Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[JusticeFever]

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

I don't think anyone is saying it is okay to have an affair, but in this case, Nancy had one also, it came in at trial. It is just as much a fact of this case as everything else on record.

 

[Hez]

I don't think anyone is saying it is okay to have an affair, but in this case, Nancy had one also, it came in at trial. It is just as much a fact of this case as everything else on record.

The excuse was being made for Brad that somehow his affair(s) wasn't a big deal because it wasn't sexual. There is a double standard being applied here, but that's OK if you don't want to see it.

 

[Madeleine74]

No one testified that they saw Brad in a sexual situation with the grad school gal, but that doesn't mean something sexual didn't happen. It only means there's been no evidence submitted that there had. If that particular gal happened to file an affidavit and was subjected to a deposition and if she testified to one or more sexual encounters then that would provide the proof. Either way, if it was my spouse and they were having tete-a-tetes with someone, and expressed interest in moving to that person's country (and displayed other behaviors that made me suspicious), I certainly would not think it was nothing. In fact I would consider that a form of cheating.

 

[Madeleine74]

There's often a double standard and I submit it's gender-based.

Boys will be boys. You know men.... sigh ..... Just because he slipped a little (and he says it was ONLY 1 time so therefore he must be believed), doesn't make him a bad person, a murderer, nor should it be considered a part of his character because c'mon. It's not ok to cheat but then again, <shrug>

But go read the wild arse rumors (yes rumors) written in the defense's motion that tried very hard to smear the victim in this case every which way. They had her allegedly hitting on everyone and their (her) brother-in-law. People believed that without question (what? a Defense Attorney would never ever lie or exaggerate). Lo and behold at the trial, when push came to shove and they could have put people on the stand, they didn't have anyone on there other than the 1 guy who had the drunken interlude 3 years before the murder and a girl friend from 10 yrs before who was aware of the guy in FL NC's first year of marriage. Salacious, but himbo wasn't tied to the murder other than by innuendo. He's a sleazoid, but not a murderer, or at least not the murderer of the victim in this case. And the long-forgotten guy from 10 years before never was revealed by name, if his name was ever known outside the victim.

 

[JusticeFever]

The excuse was being made for Brad that somehow his affair(s) wasn't a big deal because it wasn't sexual. There is a double standard being applied here, but that's OK if you don't want to see it.

No, you made a comment about the victim being smeared...I posted a link to a man's testimony from the trial that had an affair with Mrs. Cooper while she was married.
You are right though, I haven't seen any signs of double standards.
Both the Coopers, Brad and Nancy were having affairs, and both of them were wrong....

 

[oenophile]

There is no indication that any affair was a motive to commit murder. There is an indication that either or both affairs were motives for divorce.

 

[oenophile]

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

Different people have different definitions of "emotional affair", and in that respect, sexual activity is indeed usually a necessary component of an affair. Flirting and deep conversations are not.

 

[oenophile]

The excuse was being made for Brad that somehow his affair(s) wasn't a big deal because it wasn't sexual. There is a double standard being applied here, but that's OK if you don't want to see it.

no, it wasn't an affair because it didn't meet the criteria of an affair, at least according to any normal definition of an affair.

 

[oenophile]

Either way, if it was my spouse and they were having tete-a-tetes with someone, and expressed interest in moving to that person's country (and displayed other behaviors that made me suspicious), I certainly would not think it was nothing. In fact I would consider that a form of cheating.

I certainly wouldn't, not in the least. I would certainly say that BC was having doubts about his life, but I would not in any way call that a form of cheating. Then again, I am someone who thinks that married people can have deep platonic friendships with people of the opposite sex. I know a lot of people who don't believe this.

 

[oenophile]

There's often a double standard and I submit it's gender-based.

Boys will be boys. You know men.... sigh ..... Just because he slipped a little (and he says it was ONLY 1 time so therefore he must be believed), doesn't make him a bad person, a murderer, nor should it be considered a part of his character because c'mon. It's not ok to cheat but then again, <shrug>

But go read the wild arse rumors (yes rumors) written in the defense's motion that tried very hard to smear the victim in this case every which way. They had her allegedly hitting on everyone and their (her) brother-in-law. People believed that without question (what? a Defense Attorney would never ever lie or exaggerate). Lo and behold at the trial, when push came to shove and they could have put people on the stand, they didn't have anyone on there other than the 1 guy who had the drunken interlude 3 years before the murder and a girl friend from 10 yrs before who was aware of the guy in FL NC's first year of marriage. Salacious, but himbo wasn't tied to the murder other than by innuendo. He's a sleazoid, but not a murderer, or at least not the murderer of the victim in this case. And the long-forgotten guy from 10 years before never was revealed by name, if his name was ever known outside the victim.

i find that NC's affair is never raised first, always after BC's character is defined by his affair.

Lawyers exaggerate, both prosecution and defense. It doesn't mean that we should.

 

[oenophile]

There's often a double standard and I submit it's gender-based.

One other comment on this: I think there are lots of gender-based double standards when it comes to sex and relationships. If a man sleeps around, he is a stud, if a woman does it, she is a *advertiser censored*. On the other hand, if a man has an affair, he is a philanderer, whereas if a woman does it, she is simply seeking out intimacy that she can't get at home (i.e. husband's fault). All of these are unfair characterizations and represent some type of gender bias.

The reality is usually a complex muddle of things, and despite the dissection of this relationship by court documents and trial testimony, we really don't know the truth about the state of the marriage and the relationship between them.

 

[Madeleine74]

We absolutely know the state of the marriage through testimony and through the actions of the defendant in the last months of the victim's life. Further, emails written by the victim to her husband and testimony about phone calls and the things the victim said to her family about her state of mind and the state of her home and life in the last days of her life give us a very big indication:

- all was not well in the marriage and the two spouses were not happy with each other
- the husband was secretly reading his wife's personal emails, having those emails forwarded to a separate email account that he controlled.
- the victim wanted the marriage over and to begin her life anew
- the victim missed her family terribly and didn't want to be far away from them
- the victim's own voice is heard in a voicemail to her parents about how she felt upon returning home from vacation, 6 days before her murder, the condition of her home, how disgusted she felt.
- the victim and the defendant on at least 2 occasions fought publicly and in front of the 2 minor children within the last few months of the victim's life
- the defendant publicly swore at his wife (witnessed by at least 2 people who testified).
- the victim felt trapped and unable to move forward
- the victim was unhappy and was feeling tired and run down
- the victim told the spouse, within the last 24 hrs of her life, she hated him, multiple times.
- the victim told more than 1 person, less than 12 hrs before she was murdered, that she and the estranged husband were "back in hate mode"

It forms a pretty clear picture to me about the "state of the marriage and relationship" between the defendant and the victim right up to her murder.

 

[oenophile]

We absolutely know the state of the marriage through testimony and through the actions of the defendant in the last months of the victim's life. Further, emails written by the victim to her husband and testimony about phone calls and the things the victim said to her family about her state of mind and the state of her home and life in the last days of her life give us a very big indication:

- all was not well in the marriage and the two spouses were not happy with each other
- the husband was secretly reading his wife's personal emails, having those emails forwarded to a separate email account that he controlled.
- the victim wanted the marriage over and to begin her life anew
- the victim missed her family terribly and didn't want to be far away from them
- the victim's own voice is heard in a voicemail to her parents about how she felt upon returning home from vacation, 6 days before her murder, the condition of her home, how disgusted she felt.
- the victim and the defendant on at least 2 occasions fought publicly and in front of the 2 minor children within the last few months of the victim's life
- the defendant publicly swore at his wife (witnessed by at least 2 people who testified).
- the victim felt trapped and unable to move forward
- the victim was unhappy and was feeling tired and run down
- the victim told the spouse, within the last 24 hrs of her life, she hated him, multiple times.
- the victim told more than 1 person, less than 12 hrs before she was murdered, that she and the estranged husband were "back in hate mode"

It forms a pretty clear picture to me about the "state of the marriage and relationship" between the defendant and the victim right up to her murder.

This presents an absolute FALSE picture of what was really happening in the relationship, and shows an entirely ONE-SIDED, ANTI-BRAD view.

- the victim was know to exaggerate greatly about the events of the marriage
- the victim told family friends that she was looking forward to game night with the defendant
- the victim was actively seeking to take the children away from the defendant across international borders against the will of the defendant
- no one knew the defendant to ever do anything violent toward the victim
etc etc.

Which is precisely why we ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW THE STATE OF THE MARRIAGE through testimony, and we certainly DO NOT have a clear view of the state of mind of the victim or the defendant. While we have indicators, these indicators were based on how the victim and the defendant presented their view to others. What is stated to others and what is reality is often VERY different.

 

[Madeleine74]

The defendant's actions speak for themselves.

The wife ended up dead through homicidal violence, via the actions of the defendant, according to a jury who unanimously decided.

Due to a judicial error he'll either get a do-over or will take a plea and admit he's a murderer.

And some will continue to birth litters of kittens and stomp their feet regardless.

 

[oenophile]

The defendant's actions speak for themselves.

The wife ended up dead through homicidal violence, via the actions of the defendant, according to a jury who unanimously decided.

Due to a judicial error he'll either get a do-over or will take a plea and admit he's a murderer.

And some will continue to birth litters of kittens and stomp their feet regardless.

The defendants actions speak for themselves, and they show he is innocent. The actions of the CPD, DA, and judge speak for themselves, and they say that the defendant was assumed guilty from the beginning and that all three were willing to manipulate the evidence and the law to get a jury to agree.

And some will continue to ignore evidence and chase the defendant with torches and pitchforks to satiate some inner hunger of revenge regardless of the facts.

 

[calgary123]

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.

Yes, and add to that that he knew what could happen... he was defendant in a civil trial in Calgary that went against him, and where he chose to not have a lawyer defend him. The judgement went against him, he chose to not pay the judgment, then his account was garnished, which was a huge surprise to him. His then girlfriend/financee was livid that rent wasn't paid and they both got a letter from their landlord.

In short, I agree that the very unreasonable draft from the lawyer about what Brad should pay was a factor in his decision. He knew it could get to the point he could be required to pay, and perhaps thought it would be a silly amount.

 

[JusticeFever]

The defendants actions speak for themselves, and they show he is innocent. The actions of the CPD, DA, and judge speak for themselves, and they say that the defendant was assumed guilty from the beginning and that all three were willing to manipulate the evidence and the law to get a jury to agree.

And some will continue to ignore evidence and chase the defendant with torches and pitchforks to satiate some inner hunger of revenge regardless of the facts.

Weren't there also some witnesses who came forward that said they saw NC running that am? I remember one who seemed pretty credible, but it's been awhile.
At any rate, BC has a new trial, if he doesn't take the plea the state is prepared to offer.

 

[oenophile]

Yes, and add to that that he knew what could happen... he was defendant in a civil trial in Calgary that went against him, and where he chose to not have a lawyer defend him. The judgement went against him, he chose to not pay the judgment, then his account was garnished, which was a huge surprise to him. His then girlfriend/financee was livid that rent wasn't paid and they both got a letter from their landlord.

I am pretty knowledgeable about this case, but I wasn't aware of this. Or perhaps this was covered in parts of the deposition that I missed? Can you provide more details?

 

[Madeleine74]

Calgary123 has posted that he knows BC personally from living with him in the same apartment years ago, and I believe they have a couple (or maybe several) friends and acquaintances in common, in addition. My understanding is there are things in BC's past that BC would definitely not want to be known, as those would illuminate a side of BC that would not serve him well either in his current legal case or with regard to public opinion. And, as Calgary has said a few times in prior threads on this board, there are people from BC's past who know things about BC, who do not want to have to be involved in BC's current case in any way, shape, or form, if they can help it. As it stands now, 1 of the people from his past did get minimally involved, in writing an affidavit that detailed exactly why BC would have known her name, and known it correctly, and the extent of their relationship, yet BC puposely gave an incorrect name during his deposition when referring to her. I guess there are some skeletons and not insignificant ones.

 

[oenophile]

Calgary123 has posted that he knows BC personally from living with him in the same apartment years ago, and I believe they have a couple (or maybe several) friends and acquaintances in common, in addition. My understanding is there are things in BC's past that BC would definitely not want to be known, as those would illuminate a side of BC that would not serve him well either in his current legal case or with regard to public opinion. And, as Calgary has said a few times in prior threads on this board, there are people from BC's past who know things about BC, who do not want to have to be involved in BC's current case in any way, shape, or form, if they can help it. As it stands now, 1 of the people from his past did get minimally involved, in writing an affidavit that detailed exactly why BC would have known her name, and known it correctly, and the extent of their relationship, yet BC puposely gave an incorrect name during his deposition when referring to her. I guess there are some skeletons and not insignificant ones.

Yes, I was aware of that. However, Calgary123 brought up something very specific that to my memory has not been raised before, something which theoretically casts a negative light on BC. I think it deserves more explanation if it is going to be raised. Either it was something minor (in which case it has no relevance) or it is something major.

There are skeletons in everyone's closet. Very few are usually relevant to current events.