Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[oenophile]

So I have been reading up on this case and I really don't see another suspect or anyone else to hurt NC but BC? I'm still catching up but right now I'm leaning toward G. For the NG, can you give my some insight to why you think he didn't do it?

Three reasons:

1. There is a lot of evidence that indicates he didn't do it. The autopsy, the phone call, Brad's demeanor, Brad's actions following the murder, etc.
2. The police immediately stated that it was an isolated incident and that it was not a random crime, but none of the potentially incriminating evidence was gathered when they said that. The computer wasn't seized until after. The trial revealed that they had no basis for stating at that time that it was an isolated incident and that it wasn't a random crime. This makes me question the motives of the police department during the investigation and causes serious doubt as to the evidence gathered by police. I highlight this often because I remember it so vividly. As I used to live in Cary, I watched all of the news conferences about the attack. When Bazemore made this statement, I thought that they must have some solid evidence that it was someone close to NC. I watched the trial waiting for this evidence to be presented. I thought for certain that they had immediately discovered something that caused them to say this. It turns out, this statement was completely and unforgivably untrue.
3. The theory that it was a random act of violence fits the facts. First, there were other incidents of attacks on joggers in the Triangle in the immediate two years preceding the murder (one suspect was captured prior to the murder and convicted). Second, the physical evidence is consistent with a random attack. Third, the eyewitnesses who said they saw a jogger matching NC's description fit this theory (and I'll point out, with all of the publicity of this murder in the local community, not one person has come forward and said that they were jogging that morning and could have been misidentified as NC).

Basically, it is all of these things versus the Google map search. The Google map search is the one piece that doesn't fit. If you remove that, he is overwhelmingly NG. The concerns raised about the Google map search, in light of #2, force me to give it less weight than if it were solidly proven and corroborated (by Google or Cisco). Thus, I'm absolutely convinced, absent other evidence that hasn't yet been presented, that he is NG.

 

[JusticeFever]

Another case from 5-6 years ago, it's hard to remember everything about it, but some of the trial was like a bad episode of Melrose Place. There were early accusations from Nancy's friends and neighbors, some that contradicted each other, but all pointed to Brad.
There were a couple dramatic moments, the missing ducks appeared in court, and a video of Nancy not wearing her necklace , something her friends said she never did.
But, the big thing was the computer evidence that was not allowed and could make a difference this time around.
JMO

 

[calgary123]

For those who think he actually didn't do it or think the evidence did not have the required proof of his guilt, I'm curious if your mind would change were he to plead out to second degree murder? Would his guilty plea be indicative of his factual guilt or not?

 

[oenophile]

If he did an Alford plea with a very very short sentence (eg 5 more years) then I would be borderline, not convinced of his guilt but not convinced of his innocence anymore. Any other plea and I would be convinced that he is guilty. So yes, it would change my mind.

 

[Landonsmom02]

I've been playing catch up and reading. I have formed an opinion that he is guilty but I think he does deserve a new trial. That whole subdivision was sleeping with everyone and I think all of that should be kept out of the next trial. Now, if he were to take a plea and plead guilty it would only reasure that he is guilty. I think he was a very controlling man and I think coming back from that trip with her family from the OBX he noticed there was a "new" Nancy and I think an argument started when she came home from the cookout and well.........Nancy wasn't taking his crap anymore and she was leaving.IMO

 

[borndem]

I've been playing catch up and reading. I have formed an opinion that he is guilty but I think he does deserve a new trial. That whole subdivision was sleeping with everyone and I think all of that should be kept out of the next trial. Now, if he were to take a plea and plead guilty it would only reasure that he is guilty. I think he was a very controlling man and I think coming back from that trip with her family from the OBX he noticed there was a "new" Nancy and I think an argument started when she came home from the cookout and well.........Nancy wasn't taking his crap anymore and she was leaving.IMO

bbm
Yes, indeed, Landonsmom -- and a big Hello! to you, old friend! :seeya:

He had also read her emails and saw a copy of the first draft of the child support agreement (and did not realize & did not ask his family attorney -- if he had one at that time -- about how that worked). If he had, he would most certainly have been told that the 1st draft is a 1st draft -- like pricing a car or a house to sell; you put your pie-in-the-sky amounts on it and negotiate back & forth & back & forth until you both get to figures that are mutually acceptable. Anyway, he saw that & went ballistic -- anyone in the world reading that would have done the same -- but he didn't wait until he talked with (or secured) his own atty -- he decided to just stop it once & for all, with deadly force. He was done. And yes, I think they did have a bad, bad argument. He either then, or after she went to sleep, strangled her just to be done with it -- no child support, no alimony, etc., and he would be a free man again. And poor Nancy lost that fight, never to fight another one.

 

[macd]

Remember the Google search shows he had already selected the dump site before lunch that day. I think he spent the week home alone planning the murder and cover up. I think he either attacked her after she went to bed, or jumped her as she came into the house. This was premeditated, and not a heat of the moment decision during an argument.

Someone posted on this board that Brad tried to hire an attorney, but could not afford the retainer. If true, add this (being so broke he could not scrape together a few thousand dollars) to his frame of mind reading that proposed separation agreement.

 

[JusticeFever]

For those who think he actually didn't do it or think the evidence did not have the required proof of his guilt, I'm curious if your mind would change were he to plead out to second degree murder? Would his guilty plea be indicative of his factual guilt or not?

Hard to say, especially after Raven Abaroa's plea.. I am all for plea deals, I think if they are offered and if there is any doubt on either side. it is a win-win.
I hope Brad Cooper accepts the one the state recently talked about and that Jason Young is offered one as well, I have been saying this for years now.
If it were me, I would much rather be counting off the days I could be free as opposed to never.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Hi MacD,

Testimony confirmed that Brad did attempt to hire the Rosen Law Firm and pay their retainer with a check against his credit card. The check bounced and then Rosen did not represent him and he was left with no divorce attorney. He clearly did not understand separation and divorce terms are fully negotiable and it's a process that goes through several iterations between attornies when the divorce is not amicable. Confirmation of Rosen Law Firm not representing BC came through the testimony of Alice Stubbs.

 

[Madeleine74]

I've been playing catch up and reading. I have formed an opinion that he is guilty but I think he does deserve a new trial. That whole subdivision was sleeping with everyone and I think all of that should be kept out of the next trial. Now, if he were to take a plea and plead guilty it would only reasure that he is guilty. I think he was a very controlling man and I think coming back from that trip with her family from the OBX he noticed there was a "new" Nancy and I think an argument started when she came home from the cookout and well.........Nancy wasn't taking his crap anymore and she was leaving.IMO

Just a point of clarification: the "whole subdivision" was not sleeping with everyone else. One woman (HM) who lived in a neighboring subdivision was the floozy who bedded several married men, including BC. One of the married men she bedded, in addition to BC, was himself a "himbo" who enjoyed the attention of other women outside the bounds of holy matrimony. While it may seem like everyone was sleeping with everyone else, in reality that just wasn't true. NC had one affair of some (month or two) duration during the year 2000, which was her first year of marriage & she was contemplating leaving the marriage but then didn't. She had a one-night drunken interlude with the "himbo" in 2005 after a booze-filled Halloween party. There was no evidence or testimony about anyone else in NC's life, and no one in the nearly 3 years before her murder in 2008.

BC himself had somewhere between 1 and 3 affairs. This included the "local floozy" referenced above who he allegedly claimed to be in love with, and a grad school gal who he met in Paris and continued to contact thereafter via phone & email.

It's important to note that none of the affairs have anything to do with the overturned conviction. They provide context to the unhappy pairing of BC & NC through the years, and help illustrate the eventual erosion of the marriage to the point the marriage was irretrievably broken and on a definite course to divorce, but those relationships are unrelated with the do-over BC is getting, which is really all about a judicial error around the computer expert(s) and what constitutes a "forensic" computer expert versus a computer expert.

 

[oenophile]

Just a point of clarification: the "whole subdivision" was not sleeping with everyone else. One woman (HM) who lived in a neighboring subdivision was the floozy who bedded several married men, including BC. One of the married men she bedded, in addition to BC, was himself a "himbo" who enjoyed the attention of other women outside the bounds of holy matrimony. While it may seem like everyone was sleeping with everyone else, in reality that just wasn't true. NC had one affair of some (month or two) duration during the year 2000, which was her first year of marriage & she was contemplating leaving the marriage but then didn't. She had a one-night drunken interlude with the "himbo" in 2005 after a booze-filled Halloween party. There was no evidence or testimony about anyone else in NC's life, and no one in the nearly 3 years before her murder in 2008.

BC himself had somewhere between 1 and 3 affairs. This included the "local floozy" referenced above who he allegedly claimed to be in love with, and a grad school gal who he met in Paris and continued to contact thereafter via phone & email.

It's important to note that none of the affairs have anything to do with the overturned conviction. They provide context to the unhappy pairing of BC & NC through the years, and help illustrate the eventual erosion of the marriage to the point the marriage was irretrievably broken and on a definite course to divorce, but those relationships are unrelated with the do-over BC is getting, which is really all about a judicial error around the computer expert(s) and what constitutes a "forensic" computer expert versus a computer expert.

Point of correction: Brad had one affair, not "between 1 and 3 affairs". This is important because the prosecution did its best to smear BC in order to get the jury to dislike him and vote guilty.

 

[macd]

Point of correction: Brad had one affair, not "between 1 and 3 affairs". This is important because the prosecution did its best to smear BC in order to get the jury to dislike him and vote guilty.

Not that it matters, but 1) neighbor, 2) best friend's wife, 3) grad school classmate.

Also, "smearing" the defendant is part of every trial. The prosecution has to get the jury off the starting position of "We can't believe anyone would kill the mother of his children". Also note, that "smearing" the investigators by the defense is also part of every trial, including this one.

 

[Madeleine74]

Let's not birth a litter of kittens, Oeniphile. BC did cheat and I consider the MBA classmate another of his paramores. I'd say without even the affairs Brad Cooper looked like a malicious guy, particularly when he was intercepting his wife's private emails, to name just one example.

 

[JusticeFever]

Point of correction: Brad had one affair, not "between 1 and 3 affairs". This is important because the prosecution did its best to smear BC in order to get the jury to dislike him and vote guilty.

It's all coming back to me, this case was filled with all kinds of gossip and people having crushes on each other, with some acting out on it. I think some of the neighborhood married men had a thing for Nancy, and then I remember Brad having sex in a closet.
It really had a bad soap opera vibe and there was even someone suing their husband for alienation of affection. This case had it all.
And, then there was the part where Nancy's cell phone messages were accidentally deleted, correct?

A trial date should be set, or we get word of a plea deal...

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

It's oft said that a cheating spouse does not mean someone's a murderer when a spouse turns up dead, and that's true.

However, have y'all noticed that in almost every single spousal murder case, and I'm talking about the ones people actually agree the spouse is guilty, there is always cheating, always a lover on the side on the part of the murderer? I have, and it seems to be standard in such situations.

 

[Hez]

Not that it matters, but 1) neighbor, 2) best friend's wife, 3) grad school classmate.

Also, "smearing" the defendant is part of every trial. The prosecution has to get the jury off the starting position of "We can't believe anyone would kill the mother of his children". Also note, that "smearing" the investigators by the defense is also part of every trial, including this one.

BBM - The victim as well.

 

[Madeleine74]

Oh but Hez, no no you are mistaken. That's not "smearing" the victim...no that's just showing the jury the other side, which is the simple truth. It's only "smearing" when it's the state presenting evidence and it makes the defendant look like not such a good guy in the eyes of the jury. And that's not faiiiiirrrr.
:-#

 

[oenophile]

Not that it matters, but 1) neighbor, 2) best friend's wife, 3) grad school classmate.

If I recall, only one of those was an affair (i.e. any sexual contact occurred)

 

[JusticeFever]

BBM - The victim as well.

You may want to read this, it really happened.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9498434/

 

[Hez]

If I recall, only one of those was an affair (i.e. any sexual contact occurred)

Well then I guess that makes it all ok then. An emotional affair is still an affair. :facepalm: