, at least this point, apparently hurting the case.

There are people on here with tunnel vision on the BDI/BII side who can't imagine anything less than that every single point either supports their theory or is otherwise invalid. Given that understandable human response to the tragedy, I could see JA having an extreme case of that, having been so close to NC, in friendship and proximity, at the time of the crime.