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

[sunshine05]

From the transcript above: JA said she does not believe she specifically spoke about anything else, but no plans were cancelled.

That is not the same as "Jessica said NO discussion of painting occurred. Period."

Go back and read the transcript page. Note the words "believe", "specifically" and "no plans were cancelled."

Then she goes on to say "I don't believe anything specific to morning was discussed." In actuality it was probably not even her on the phone. It was probably Brett. It was his phone.

 

[Madeleine74]

The amount of spin doctoring the evidence on here is becoming disturbing. Sunshine had me questioning my own memory for a minute and I thought I might be going senile. I know many of you aren't fan's of Madeleine's posts due to her positions but she tends to have the best record recalling the actual evidence.

I don't even think it's my positions, as you say. It's my style. My posting style is extremely brusque and cut-to-the-chase, as I'm well aware, and I'm a big fan of sarcasm, which many people are not. My writing style is quite different than my personality in the flesh (so I've been told). But that's not important, and at the end of the day it really doesn't matter one bit. The important thing is the case, and the murder victim. I have a great memory of some things and a mediocre memory of other things and a poor memory of stuff I haven't bothered to try and remember (like high school history). That's being human for ya.

 

[Madeleine74]

No proof that furniture was moved.

I guess the state should have hauled in whatever friend popped by their house that Sat morning who saw it and commented on it to 'prove' it.

She was not even to be paid for painting on Saturday and was sick of it yet we're to believe that she said "Oh, let me paint tomorrow!" We have to put aside that she agreed to watch the kids and JA was not even going to be home because she had plans with the kids. But yeah, ooookay.

We don't have to put anything aside. She was sick of painting and she wasn't getting paid cash for doing that second room. Don't forget testimony was that Nancy suggested that 2nd room should be painted to match the first room, because in her opinion it didn't look right/coordinated. At the time she suggested it she was feeling okay (this was Tuesday of that week I think). By Thursday she wasn't feeling well and wasn't feeling enthusiastic about any more painting. Sounds pretty logical to me. I started to paint one bedroom room in my house and about 30 min into it thought, "this sucks and is not fun." The next day I was sick of it and I was sore too. But the room had to get done and it took me a lot more hours because I was covering up very dark red paint and making the room a light yellow color.

Jessica lied SO much. She told police she made plans with NC by phone on Friday then again at a second interview a week later. A week after that police said "Hey Jessica - how come there's no call between you and NC on Friday? How exactly did you make those paint plans? Jessica: "Oh..... we made them in person....I was at the Coopers on Friday."

That is one of MANY examples and police just said "No problem, she was just "clarifying" things.

Let me get this straight: JA lied, but Brad did not? Not only lied but lied "so much"? You were there and you know the truth because you witnessed exactly what was said, when it was said, how it was said, and to who it was said? Further, you've made multiple allegations that JA was somehow involved in NC's murder. Can you explain why Brad was so kind to stand up and accept guilt for a murder that you claim someone else (someone like JA) was involved in and be willing to sit in prison for another 6+ years? Because that makes no sense to me at all.

 

[Madeleine74]

Here are some of the BZ lies during closing. He lied about the length of a spoofed call. That lie allowed him to say the call he made matched that time even though it actually exceeded it. He lied about Brad never doing laundry. The states own witness said he did laundry. He lied about which machine the searches on the 12th were done. He said the thinkpad instead of where they were actually done (Mac downstairs). Then he used that lie to talk about how those searches didn't have invalid time stamps. And while technically not a lie, stating the defense didn't have an expert witness that could explain the alleged tampering, that was only because he manipulated the judge into not allowing the testimony. Using that in closing arguments was low.

Again, regardless of what you believe about the case, the actions of Boz Zellinger throughout the trial were disgusting. I'm glad he wasn't elected DA and I hope he never is.

You've been vocal the whole way through about your hatred of this ADA, there can't possibly be anyone who doesn't know your feelings about BZ. But putting aside disdain for a moment, here's an important question: now that Brad has plead guilty, do you think he's actually innocent of the murder?

And it's a really good thing closing arguments are not considered evidence or testimony. It's a good thing pattern jury instructions in every case point out that nothing any of the lawyers say, not the questions they ask nor the objections they give, nor their closing arguments (which is their opinion) ...none of it... is evidence or testimony, nor should the jury think it is. The pattern instructions go on to tell the jury that they are to only use testimony of sworn witnesses and evidence in the way of exhibits during their deliberations, along with their own notes and recall. The jury determines who to believe, who to doubt, what is true and what is not. They are the only triers of fact and truth in a trial.

 

[sunshine05]

I guess the state should have hauled in whatever friend popped by their house that Sat morning who saw it and commented on it to 'prove' it.



We don't have to put anything aside. She was sick of painting and she wasn't getting paid cash for doing that second room. Don't forget testimony was that Nancy suggested that 2nd room should be painted to match the first room, because in her opinion it didn't look right/coordinated. At the time she suggested it she was feeling okay (this was Tuesday of that week I think). By Thursday she wasn't feeling well and wasn't feeling enthusiastic about any more painting. Sounds pretty logical to me. I started to paint one bedroom room in my house and about 30 min into it thought, "this sucks and is not fun." The next day I was sick of it and I was sore too. But the room had to get done and it took me a lot more hours because I was covering up very dark red paint and making the room a light yellow color.




Let me get this straight: JA lied, but Brad did not? Not only lied but lied "so much"? You were there and you know the truth because you witnessed exactly what was said, when it was said, how it was said, and to who it was said? Further, you've made multiple allegations that JA was somehow involved in NC's murder. Can you explain why Brad was so kind to stand up and accept guilt for a murder that you claim someone else (someone like JA) was involved in and be willing to sit in prison for another 6+ years? Because that makes no sense to me at all.

Exactly, Nancy was sick of painting so why would she have made plans to paint on Saturday?

I was not there but JA did lie. I provided proof right there about her lie to police that very day. She also lied and said she tried to reach NC on her cell on Saturday morning. There was no call. She also lied about the ducks and the necklace and the ALL detergent and "always runs with keys" and "always told me of her runs" and "cell phone was in her car on Saturday" So, yes. That raises a lot of red flags. Why doesn't it for you? Why are those lies okay? What possible reason does the woman have to lie to police on Saturday about when the paint plans were made?

These lies are documented, Maddy. Through police notes and interviews. I am not making it up. WHY don't they bother you?

Then she made that hysterical phone call having only tried the Cooper home once at 9:36. Did not try her again, did not call her cell once. The records prove that. They told her to call back in 30-40 minutes but she ignored that instruction. Did she go search for her friend? Nope. She went to the house and started yelling "I know he did it!" Is that not odd to you?

Then she pissed off Mike Morwick and Mike Hiller both, first trying to take control of the children (afraid Bella would talk?) and then telling Hiller that SHE would be the one to talk to police.

Something is off.

 

[Madeleine74]

That is your opinion. My opinion is that they were NOT going to use it because they knew it was bogus and Johnson himself refused to testify about what he allegedly found.

So, if the state was not going to use the Google search evidence, as you opine, because they didn't mention it during their opening statement (and the state went first so the defense already knew what the state said during opening), then why did the defense spend so much time trying to prep the jury during their opening statement about the vulnerability of Brad's laptop computer, and the vulnerability of his wifi network and all the dancing they did around that? They spent over 3 hours in opening statements, with not an insignificant portion of time talking about computer tampering, which was a big tell. Why spend time on a bunch of computer conspiracy theories right from the beginning, in opening statements, if there was no expectation the Google search would be submitted in evidence?

 

[ncsu95]

You've been vocal the whole way through about your hatred of this ADA, there can't possibly be anyone who doesn't know your feelings about BZ. But putting aside disdain for a moment, here's an important question: now that Brad has plead guilty, do you think he's actually innocent of the murder?

And it's a really good thing closing arguments are not considered evidence or testimony. It's a good thing pattern jury instructions in every case point out that nothing any of the lawyers say, not the questions they ask nor the objections they give, nor their closing arguments (which is their opinion) ...none of it... is evidence or testimony, nor should the jury think it is. The pattern instructions go on to tell the jury that they are to only use testimony of sworn witnesses and evidence in the way of exhibits during their deliberations, along with their own notes and recall. The jury determines who to believe, who to doubt, what is true and what is not. They are the only triers of fact and truth in a trial.

I don't hate BZ. I'm disgusted by his actions in this trial. I'm disgusted by the actions of the judge as well. While I am not 100% convinced of his guilt, I do think he is likely guilty. Take out the google search and I would have been convinced of his innocence. I do wish that I could have seen the expert testimony with regards to the search. And while macd did a good job in this forum, all we got in the trial was the "FBI" saying he didn't know how the time stamps got that way but he didn't believe it was tampering. He plead guilty so he admitted doing it. And while I can make many arguments why he would do that if innocent, I won't.

 

[ncsu95]

You've been vocal the whole way through about your hatred of this ADA, there can't possibly be anyone who doesn't know your feelings about BZ. But putting aside disdain for a moment, here's an important question: now that Brad has plead guilty, do you think he's actually innocent of the murder?

And it's a really good thing closing arguments are not considered evidence or testimony. It's a good thing pattern jury instructions in every case point out that nothing any of the lawyers say, not the questions they ask nor the objections they give, nor their closing arguments (which is their opinion) ...none of it... is evidence or testimony, nor should the jury think it is. The pattern instructions go on to tell the jury that they are to only use testimony of sworn witnesses and evidence in the way of exhibits during their deliberations, along with their own notes and recall. The jury determines who to believe, who to doubt, what is true and what is not. They are the only triers of fact and truth in a trial.

And I don't care if it isn't evidence, I expect prosecutors to tell the truth in a trial. They represent the people and should participate in a fair trial. You never know when you might be on the other side wrongfully accused of a crime (that isn't a statement about BC.....just a general statement).

 

[Madeleine74]

Exactly, Nancy was sick of painting so why would she have made plans to paint on Saturday?

Nancy suggested painting the dining room walls the day she was working on the other room (Tuesday?) Why did she suggest it then? Because she felt fine. Two days later she wasn't feeling so well. Then she wasn't feeling enthusiastic about painting since her mood had changed and she appeared (felt?) run down. Why is that so difficult to understand? This is occurring over several days. Pick a moment in time. That's how Nancy felt at that moment.

I was not there but JA did lie. I provided proof right there about her lie to police that very day. She also lied and said she tried to reach NC on her cell on Saturday morning. There was no call.

You have the police notes and documentation and call logs? How do you know there was no call? What is the source for that?

 

[Madeleine74]

And I don't care if it isn't evidence, I expect prosecutors to tell the truth in a trial. They represent the people and should participate in a fair trial. You never know when you might be on the other side wrongfully accused of a crime (that isn't a statement about BC.....just a general statement).

You expect prosecutors to argue their case in a way that you approve of, telling the truth as you know/believe it, so that feels fair and not adversarial. I get that. Just curious: how many cases have you followed outside of the couple local ones here?

When it comes to attorneys, I expect to hear arguments advocating a position, with a lot of spin involved (both sides) because that's how every case I've followed (and not just in NC) has gone. I expect the judge to make the calls (the referee if you will). I expect to agree with some decisions and disagree with some decisions (whoever the judge is) but I also don't know the laws, so I expect to not understand how some decisions are reached. I expect a jury to follow the rules they are given. I expect to either agree with or disagree with the verdict, unless I just don't have an opinion, which has occurred a few times. My expectations are very different and the concept of "fair" in legal matters is altogether different than what I thought it was before I ever watched the first few trials (which were not North Carolina cases).

 

[ncsu95]

You expect prosecutors to argue their case in a way that you approve of, telling the truth as you know/believe it, so that feels fair and not adversarial. I get that. Just curious: how many cases have you followed outside of the couple local ones here?

When it comes to attorneys, I expect to hear arguments advocating a position, with a lot of spin involved (both sides) because that's how every case I've followed (and not just in NC) has gone. I expect the judge to make the calls (the referee if you will). I expect to agree with some decisions and disagree with some decisions (whoever the judge is) but I also don't know the laws, so I expect to not understand how some decisions are reached. I expect a jury to follow the rules they are given. I expect to either agree with or disagree with the verdict, unless I just don't have an opinion, which has occurred a few times. My expectations are very different and the concept of "fair" in legal matters is altogether different than what I thought it was before I ever watched the first few trials (which were not North Carolina cases).

I have no problem with spin and interpretation. I have a problem with deception. Would you advocate prosecutors hide evidence if that evidence meant the possibility of acquittal?

 

[Wysteria]

One other thing. If he pleads guilty and he actually committed this crime, I would like to hear him explain:

1. How he made the call;
2. How and where he disposed of the hardware required to make the call;
3. How he transported a body without any physical evidence;
4. How he got the body to the ditch without leaving a footprint or a tire track;
5. How he was able to leave the kids alone in the house while he was out driving around without creating suspicion.

Those are some of the things that have simply made no sense whatsoever in the guilty scenario. I would like to have an explanation to these.

I've just finished watching the trial over again. To be precise I've watched the trial more than twice. I've followed this case since it's inception.

As far as your query numbered 1-5: my suggestion would be to try and gain access to the &%$@! via snail mail or visiting the $&*^% in his current abode and ask him.
I have all of the answers as well, although they are my opinion.

I still cannot come to terms with his "new" sentence.

Nancy was such a terrific gal with a wonderful life ahead of her; full of love and light.
Her children will only hear stories from Nancy's family about their precious Mommy.
I managed to kept my mouth shut throughout this entire ordeal. I've finally decided to come out of hiding for Nancy. Rest in peace sweet lady.:rose:

 

[oenophile]

I've just finished watching the trial over again. To be precise I've watched the trial more than twice. I've followed this case since it's inception.

As far as your query numbered 1-5: my suggestion would be to try and gain access to the &%$@! via snail mail or visiting the $&*^% in his current abode and ask him.
I have all of the answers as well, although they are my opinion.

I have no intention of contacting Brad, as I doubt he would ever talk to someone outside his lawyers and his family about any of these questions. Nor would he likely say, for the moment, if he is innocent. But part of the problem is that these very real queries require suspension of reasonable belief in order to be answered. I realize that I said before that I would have been 80% (or 85%) convinced of his guilt if he pleaded guilty, however I'm back down to 50/50, largely because the evidence just doesn't fit.

I'd also love to see the Frye proffer because there are things that don't make sense with that either. Someone claimed that it was only traceable because it was accessed via telnet, but if that is the case, then there should be no way to place it in the house at the time, that router could have been anywhere in the world. Things just don't add up.

However, on the whole issue of the painting and JA, I don't believe for a moment that JA was involved in the murder. Nor do I believe that she lied about anything. She said things that were not true, but I never saw an intent to deceive, especially during her testimony. She was mistaken, just like most humans that are trying to recall events accurately. What most likely happened was that Nancy agreed both to the painting and to Brad playing tennis that morning.

The issue with Brad right now is that he is confirmed lying. He either lied at the deposition or lied in court for the plea deal. Either way, it makes it difficult to know what is the truth now. I can see a rational reason why he would want to take the plea deal if he was innocent, even though I doubt that if I were innocent that I would ever accept a plea. But you cannot say that you can trust what he says as the truth.

What is most frustrating to me (besides being pulled back into this forum) is that I don't think we are still any closer to knowing the truth. Brad's admission was uncorroborated by evidence. Something as simple as "where did you put the router" would have sufficed. The fact that neither the judge nor the prosecution asked for this corroboration is another thing that is pushing me back to 50/50. I don't think we will ever know the truth unless either Brad provides corroboration or someone else fesses up to the crime.

Finally, I am still shocked at the conduct of the state and the judge in this case. There was clear hostility toward the defense, and toward Kurtz in particular. You could see it in the judge's face quite often. You heard it in those despicable and wholly indefensible comments by Cummings praising the Cary PD. The justice system didn't work in this case, and I for one have never been more fearful of the state of the American judicial system than as a result of watching it in action in NC.

 

[sunshine05]

So, if the state was not going to use the Google search evidence, as you opine, because they didn't mention it during their opening statement (and the state went first so the defense already knew what the state said during opening), then why did the defense spend so much time trying to prep the jury during their opening statement about the vulnerability of Brad's laptop computer, and the vulnerability of his wifi network and all the dancing they did around that? They spent over 3 hours in opening statements, with not an insignificant portion of time talking about computer tampering, which was a big tell. Why spend time on a bunch of computer conspiracy theories right from the beginning, in opening statements, if there was no expectation the Google search would be submitted in evidence?

Because they knew it was the only evidence they had and it would have been irresponsible not to prepare the jurors for testimony about it.

You continue to attempt to discredit me by referencing conspiracy theories. Instead of being condescending, why don't you use facts to make your points?

How about the state's wacky "theories" --- A computer engineer uses creates an untraceable elaborate digital alibi and then "trips up" by incriminating himself with a digital search.

Daniels: "He snapped (um....what about the pre-planning with the map?)" " The bed didn't look slept in" "The step area looked clean - sign of struggle" " Long sleeves instead of short .... just a "typo" "No evidence of a spoofed call - "that's what's so unique about the case." "I stand by my statement - no stain on the dress even though Agent McMillan found one"

Dismukes "Memories do not fade over time."

 

[sunshine05]

Nancy suggested painting the dining room walls the day she was working on the other room (Tuesday?) Why did she suggest it then? Because she felt fine. Two days later she wasn't feeling so well. Then she wasn't feeling enthusiastic about painting since her mood had changed and she appeared (felt?) run down. Why is that so difficult to understand? This is occurring over several days. Pick a moment in time. That's how Nancy felt at that moment.



You have the police notes and documentation and call logs? How do you know there was no call? What is the source for that?

Allegedly. The only person who said she volunteered to paint the dining room was the less than honest witness - JA.

I read her custody depo. That is how I know about the phone calls.

 

[sunshine05]

You expect prosecutors to argue their case in a way that you approve of, telling the truth as you know/believe it, so that feels fair and not adversarial. I get that. Just curious: how many cases have you followed outside of the couple local ones here?

When it comes to attorneys, I expect to hear arguments advocating a position, with a lot of spin involved (both sides) because that's how every case I've followed (and not just in NC) has gone. I expect the judge to make the calls (the referee if you will). I expect to agree with some decisions and disagree with some decisions (whoever the judge is) but I also don't know the laws, so I expect to not understand how some decisions are reached. I expect a jury to follow the rules they are given. I expect to either agree with or disagree with the verdict, unless I just don't have an opinion, which has occurred a few times. My expectations are very different and the concept of "fair" in legal matters is altogether different than what I thought it was before I ever watched the first few trials (which were not North Carolina cases).

Convictions have been overturned based on lies by prosecutors in closing arguments when they have been shown to have influenced the jury. It is certainly unethical and against the rules of professional conduct.

 

[sunshine05]

ncsu95 - The state presented an anonymous report in the middle of the trial "Refuting the claims of tampering". We later learned that Chappell wrote it. It was completely false and inaccurate information. Here is one example - he references the cookie associated with the search and during testimony had to admit that there wasn't one.



https://justiceforbradcooper.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/chappells-tampering-report.pdf

More:
http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpre...timony-about-the-google-search-and-tampering/

 

[sunshine05]

I watched that before I didn't recall hearing about 2 prior deals. Can you say at what minute? And what about erasing 2 cell phones?

And I call BS on only Brad supporters providing links.

Detective Thomas looked at NC's old phone, the Motorola V551 in June, 2009. When he hooked it up to the Cellebrite to extract the data it showed that there had been 250 contacts. Yet no data was retrieved from the phone. It was completely wiped too. No photos, no contacts, no call records, no texts.

 

[sunshine05]

I have no intention of contacting Brad, as I doubt he would ever talk to someone outside his lawyers and his family about any of these questions. Nor would he likely say, for the moment, if he is innocent. But part of the problem is that these very real queries require suspension of reasonable belief in order to be answered. I realize that I said before that I would have been 80% (or 85%) convinced of his guilt if he pleaded guilty, however I'm back down to 50/50, largely because the evidence just doesn't fit.

I'd also love to see the Frye proffer because there are things that don't make sense with that either. Someone claimed that it was only traceable because it was accessed via telnet, but if that is the case, then there should be no way to place it in the house at the time, that router could have been anywhere in the world. Things just don't add up.

However, on the whole issue of the painting and JA, I don't believe for a moment that JA was involved in the murder. Nor do I believe that she lied about anything. She said things that were not true, but I never saw an intent to deceive, especially during her testimony. She was mistaken, just like most humans that are trying to recall events accurately. What most likely happened was that Nancy agreed both to the painting and to Brad playing tennis that morning.

The issue with Brad right now is that he is confirmed lying. He either lied at the deposition or lied in court for the plea deal. Either way, it makes it difficult to know what is the truth now. I can see a rational reason why he would want to take the plea deal if he was innocent, even though I doubt that if I were innocent that I would ever accept a plea. But you cannot say that you can trust what he says as the truth.

What is most frustrating to me (besides being pulled back into this forum) is that I don't think we are still any closer to knowing the truth. Brad's admission was uncorroborated by evidence. Something as simple as "where did you put the router" would have sufficed. The fact that neither the judge nor the prosecution asked for this corroboration is another thing that is pushing me back to 50/50. I don't think we will ever know the truth unless either Brad provides corroboration or someone else fesses up to the crime.

Finally, I am still shocked at the conduct of the state and the judge in this case. There was clear hostility toward the defense, and toward Kurtz in particular. You could see it in the judge's face quite often. You heard it in those despicable and wholly indefensible comments by Cummings praising the Cary PD. The justice system didn't work in this case, and I for one have never been more fearful of the state of the American judicial system than as a result of watching it in action in NC.

Jessica wasn't just mistaken. She lied during her 911 call - told police Nancy's cell was in her car when it wasn't. Then that very day she lied to police again and told them that she made painting plans with Nancy by phone the prior evening. She said it again a week later. Finally when police looked at her phone records and saw that there was no call between them that day, she changed her story to "Oh. I was at their house and made the plans in person". I have testimony to prove this and will post it if you want me to.

Now tell me why someone would lie to police about something like that. She forgot? Something from the previous evening? Forgot that she was at the Cooper's house? Not likely. Did she lie because there were no painting plans? That seems more likely than her having forgotten about how she made the plans.

 

[Madeleine74]

Jessica wasn't just mistaken. She lied during her 911 call - told police Nancy's cell was in her car when it wasn't. Then that very day she lied to police again and told them that she made painting plans with Nancy by phone the prior evening. She said it again a week later. Finally when police looked at her phone records and saw that there was no call between them that day, she changed her story to "Oh. I was at their house and made the plans in person". I have testimony to prove this and will post it if you want me to.

Now tell me why someone would lie to police about something like that. She forgot? Something from the previous evening? Forgot that she was at the Cooper's house? Not likely. Did she lie because there were no painting plans? That seems more likely than her having forgotten about how she made the plans.

She didn't say the cell phone was "in the car." She said, "and her cell phone is there." Interweb posters assumed "is there" meant "inside the car" because she had mentioned a purse in the car, and I too thought this at first. However, it meant the phone was there (at the house) i.e. not with Nancy herself/on her person. The point that was being made in context was Nancy was missing, she didn't have her purse (with her), she didn't have her car (with her), and she didn't have her cell phone (with her).

I do find it interesting that every single syllable uttered by JA is scrutinized far more than anything the defendant ever said. His own attorney admitted he lied (he said this during opening statements), yet that's been denied over and over.

Why do you hold JA to a standard and point a finger at her when you don't do the same to Brad? Brad's own attorney admitted Brad lied.

And why aren't you pointing a twisted finger at the friend of murder victim, Laura Ackerson? That friend also got worried about her missing friend, also called the police to report her missing, told the police Laura was in a contentious custody battle with the babydaddy, and helped police in the initial phase of the investigation. And yet that friend was deemed as helpful and concerned and not one person ever insinuated (or even outright claimed as has been done to JA) that she was somehow involved in the murder. If someone did that to me, what has been done to JA, spreading and publishing lies on the Internet and claiming I was involved in a murder, I'd be consulting an attorney to bring a libel and/or slander suit.