Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[oenophile]

How long before a new trial would typically take place?

 

[Just the Fax]

How long before a new trial would typically take place?

Summer 2014 is my bet.

 

[otto]

Thanks you guys! I believe he is a flight risk and that it will be proven at the bond hearing. I hope it's a live feed. I'm saddened for Nancy's family, but I will be here to make sure he never sees the light of day again. Esp not on bond.

My other question was how can the same judge over see a case where he himself was over turned? I dont know NC state laws well enough but I swear in other states, thats a no go.
And yet there was Judge Stephens over seeing that hearing. It was odd to me.

A flight risk to Ecuador, or a flight risk to be with his family in Canada?

 

[borndem]

Originally Posted by borndem
Seems to me, Mad74, that as you say, it should be simple -- just keep the camera on anywhere but the witness stand & run his/her voice through a modifier -- some modifiers are free & online -- vary it some megahertz down or up and it's easily understood, but essentially impossible to identify. Not a big deal at all. Sheesh. Even if all voices during the time the certain witness was on the stand... no biggie.

I think the concern is something like this happening:

Murphy Brown - YouTube

:floorlaugh:OMGosh!! What a laff fest... Thanks for that refreshment. :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


After watching (and remembering) this M. Brown show, I must add to my original post above: "or not."

 

[borndem]

Agree. Just thinking of him appearing to be more physically fit now. He does look like he has assimilated to prison.

MOO

You're right, panthera. Well, you know what they say: "Birds of a feather..."

lol

 

[Grammy Jean]

Thanks you guys! I believe he is a flight risk and that it will be proven at the bond hearing. I hope it's a live feed. I'm saddened for Nancy's family, but I will be here to make sure he never sees the light of day again. Esp not on bond.

My other question was how can the same judge over see a case where he himself was over turned? I dont know NC state laws well enough but I swear in other states, thats a no go.
And yet there was Judge Stephens over seeing that hearing. It was odd to me.

Judge Paul Gessner was the trial judge for BC.
Judge Stephens was on the bench for Jason Young, Grant Hayes and presently for Amanda Hayes but not for Brad Cooper.

 

[panthera]

You're right, panthera. Well, you know what they say: "Birds of a feather..."

lol

Absolutely. And he's right where he belongs!

:behindbar

 

[oenophile]

He belongs at home with his two girls, according to the evidence.

Unfortunately the state is going to continue with this sham of a prosecution, fueled by the torch and pitchfork crowd.

 

[Just the Fax]

Torch and pitchfork?

Sorry, I don't have either one.

The prosecution is doing their job by seeking justice for Nancy Cooper and her family. If there was a "sham", it was the defense view of the computer evidence and their attempt to use publicity hungry,fake experts to twist and muddy the truth for the jury.

 

[oenophile]

Torch and pitchfork?

Sorry, I don't have either one.

The prosecution is doing their job by seeking justice for Nancy Cooper and her family. If there was a "sham", it was the defense view of the computer evidence and their attempt to use publicity hungry,fake experts to twist and muddy the truth for the jury.

Seeking justice is seeking the killer, not pinning the crime on the husband.

The more I review the evidence and the testimony, the more convinced I am of the travesty of justice performed here.

There was NO incriminating evidence apart from the Google search. And there was TONS of exculpatory evidence. The Google search is suspect, at best.

As to the torch and pitchfork crowd, the friends of Nancy Cooper have proven themselves to be in favor of prosecuting Brad despite the evidence. As have people on this forum. When you focus all your attention on convicting someone regardless of whether or not they committed the crime, that constitutes a torch and pitchfork crowd, and a sham.

 

[oenophile]

Another point: there are many many parts of the public narrative that are simply false.

For example, most people believe that JA called 911 because Nancy did not show up for painting that morning. This is blatantly false.

JA called 911 after Brad called her searching for Nancy and trying to find the contact information for Nancy's running partner. If JA was so concerned about Nancy's not showing up, why did she spend the morning at the gym working out? The only reason that JA called the police was because Brad called her asking for help to try to find Nancy. It had nothing to do with her not showing up that morning for painting.

The testimony at the trial revealed the extent to which the narrative had been manipulated in order to make Brad look guilty. This is just one example. I could give plenty of others (necklace, ducks, garage, dropcloth, dress, etc etc ).

 

[Tink56]

:twocents: No torch or pitchfork here....This murder was, however, my entrée to Websleuths, AND I was and am convinced that Brad murdered his wife. I say this after following the events from the murder through watching the trial.

I am fearful for the sake of the children, too.(Psychologically...not physically...) I can't imagine the turmoil that a re-introduction of Brad into their lives would cause.

 

[oenophile]

I am very fearful for the sake of the children. The call their Aunt Krista "mom" now, which is very confusing since she is not their mother, nor is their Uncle their father. They lost the relationship with their father because someone killed their mother and the people around her wrongly blamed their father. Imagine becoming a teenager and discovering this. Keeping Brad out of their lives is doing real damage.

 

[dgfred]

Well, if your opinion is wrong he would be in their lives as a killer. Imagine becoming a teenager living with your father and find out he did kill your mother. Sword goes both ways IMO.

About that call... I don't think that was one of the things that were convincing of guilt.

Of course... I left my pitchfork at home today and I am posting from work.

 

[oenophile]

Well, if your opinion is wrong he would be in their lives as a killer. Imagine becoming a teenager living with your father and find out he did kill your mother. Sword goes both ways IMO.

I agree, it does go both ways. What offends me is when people claim that keeping the girls away from him, despite his current status of innocent until proven guilty, is somehow beneficial to the girls.

About that call... I don't think that was one of the things that were convincing of guilt.

I don't think it was one of the things that contributed to his original conviction, but it certainly was and continues to be part of the narrative used to convince the public at large of his guilt.

Of course... I left my pitchfork at home today and I am posting from work.

Given the reasonable tone of your post, I would not put you in the pitchfork crowd.

What I really don't understand is how people are so certain of his guilt. It honestly baffles me. There was an overwhelming amount of exculpatory physical evidence, no incriminating physical evidence, an alibi with no evidence contradicting it, circumstantial evidence that fits with his innocence (including some that wasn't admitted into the trial), a group of Nancy's friends that had already turned against him due to the divorce, and a police force with a strong incentive to prove that it wasn't a random crime.

All you have left is the Google search with nothing to corroborate it. The Google search just doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence. It doesn't fit with someone planning a murder. Why would you do that search on your work computer while in the office, when you know that the company probably tracks your web surfing activity? Why would you do it at all for such a short period of time? Why right before lunch?

I came into this trial believing that the prosecution would prove his guilt. I left completely disillusioned by the U.S. justice system.

 

[calgary123]

double post

 

[calgary123]

All you have left is the Google search with nothing to corroborate it. The Google search just doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit with the rest of the evidence. It doesn't fit with someone planning a murder. Why would you do that search on your work computer while in the office, when you know that the company probably tracks your web surfing activity? Why would you do it at all for such a short period of time? Why right before lunch?

I find it somewhat troubling that you're assuming someone who killed their wife necessarily made completely logical decisions before doing it, and would not have made any missteps covering their tracks.

By your reasoning, there would only be logical homicides. What would that be? Killing for money? Revenge? Notoriety?

Is Brad Mr. Virtue, incapable of rage, jealousy, or deviousness? Is he so smart he would necessarily be the perfect villain, able to cover his tracks without error?

Better yet, does he have the foresight and emotional maturity to know that divorce is a better option than killing his wife?

 

[calgary123]

There was an overwhelming amount of exculpatory physical evidence, no incriminating physical evidence,

There was no exculpatory physical evidence. Or are you referring to the phone call from Harris Teeter, which is based on digital footprints?

There was incriminating physical evidence, the most obvious which was his search on the dump site. Or is that not physical because it was digital?

You can't have it both ways, but your argument requires that you change that definition to meet your preferred conclusion.

 

[oenophile]

There was no exculpatory physical evidence. Or are you referring to the phone call from Harris Teeter, which is based on digital footprints?

Tire tracks leading to the body that didn't match the Cooper's car. Footprint at the scene. Autopsy results that indicate she had digested virtually all of her food by the time she was killed, that she had caffeine in her system, and that the body alcohol content was consistent with decomposition only. A car that had zero evidence of having transported a body. This is all physical evidence.

There was incriminating physical evidence, the most obvious which was his search on the dump site. Or is that not physical because it was digital?

That isn't physical evidence, it is direct circumstantial evidence. However, I do agree that that is incriminating, which is why I addressed it separately.

 

[oenophile]

I find it somewhat troubling that you're assuming someone who killed their wife necessarily made completely logical decisions before doing it, and would not have made any missteps covering their tracks.

Quite the opposite, I do think that someone who committed murder would make missteps. Which is why the Google search is so strange, because it is so obvious and detectable. If he was so methodical to a) erase all other possible digital evidence; b) fake a phone call then make the equipment used to fake the call disappear; c) leave no trace or evidence of transporting or dumping a body; etc, then it doesn't make sense that he would risk leaving the girls home alone where they could wake up and discover both their parents gone. Or make an obviously traceable Google search. Or fight so hard for custody so as to sit through a deposition. It is inconsistent with the narrative.

Better yet, does he have the foresight and emotional maturity to know that divorce is a better option than killing his wife?

Most people going through a divorce do not kill their spouse. It is the norm that people have the foresight and emotional maturity to know that divorce is a better option.