Brad Cooper Pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Murder of Nancy Cooper

[Madeleine74]

For those who did not get a chance to see the prior hearing (held August 14, 2014) here it is:

http://abc11.com/news/judge-holds-review-on-wake-county-murder-cases/260331/

 

[Madeleine74]

I think the only way some could possibly be convinced of Brad's guilt would require a video of Brad committing the murder.

IF Brad takes a plea for second degree, stands up in court, and admits guilt, it will be argued he has no choice and he's just trying to save the rest of his life and is willing to sacrifice the next 7 to 10 years in state prison for that. (I'm not saying it makes sense, that's just the rationalization that will be used by some). Brad is not going to stand up and admit guilt for a first degree conviction; he would at least take his chances with a trial.

OR IF Brad turns down the plea deal and instead allows the case to go to trial #2 and then IF another jury concludes that Brad is guilty of killing his wife, with all evidence allowed in, and a jury of 12 still convicts him, some will argue that is "unfair" and "corrupt," regardless of the evidence. (Note, not all will say or believe that, but some will).

Thus, for some subset of people, there is no way Brad's guilt could ever be proven to them given the options available, not even by Brad saying the word, "guilty." There would have to be something so damning that it could not be rationalized (like a video that is determined to be authentic and shows him in the act, as one example).

And no, Oenophile, I am not including you in any subset. You've stated several times what would have you conclude guilt.

 

[JusticeFever]

I think the only way some could possibly be convinced of Brad's guilt would require a video of Brad committing the murder.

IF Brad takes a plea for second degree, stands up in court, and admits guilt, it will be argued he has no choice and he's just trying to save the rest of his life and is willing to sacrifice the next 7 to 10 years in state prison for that. (I'm not saying it makes sense, that's just the rationalization that will be used by some). Brad is not going to stand up and admit guilt for a first degree conviction; he would at least take his chances with a trial.

OR IF Brad turns down the plea deal and instead allows the case to go to trial #2 and then IF another jury concludes that Brad is guilty of killing his wife, with all evidence allowed in, and a jury of 12 still convicts him, some will argue that is "unfair" and "corrupt," regardless of the evidence. (Note, not all will say or believe that, but some will).

Thus, for some subset of people, there is no way Brad's guilt could ever be proven to them given the options available, not even by Brad saying the word, "guilty."

I don't need a video,but, just when I was going to say the tone of the forum has been so much better lately and both sides have calmed down, why do you need to call one side out over the other?. People are entitled to their opinions..... a plea deal isn't going to change anything (guilt vs. innocence ) except the amount of time Brad serves.....

Also, could you please tell me why you think attorneys would hide a plea deal from their client?
JMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

Brad has a shot at acquittal. Full on freedom and no legal guilt whatsoever (except what remains in people's minds). His attorneys from trial 1 said if a jury got to hear all the computer evidence, including what their own experts had to say, a jury would (have to) acquit him. Brad has that opportunity, the one his attorneys wanted him to have and that all those who saw an unfair trial want him to have. It's his, 100% guaranteed. The state can not stop him from going forward and having that trial. A judge would allow him to present all the computer experts he wants. That's a pretty big advantage, if one agrees with what Brad's defense team said after the trial. It's what was asked for, wished for, and now is his. The ball is totally in his control with that.

 

[JusticeFever]

Retrials favor the state.....we saw that in the Young case, who I bet, is following this news very closely.....
Raven is offered a plea, Cooper is offered a plea.........will a plea also be coming Jason's way after the court hears the appeal argument?

 

[sunshine05]

And the even bigger question is, did Brad's attorneys tell Brad there was a plea deal on the table at the point back in the first trial, after the Google search but before the trial was given to jurors? Attorneys are legally obligated to present any possible plea even if they consider it ridiculous. Did Brad know back then or did he just recently find out?

IF Brad takes the plea and it's guilty of second degree murder, then he is admitting to the killing. That's a confession by the defendant, not coerced or obtained illegally. Brad can take a plea or say fuhgetaboutit and keep going and have a trial. He has experts who will testify on his behalf and there's no way any judge is going to block that given the ruling by the circuit court from his appeal.

Of course they presented it to him if it was offered. Do you seriously think they would conceal a deal offered by the state?

I really hope it goes to trial so everyone learns the truth once and for all about the Google maps. There is so much to it that needs to be carefully outlined so the jurors understand it and once it is presented that way it is unmistakeable.

However, there is more to this than - Okay now the tampering evidence comes in. We know all the underhanded crap they pulled last time with the ridiculous dress deception, the note changing, the missing shoes, Nancy's shoes not missing, router in the lake, soil that didn't match anything, bugs that died, a small piece of onion! Ridiculous and embarrassing and the state can't rehash all of that again. So how do we know they won't manufacture more "evidence". I don't trust them. How could anyone trust them?

I am 70% finished with a book about every detail about this case and everything they did and it's carefully summarized in an organized way. It will be quite revealing whether there's a new trial or not. It doesn't change anything and people need to know what really happened in this case. All of it!

 

[sunshine05]

Brad has a shot at acquittal. Full on freedom and no legal guilt whatsoever (except what remains in people's minds). His attorneys from trial 1 said if a jury got to hear all the computer evidence, including what their own experts had to say, a jury would (have to) acquit him. Brad has that opportunity, the one his attorneys wanted him to have and that all those who saw an unfair trial want him to have. It's his, 100% guaranteed. The state can not stop him from going forward and having that trial. A judge would allow him to present all the computer experts he wants. That's a pretty big advantage, if one agrees with what Brad's defense team said after the trial. It's what was asked for, wished for, and now is his. The ball is totally in his control with that.

Agreed. I really hope there will be another trial.

 

[JusticeFever]

Brad has a shot at acquittal. Full on freedom and no legal guilt whatsoever (except what remains in people's minds). His attorneys from trial 1 said if a jury got to hear all the computer evidence, including what their own experts had to say, a jury would (have to) acquit him. Brad has that opportunity, the one his attorneys wanted him to have and that all those who saw an unfair trial want him to have. It's his, 100% guaranteed. The state can not stop him from going forward and having that trial. A judge would allow him to present all the computer experts he wants. That's a pretty big advantage, if one agrees with what Brad's defense team said after the trial. It's what was asked for, wished for, and now is his. The ball is totally in his control with that.

Actually, the correct saying is that the ball is in his court, not control.......

 

[pseudo_hum]

He definately is guilty, but the court of law decides.

 

[oenophile]

OR IF Brad turns down the plea deal and instead allows the case to go to trial #2 and then IF another jury concludes that Brad is guilty of killing his wife, with all evidence allowed in, and a jury of 12 still convicts him, some will argue that is "unfair" and "corrupt," regardless of the evidence. (Note, not all will say or believe that, but some will).
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Actually, this alone wouldn't convince me of his guilt. Juries sometimes get it wrong (look again at the David Camm case). I would rather watch the trial and come to my own conclusion.

Jurors are humans too. Much as we wish they wouldn't, jurors come into a case with some preconceived ideas that the prosecution wouldn't bring the defendant to trial unless they had evidence and that they believed that he/she committed the crime. And jurors have more distrust of defense attorneys, who are obligated to try to get their clients off whether they are guilty or not, than prosecutors who are supposedly there to seek justice. So while "innocent until proven guilty" is the law, and while I believe jurors are mostly good people that try to follow the law, the reality is that much of the burden is put onto the defense.

 

[gracielee]

Brad has a shot at acquittal. Full on freedom and no legal guilt whatsoever (except what remains in people's minds). His attorneys from trial 1 said if a jury got to hear all the computer evidence, including what their own experts had to say, a jury would (have to) acquit him. Brad has that opportunity, the one his attorneys wanted him to have and that all those who saw an unfair trial want him to have. It's his, 100% guaranteed. The state can not stop him from going forward and having that trial. A judge would allow him to present all the computer experts he wants. That's a pretty big advantage, if one agrees with what Brad's defense team said after the trial. It's what was asked for, wished for, and now is his. The ball is totally in his control with that.

Exactly, if he takes a plea now, it should be pretty obvious as to what happened that night. As for the Rentz family, I've often heard other families state the importance of the minor children at least being old enough to look out for themselves before the parent who murdered gets out of prison. I recall that being one of the reasons Eric Millers family agreed to Anne Miller Konce plea deal. Eric's little girl will be an adult before her mother gets out of prison.

 

[MrsWendy]

Whether someone is guilty or innocent, it has to be an incredibly tough decision to either accept and reject a plea deal. It's a huge gamble either way.

Look at what happened recently with the former governor of Virginia. He could have accepted a plea deal where he would plead guilty to one felony. Had he done that he would have likely received only a slap on the wrist and his wife would not have been charged with anything. But he rejected it and now he has been convicted on 11 felony charges while his wife has been convicted on 9 felony charges. They both are facing the possibility of significant jail time. He gambled that he would be found not guilty and he lost in a major way.

If I was in Brad Cooper's position and if I knew I was innocent, I would still strongly consider the plea deal. Even if there's a possibility for full acquittal, the consequence of losing the bet is severe.

 

[Madeleine74]

Exactly, if he takes a plea now, it should be pretty obvious as to what happened that night. As for the Rentz family, I've often heard other families state the importance of the minor children at least being old enough to look out for themselves before the parent who murdered gets out of prison. I recall that being one of the reasons Eric Millers family agreed to Anne Miller Konce plea deal. Eric's little girl will be an adult before her mother gets out of prison.

I agree it should be obvious if that's what he does, but denial is a funny thing and emotional connection + denial is often impervious to logic. If Brad actually said the words out loud in court, "Yes, I killed my wife," would that be enough to be believed by the most ardent?

With a plea deal, he'll never have custody of his kids again. The kids will be almost of legal age at his earliest possible release. He may not even be allowed to contact them, but that would be a separate matter for a civil court. Once they are legal adults, it will be up to them if they ever want to see or speak with him. At least the kids have been and will be protected and are in a stable, loving home, surrounded by family who adores them.

 

[MyBelle]

I think it is important to note that, at least according to the articles I've read, this information is coming from the Rentz's. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have commented. Now I assume that the prosecution has been in contact with the Rentz's, hence the reason why they believe that there is a plea deal expected. According to the N&O, "His former in-laws have alerted media outlets that they plan to come to Raleigh from Canada with hopes of closure in a case that keeps the two Cooper girls, now 8 and 10, in a state of limbo."

As to whether BC is seriously considering the deal, we'll probably need to wait until the 22nd. Because of the limited information, I think it is too soon to determine whether the deal on the table is an Alford plea or not.

If his children are "in a state of limbo" it must be because at least one of them doesn't believe Brad is guilty, imo. I'll be surprised if he accepts a plea deal now. There were too many witnesses who reported seeing Nancy jogging.

 

[JusticeFever]

Actually, this alone wouldn't convince me of his guilt. Juries sometimes get it wrong (look again at the David Camm case). I would rather watch the trial and come to my own conclusion.

Jurors are humans too. Much as we wish they wouldn't, jurors come into a case with some preconceived ideas that the prosecution wouldn't bring the defendant to trial unless they had evidence and that they believed that he/she committed the crime. And jurors have more distrust of defense attorneys, who are obligated to try to get their clients off whether they are guilty or not, than prosecutors who are supposedly there to seek justice. So while "innocent until proven guilty" is the law, and while I believe jurors are mostly good people that try to follow the law, the reality is that much of the burden is put onto the defense.

Yes, and people can also get those preconceived ideas from rumors, and media/ newspaper headlines and accept them as facts. The average person may see something like what happened in the Young case "Blood found in Husband's SUV" and think, "well, that's that". Those who follow more closely know that it wasn't true.
However, to this day, has anyone ever seen a headline that said "Oops, no, never mind, No Blood found in husband's SUV.".....
And, the damage has been done...

 

[JusticeFever]

Whether someone is guilty or innocent, it has to be an incredibly tough decision to either accept and reject a plea deal. It's a huge gamble either way.

Look at what happened recently with the former governor of Virginia. He could have accepted a plea deal where he would plead guilty to one felony. Had he done that he would have likely received only a slap on the wrist and his wife would not have been charged with anything. But he rejected it and now he has been convicted on 11 felony charges while his wife has been convicted on 9 felony charges. They both are facing the possibility of significant jail time. He gambled that he would be found not guilty and he lost in a major way.

If I was in Brad Cooper's position and if I knew I was innocent, I would still strongly consider the plea deal. Even if there's a possibility for full acquittal, the consequence of losing the bet is severe.

I agree , and since we now know Brad was already previously offered a plea deal and turned it down before, he would be foolish to roll the same pair of dice again...

The way it looks now is that on Sept 22nd, a deal will be offered to Brad officially in court and he will accept or reject it and it will go on record. His attorneys may be trying to work out something to get the deal a little lighter.

If I were a betting person, I would say the deal is as good as done, expect a release date around 2021, maybe more time off with no infractions or good behavior.......JMO

Once he is out, he can do whatever he can to clear his name or reputation, and re- establish a relationship
with his daughters, if that is what they want. The most important thing is that he will have that chance.

Again, JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

JusticeFever said, "and since we now know Brad was already previously offered a plea down and turned it down once before"

Where is the proof of Brad turning it down? This is the part I have questions about. No where has it been published or publicly stated that this plea deal that first emerged in 2011 was based on the state initiating it or that Brad himself turned it down. I'd like to know the full set of facts around what transpired in 2011.

Once he is out, he can do whatever he can to clear his name or reputation, and establish a relationship
with his daughters, if that is what they want. The most important thing is that he will have that chance.

Once he signs the paperwork and states in court he is guilty of murder and he has not been coerced or forced into taking that plea, he'll never be able to clear his name legally. He is then admitting guilt to the murder; that's a confession. He will never be able to have a relationship with his daughters while they are still minors. Once the girls are of adult age the choice will be theirs to make. They could, if they wanted, as adults, keep him from ever contacting them again through a legal order. That's a lot to give up if one is innocent, sit in prison for up to 10 more years? Don't know anyone who would willingly do that if they were innocent.

 

[JusticeFever]

Where is the proof of Brad turning it down? This is the part I have questions about. No where has it been published or publicly stated that this plea deal that first emerged in 2011 was based on the state initiating it or that Brad himself turned it down. I'd like to know the full set of facts around what transpired in 2011.

I am pretty sure if he had accepted it, there would not have been a trial........:thinking:

Are you under the impression that Brad's attorney, Howard Kurtz, would withhold such a deal?

It would seem more likely they discussed it and went over all the possibilities and decided to go ahead with a trial. HK has stated he believed and still believes in Brad's innocence......

JMO

 

[gracielee]

Yes, and people can also get those preconceived ideas from rumors, and media/ newspaper headlines and accept them as facts. The average person may see something like what happened in the Young case "Blood found in Husband's SUV" and think, "well, that's that". Those who follow more closely know that it wasn't true.
However, to this day, has anyone ever seen a headline that said "Oops, no, never mind, No Blood found in husband's SUV.".....
And, the damage has been done...

I don't think any of us here, who followed the entire case, watching every moment of testimony online, has any misconceptions of what the evidence actually proved. Spouses murder each other all the time, and neither of these cases, Cooper, Young, Anne Miller, has anything particularly different about them. They are typical IMO. No one else, besides their spouses, wanted them dead. And the evidence pointed directly to their spouses. Again, IMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

I am pretty sure if he had accepted it, there would not have been a trial........:thinking:

Are you under the impression that Brad's attorney, Howard Kurtz, would withhold such a deal?

It would seem more likely they discussed it and went over all the possibilities and decided to go ahead with a trial. HK has stated he believed and still believes in Brad's innocence......

JMO

You keep misrepresenting the facts about this when it's been shown what is correct.

The deal came up AFTER the trial was already under way, at some point either right before the jury was given the case to deliberate or maybe a week or so before that, perhaps during the defense's case. There was already a trial. WRAL got the details wrong about this, and I've posted that at least twice. ABC11 got the details correct, it's the same thing the judge said in the hearing. Plea deal was offered before the jury got the case to deliberate (not before the trial started). You stated you watched the hearing and heard what Cummings and the judge said. ABC11 accurately depicted what was said in that hearing.