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

[ncsu95]

Paranoia.. Everything has to be a conspiracy.

The facts of the case were nuanced and conclusions were molded to fit a paranoid-conspiracy agenda.

- No evidence pointed away from Brad.

- When were the shoe prints made? Can you date them? How do you know they were made that night? Do you know for a fact those shoe impressions were not there the day before? Where's the proof? Further, those prints were physically distorted and the CCBI agent testified to their condition and why he didn't take castings of them. The prints were filled with water from the rains that day. Photos were taken but CCBI testified they could not get a print or accurate shoe size out of that distorted shoe impression. Oooh conspiracy!

- Tire tracks - Can you date them? When were they made? How do you know they were made that night? Where's the proof? It's another "had to be made that night because..." Do you know for a fact those tire tracks were not there the day before?

- The weather report was that there had been no rain at all the few days before the body was dumped. Zero rain the day of the dump and zero rain the day after. Then the rains started. Yet the claim is somehow those tire tracks were made on muddy/wet ground by the vehicle that carried Nancy's body. Where's the proof of that? The ground was dry the day she was dumped; it rained sometime after her body was dumped.

- The job of investigators is not to try and prove someone innocent. This is a fundamental misunderstanding if you think that's their role. Their job is to investigate a case, gather information, and go where the evidence leads, not spend their time to try and prove someone didn't do a crime. The crime scene techs (who are different people, not in the local police dept) catalog and process scenes, photograph and turn potential evidence in. Claiming there was "no evidence" is ridiculous. Hundreds of exhibits were entered at trial and given Bates stamps. Each item is considered evidence in a case. That you don't consider them evidence doesn't make it so.

- What 16 eyewitnesses came into court? Please point to them. Three came into court. 1 person saw two women running down Fielding Dr. 1 witness (Rosemary Zednick) saw a woman wearing an iPod who smiled as she passed. One witness was Curtis Hodges who saw a woman running down a major street, not in distress, not being attacked, not stopped. He saw a "van" turning around and heading in the same direction as that runner. At no point did he see anyone in trouble or being hassled. Did Hodges get a license plate number? No. Good identification of the vehicle? No. Where are the 13 other witnesses who testified? You said there were 16 witnesses. Who are they?

It's been pointed out at least once, if not more, that the first trial essentially never happened. Over. Done. Overturned. Move on. Now it's being dragged back up yet again. Why? Because Brad did something his supporters never ever thought he would. He declared himself guilty. He admitted it. Instead of finally conceding he's actually the killer, no it can't be. Back to conspiracy-land once again, ratcheted up. The whole town conspired against this guy..no the whole government. He only took a plea because "he had no choice" and "it's all so unfair he couldn't ever get a fair trial so even though he won a new trial it didn't matter...he didn't even need to try."

He was back to "innocent until proven guilty" legally and then when he finally had his opportunity to prove every claim he/his team made, when given an alternative, he folded.

Brad was back to innocent, legally. It was then on the state to prove guilt. Well Brad ended it and he wrote the last chapter. He said he was, in fact, guilty, and he in fact killed his wife and dumped her body. That's what he told the world Sept 22, and that's how he and his case will be remembered.

BBM. Maybe because this is the Nancy Cooper trial forum. If you have issues with people continuing to bring up stuff from the trial that never happened, then why do you continue to engage in the conversation? He's guilty. He plead guilty. So why do you care if people continue to discuss the trial?

 

[sunshine05]

It is odd that they didn't mention the google search in opening statement. Almost like they wanted a Perry Mason moment during the trial.

I now believe that they were hoping not to have to use it. Also, remember that Johnson supposedly did the analysis on the computer and found the search yet he refused to testify about it. Why would he do that? At the last minute Agent Chappell became the one to testify about it and stated that he was there when Johnson found it. Oh, there are just so many things like this that most people don't know because that part of the trial was blacked out. The whole thing feels so shady. This will never go away.

 

[thefragile7393]

BBM. Maybe because this is the Nancy Cooper trial forum. If you have issues with people continuing to bring up stuff from the trial that never happened, then why do you continue to engage in the conversation? He's guilty. He plead guilty. So why do you care if people continue to discuss the trial?

Probably because others don't want to accept he is guilty?

 

[ncsu95]

Probably because others don't want to accept he is guilty?

And why should that matter as far as continuing to discuss the trial?

 

[JusticeFever]

Wonder why the state kept it such a big secret that Brad turned down 2 previous deals?

Taking a plea or not taking a plea wasn't going to change anyone's minds, although I did see some posts
that said they might reconsider guilt/innocence if Brad turned a plea down.

Well, he didn't turn down just one plea bargain, he turned down 2.

Brad took what the state offered, and will be released in 2020. He most likely will serve 80-85% of his sentence, with the last year being sent back to serve in Canada.

Really kind of over.......

JMO

 

[sunshine05]

Wonder why the state kept it such a big secret that Brad turned down 2 previous deals?

Taking a plea or not taking a plea wasn't going to change anyone's minds, although I did see some posts
that said they might reconsider guilt/innocence if Brad turned a plea down.

Well, he didn't turn down just one plea bargain, he turned down 2.

Brad took what the state offered, and will be released in 2020. He most likely will serve 80-85% of his sentence, with the last year being sent back to serve in Canada.

Really kind of over.......

JMO

I don't think they typically discuss deals that are presented publicly when there is a trial. The fact that they offered him 12 years before the 1st trial shows how weak their case was. So imagine what Brad must have been thinking "I did not do this. They have no evidence to suggest that I did except for bogus computer evidence that I know they can not prove because I did not do that ridiculous search. I have a qualified expert who can easily show the jury all the problems with the files associated with the search. I will not plead guilty to something I did not do." Little did he know what would happen at trial. Yes, all of the unlawful rulings would ultimately result in the conviction being overturned but we all had to watch the painful trial with the blatant unfairness. Imagine how Brad Cooper must have felt when his defense case was completely blocked and nothing could be done.

The CoA decision was so important because it actually protected all of us from future government abuse. Had they allowed the rulings to stand it would have paved the way for the state to require that all experts must have a forensic certificate and it would have allowed the state to always hire the FBI when phony evidence is used against a person. No one could question it. It's no different than what we see in a 3rd world country.

Now consider the extreme rulings that this judge made and imagine having to sit before him again after he was humiliated by the CoA decision. How many would face him again? Brad had already served 6 years. If he decided to go forward with a new trial, it probably would have been 2 years away.....now he's facing 4 years until guaranteed freedom versus taking his chances with a judge who does not care about fairness and justice. IF he went to trial again and sat through another unfair trial, the appeals process would be 2-3 years again. Now he's thinking - We're 5 years into this...."Had I taken the deal I would be free in a year." Now he has to hope to win the appeal and then repeat the whole thing again. It's really sad that an innocent person was pushed into a corner like this. We're supposed to have one of the best judicial systems in the world yet it's apparent that our system is horrendous, at least in Wake County.

The complete true and factual story about everything that happened in this case will be told. There is no reason to hold anything back as there will not be another trial. It will be quite eye opening.

 

[Hez]

I don't think they typically discuss deals that are presented publicly when there is a trial. The fact that they offered him 12 years before the 1st trial shows how weak their case was. So imagine what Brad must have been thinking "I did not do this. They have no evidence to suggest that I did except for bogus computer evidence that I know they can not prove because I did not do that ridiculous search. I have a qualified expert who can easily show the jury all the problems with the files associated with the search. I will not plead guilty to something I did not do." Little did he know what would happen at trial. Yes, all of the unlawful rulings would ultimately result in the conviction being overturned but we all had to watch the painful trial with the blatant unfairness. Imagine how Brad Cooper must have felt when his defense case was completely blocked and nothing could be done.

The CoA decision was so important because it actually protected all of us from future government abuse. Had they allowed the rulings to stand it would have paved the way for the state to require that all experts must have a forensic certificate and it would have allowed the state to always hire the FBI when phony evidence is used against a person. No one could question it. It's no different than what we see in a 3rd world country.

Now consider the extreme rulings that this judge made and imagine having to sit before him again after he was humiliated by the CoA decision. How many would face him again? Brad had already served 6 years. If he decided to go forward with a new trial, it probably would have been 2 years away.....now he's facing 4 years until guaranteed freedom versus taking his chances with a judge who does not care about fairness and justice. IF he went to trial again and sat through another unfair trial, the appeals process would be 2-3 years again. Now he's thinking - We're 5 years into this...."Had I taken the deal I would be free in a year." Now he has to hope to win the appeal and then repeat the whole thing again. It's really sad that an innocent person was pushed into a corner like this. We're supposed to have one of the best judicial systems in the world yet it's apparent that our system is horrendous, at least in Wake County.

The complete true and factual story about everything that happened in this case will be told. There is no reason to hold anything back as there will not be another trial. It will be quite eye opening.

BBM - The only way that will ever happen is if Brad Cooper opens his mouth and tells the truth about how he murdered Nancy, but he will never talk or tell the truth.

 

[MyBelle]

I am going to have to go back and look this up at the trial, but does it sound right that Cummings reported Brad's income at
$17, 000
per month at the plea hearing and yet they were broke?????

It's also a fact that while Nancy may have wanted to divorce Brad, American law doesn't allow her to take the children out of the country without the other parent's permission. In his zeal to misrepresent facts, Mr. Cummings conveniently overlooked Title 18, United States Code, Section 1204. That statute, entitled "International Parental Kidnapping" makes it a crime to remove a child from the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights.

Brad didn't need to kill Nancy to prevent the removal of the children, the law prevented it.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Sorry to jump back in here, but.... That, Madame, is a false statement.

It is untrue. It does not hold water. It is bogus. It is factitious. It rings hollow. It is devoid of truth. It does not pass muster. Accuracy has left the building. It is a false statement.
~~snipped~~

Everybody knows what is false and what is true by now. And there are a legion of people who think Brad Cooper was railroaded and his trial a farce. I think some have such a prevailing need to be right, they twist and twist facts hoping they will morph into truth. iow, delusional. Not accusing you of this by the way. LOL

 

[Hez]

Everybody knows what is false and what is true by now. And there are a legion of people who think Brad Cooper was railroaded and his trial a farce. I think some have such a prevailing need to be right, they twist and twist facts hoping they will morph into truth. iow, delusional. Not accusing you of this by the way. LOL

BBM - You have perfectly described every Brad Cooper supporter I've ever encountered on this forum. JMO of course.

 

[JusticeFever]

And, the snark is back, but is it really necessary...:notgood:

 

[oenophile]

And, the snark is back, but is it really necessary...:notgood:

Of course it is necessary, the unwritten rule of debating is that when your ideas are bad, you attack people.

 

[Hez]

And, the snark is back, but is it really necessary...:notgood:

All I stated was that the description the poster aimed at people who don't support Brad can also be applied to the people who support Brad, in my opinion. I guess it is only considered snark when it is said by people that don't support Brad? Gotcha.

 

[MyBelle]

You have perfectly described every Brad Cooper supporter I've ever encountered on this forum. JMO of course.

Please cite one poster who believes Brad is innocent who has ever intentionally posted something untrue and claimed it to be fact.

Here is the statement made: - No evidence pointed away from Brad.


That is a blatantly untrue statement.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

And, the snark is back, but is it really necessary...:notgood:

seems to go hand-in-hand with the posting of lies and misrepresenting them to be facts. Scroll and roll is a nice mantra. lol

 

[Hez]

Please cite one poster who believes Brad is innocent who has ever intentionally posted something untrue and claimed it to be fact.

Here is the statement made: - No evidence pointed away from Brad.


That is a blatantly untrue statement.

JMO

UBM - That is not at all what I posted. By stating that "they twist and twist facts hoping they will morph into truth", you were the one implying that posters who believe Brad is guilty intentionally post untrue things and claim it to be fact. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of that statement, and that in my opinion, Brad's supporters have done that exact same thing ever since he plead guilty to murder.

 

[Hez]

seems to go hand-in-hand with the posting of lies and misrepresenting them to be facts. Scroll and roll is a nice mantra. lol

 

[ncsu95]

UBM - That is not at all what I posted. By stating that "they twist and twist facts hoping they will morph into truth", you were the one implying that posters who believe Brad is guilty intentionally post untrue things and claim it to be fact. I simply pointed out the hypocrisy of that statement, and that in my opinion, Brad's supporters have done that exact same thing ever since he plead guilty to murder.

Do you not see a difference in "some" versus "all". They said some people. You said all Brad supporters.

 

[JusticeFever]

Still no reason to be snarky to another poster. I have posted on cases where I thought the NG's were secretly wackos, but I was still nice to them.

 

[Hez]

Still no reason to be snarky to another poster. I have posted on cases where I thought the NG's were secretly wackos, but I was still nice to them.

I'm not the one who initially referred to unspecified posters on this forum (i.e., people who believe Brad is guilty) as delusional, or outright liars. I simply expressed my opinion that certain labels could also be applied to Brad's supporters when viewed from the opposite perspective.