Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[MyBelle]

Here is an interview with Amanda Lamb. At the very end, she says she recently spoke to a juror at one of her book signings who bought one of her books. She says the jury was out "for several days". She claims the juror told her that there was never any dissension in the jury room--that they all thought he was guilty from the very beginning but they went back through the evidence to make sure they were all on the same page that it was first degree.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


And she also has the nerve to make a comment about misinformation. Wow.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-zupansky1/2012/02/08/love-lies-amanda-lamb

She's hardly an objective reporter and they should fire her because she's writing books and profiting from them. That said, there may not have been any dissension in the jury room. That's the scary part. With all these cases coming to a head, it appears to me that in N.C., juries simply believe whatever the prosecution puts on.

JMO

 

[SStarr33]

She's hardly an objective reporter and they should fire her because she's writing books and profiting from them. That said, there may not have been any dissension in the jury room. That's the scary part. With all these cases coming to a head, it appears to me that in N.C., juries simply believe whatever the prosecution puts on.

JMO

Actually, there was a report from a jury member here on websleuths and also one from the foreman that shows she is wrong. Here is the report from the foreman:

On the first day of deliberations, when all 12 could finally talk among themselves about the case, Gilbert said no one had decided whether Cooper was innocent or guilty of first- or second-degree murder.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/06/02/1242033/cooper-trial-was-ordeal-for-jury.html#storylink=cpy

 

[JusticeFever]

This is the jury who sent a note to the Judge telling them they wanted their lives back. It was a really long trial ,but, I wonder if the defense had been able to put on their own computer expert witness , it would have changed anything.

Not that it matters because Brad is getting a new trial.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

Here is an interview with Amanda Lamb. At the very end, she says she recently spoke to a juror at one of her book signings who bought one of her books. She says the jury was out "for several days". She claims the juror told her that there was never any dissension in the jury room--that they all thought he was guilty from the very beginning but they went back through the evidence to make sure they were all on the same page that it was first degree.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And she also has the nerve to make a comment about misinformation. Wow.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-zupansky1/2012/02/08/love-lies-amanda-lamb

Wow, I hadn't heard that interview before. What a joke. It is full of misinformation and downrighht lies. In addition, like the trial, it was full of accusations with no real evidence. It is even more discouraging how she and the interviewer making derogatory remarks about the defense attorneys, and accusing them of negatively influencing social media.

Amanda Lamb then says how detrimental social media is, when in fact it was she that had the media platform to deliver highly biased "news" pieces in favor of the prosecution.

Disgusting.

 

[MyBelle]

This is the jury who sent a note to the Judge telling them they wanted their lives back. It was a really long trial ,but, I wonder if the defense had been able to put on their own computer expert witness , it would have changed anything.

Not that it matters because Brad is getting a new trial.

JMO

That could turn out to be quite the irony because if the jury had heard the defense witness, I think they would have ignored whatever he said.

JMO

 

[calgary123]

I am not swayed by what ______________ said in that interview because they have an obvious bias despite what the truth is.

From there, insert the name "Lamb" or "Kurtz", replay both interviews, and yeah, you'll reach the conclusion you already envisioned.

 

[calgary123]

Wow, I hadn't heard that interview before. What a joke. It is full of misinformation and downrighht lies. In addition, like the trial, it was full of accusations with no real evidence.
Disgusting.

Its pretty easy to say the same thing about the Kurtz interview and not be any less wrong than your post.

This thread has devolved into cheerleading and probably because we all already know what the evidence is as presented, except those parts where publication was banned. Meaningful debates about the actual evidence have given way to mere opinion, sometimes informed, sometimes not. Meaningful discussion did occur during the trial on this site, but more importantly the jury itself convicted unanimously. If there's a second trial I look forward to discussing the evidence a second time, here and maybe elsewhere also.

I hope the wheels of justice start spinning faster as Brad remaining in jail is becoming a problem just because of the delay. Justice delayed is justice denied.

 

[MyBelle]

I am not swayed by what ______________ said in that interview because they have an obvious bias despite what the truth is.

From there, insert the name "Lamb" or "Kurtz", replay both interviews, and yeah, you'll reach the conclusion you already envisioned.

Where is the bias in the appellate court decision? By all means, point it out. Thanks.

 

[MyBelle]

Its pretty easy to say the same thing about the Kurtz interview and not be any less wrong than your post.

This thread has devolved into cheerleading and probably because we all already know what the evidence is as presented, except those parts where publication was banned. Meaningful debates about the actual evidence have given way to mere opinion, sometimes informed, sometimes not. Meaningful discussion did occur during the trial on this site, but more importantly the jury itself convicted unanimously. If there's a second trial I look forward to discussing the evidence a second time, here and maybe elsewhere also.

I hope the wheels of justice start spinning faster as Brad remaining in jail is becoming a problem just because of the delay. Justice delayed is justice denied.

How has Brad remaining in jail become a problem just because of the delay? He is still in jail. I'm baffled how the cliches you toss out have anything to do with the case. Thanks.

 

[oenophile]

Its pretty easy to say the same thing about the Kurtz interview and not be any less wrong than your post.

Not at all. First, Kurtz was very careful in the way that he spoke. Second, I agree that Kurtz was biased, but he is supposed to be biased, a reporter is not. Night and day difference in the two.

This thread has devolved into cheerleading and probably because we all already know what the evidence is as presented, except those parts where publication was banned. Meaningful debates about the actual evidence have given way to mere opinion, sometimes informed, sometimes not. Meaningful discussion did occur during the trial on this site, but more importantly the jury itself convicted unanimously. If there's a second trial I look forward to discussing the evidence a second time, here and maybe elsewhere also.

Every thread in this forum has had massive amounts of cheerleading, and much of that from people that were convinced that Brad did it long before the trial started. If you like, I can go back and dig up some of your old posts as proof.

And since the jury verdict has been set aside, that is no longer relevant nor important. It was a unfair trial. The Appeals Court has spoken. The verdict itself should be treated as if it never happened.

 

[oenophile]

I am not swayed by what ______________ said in that interview because they have an obvious bias despite what the truth is.

From there, insert the name "Lamb" or "Kurtz", replay both interviews, and yeah, you'll reach the conclusion you already envisioned.

I am not looking to be swayed, what sways me is evidence. Neither included evidence, the only thing in the Kurtz interview that swayed me in any way was his confidence in Brad's innocence.

I have four specific criticisms of the Lamb interview. 1. Both the interviewer and Lamb had an obvious bias for the prosecution, which is inappropriate for a journalist that is not in an advocacy position. 2. Lamb talked about evidence that didn't exist, such as faking the morning phone call. 3. Both the interviewer and Lamb accused the defense attorneys of unethical and possibly illegal activities. 4. Lamb trashed social media because anyone can contribute to it even if they have no legal expertise or have little knowledge of the subject.

Points 3 and 4 are most disturbing to me, as we already knew that Lamb was highly biased toward the prosecution and against BC. For a "reporter" to be leveling those accusations against the defense attorneys is simply, well, wow! If she believed in the accusations, then back it up with investigative reporting and evidence, otherwise it is just mudslinging. On the social media in general, this is a wider issue that many in journalism criticize. While I agree that there are downsides in social media, it also exposes alot of the biases in the regular media, and it has something of a self correcting mechanism. It isn't perfect, but had we not had social media and the video in the courtroom, the reaction to this case would have been much different. If I simply read Lamb's reporting instead of spending the days listening to testimony and reviewing on social media, I probably would have concluded that BC was guilty.

In summary, my criticism of the interview has nothing to do with being swayed, but rather with the content of the interview itself.

 

[calgary123]

That's quite the non-sequitur (in response to post 908, MyBelle) Should you read my post history you'll see I agree the appeals court made the right decision. That doesn't mean Brad didn't kill Nancy, however. The appeals court decision was about the right of a defendant to present evidence to contest the state's case, a right which was denied by the trial judge.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think it's important to note that the defense did get to present a witness (J Ward) but the judge had limited that witness from testifying about the hard drive or anything connected to a "forensic" examination. Ward was limited to discussing network security and he showed in detail, with a demo, how he could hack into someone's wireless network. Kurtz did manage to get in some of the forensic stuff by wording his questions in such a way that made it sound like network security. And during closing Kurtz used Massucci's slides (though Massuci did not testify in front of the jury). So it wasn't 100% no defense on the computer stuff, as some like to make it sound.

What Gessner actually did in his ruling was split the baby in half (allow Ward to testify, but then limit areas of his testimony to network security, in which the judge determined he was an expert). When Kurtz offered Massuci later as a replacement, Massuci had not yet completed his examination of the computer or completed his writeup, though he said he agreed with Ward's report, but he was excluded from testifying in front of the jury as a break would be needed for him to finish his report and the state to then get their FBI witnesses to look at Massucci's findings. The judge (Gessner) decided no delays and Massucci was excluded.

The appeal judges questioned what makes a witness an expert and how does the term "forensic" differ and what does that even mean in the first place, when talking about computers and determined that the defense witness should have been able to talk about forensics. So next time, if there's a next time, and assuming a plea deal doesn't happen, whoever the defense calls (probably Massucci) will be allowed to testify and present their findings and claim "spoilation" (Massucci's term) in front of a jury.

 

[MyBelle]

I am not looking to be swayed, what sways me is evidence. Neither included evidence, the only thing in the Kurtz interview that swayed me in any way was his confidence in Brad's innocence.

I have four specific criticisms of the Lamb interview. 1. Both the interviewer and Lamb had an obvious bias for the prosecution, which is inappropriate for a journalist that is not in an advocacy position. 2. Lamb talked about evidence that didn't exist, such as faking the morning phone call. 3. Both the interviewer and Lamb accused the defense attorneys of unethical and possibly illegal activities. 4. Lamb trashed social media because anyone can contribute to it even if they have no legal expertise or have little knowledge of the subject.

Points 3 and 4 are most disturbing to me, as we already knew that Lamb was highly biased toward the prosecution and against BC. For a "reporter" to be leveling those accusations against the defense attorneys is simply, well, wow! If she believed in the accusations, then back it up with investigative reporting and evidence, otherwise it is just mudslinging. On the social media in general, this is a wider issue that many in journalism criticize. While I agree that there are downsides in social media, it also exposes alot of the biases in the regular media, and it has something of a self correcting mechanism. It isn't perfect, but had we not had social media and the video in the courtroom, the reaction to this case would have been much different. If I simply read Lamb's reporting instead of spending the days listening to testimony and reviewing on social media, I probably would have concluded that BC was guilty.

In summary, my criticism of the interview has nothing to do with being swayed, but rather with the content of the interview itself.

BBM. An excellent summation.

 

[ncsu95]

Here is an interview with Amanda Lamb. At the very end, she says she recently spoke to a juror at one of her book signings who bought one of her books. She says the jury was out "for several days". She claims the juror told her that there was never any dissension in the jury room--that they all thought he was guilty from the very beginning but they went back through the evidence to make sure they were all on the same page that it was first degree.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

And she also has the nerve to make a comment about misinformation. Wow.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-zupansky1/2012/02/08/love-lies-amanda-lamb

Well she is certainly wrong. I have a neighbor that was a juror and that I have spoken with for several hours about the trial (see my thread on discussions with a juror). The initial vote was 2 guilty, 2 not guilty, 8 undecided. The vote at the end of the day was 10 guilty, 2 not guilty.

 

[Madeleine74]

I believe Amanda Lamb got the first part of her statement correct -- the part about "no dissension in the jury room." That jury did get along extremely well throughout the trial and they did work well together to come to a unanimous decision. The part she got wrong is that they all thought he was guilty *from the beginning.* They clearly did not, and over 2+ days of deliberations decided on guilt. It's possible the juror she spoke to got it wrong; it's also possible she heard it incorrectly or interpreted it incorrectly. Either way, it took the jury 2+ days to decide unanimously.

 

[MyBelle]

That's quite the non-sequitur (in response to post 908, MyBelle) Should you read my post history you'll see I agree the appeals court made the right decision. That doesn't mean Brad didn't kill Nancy, however. The appeals court decision was about the right of a defendant to present evidence to contest the state's case, a right which was denied by the trial judge.

We still don't know who killed Nancy. We haven't seen all the evidence because the defense wasn't allowed to present it. And round and round it goes.

 

[dgfred]

Some of us have a good idea of who did... but that is our opinion.

What non-allowed evidence do you predict will be 'shown'?

 

[SStarr33]

Some of us have a good idea of who did... but that is our opinion.

What non-allowed evidence do you predict will be 'shown'?

Read the unanimous ruling by the appellate court for the info--they did not think much of what happened in the trial. Let me know if you need a link.

 

[dgfred]

Or you could post the 'non-allowed evidence'.

I thought the defense wasn't able to call it's 'expert'... which was the problem. Not evidence that was not allowed.