Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[Madeleine74]

What would be relevant to his wife's murder in 2008, when Calgary is referring to incident(s) that occurred before he even met Nancy? That Brad didn't want to have to pay a civil judgment that went against him? That said, BC apparently had one or more past legal issues.

Two things that did become known as a result of his deposition and most importantly the resulting affidavit filed by the former fiance who became aware of the lies told during that depo and felt compelled to set the record straight, is that Brad had a subversive side as well as a stalkery side, which fully emerged when the ex-fiance was done and finished with him and the relationship. Had this ex been put on the stand to testify, it's likely behavior patterns exhibited by BC from their time together would have come out in testimony and that would have corroborated behavior patterns testified to in the trial by those closest to NC, which related to the year or so before her murder. Slippery slope that. I saw some red flags in BC's behaviors when I read the affidavit and thought it very good fortune the ex-fiance got away. Probably would be deemed too prejudicial for a jury to hear, but it does add to the whole picture.

 

[oenophile]

If the past civil suits are raised, then I think they should have an explanation. Otherwise it is just a hit-and-run smear (and in respect to Calgary123, I don't think that is what it was, I just think it deserves greater explanation).

As far as the supposed behavioral patterns, these are VERY subjective and I don't think very credible. I saw more red flags in the behavior of the neighbors than in BC. But you are correct, they are quite prejudicial.

 

[Madeleine74]

We were given an explanation. A civil judgment in the past went against BC at the time he was living with his then-fiance and his wages were garnished because he didn't pay the judgment. As a result he also was not able to pay the rent. As to what the civil case was about, Calgary may not be free to disclose the exact details of what the case entailed that caused a judgment to go against BC.

To me there's nothing subjective about a person having their apartment improperly (and illegally) entered after a roommate has moved out. It either happened or it didn't happen. This caused the person who remained in the apartment to break the lease and leave the building altogether and move to an undisclosed new apartment. Sounds pretty factual to me. In this case there's an affidavit to those facts and more. Those are facts that can be verified and corroborated through other means like records kept, phone records, witnesses to an event, landlord/building owner records, etc.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

That doesn't apply in this case. There is no indication at all that BC was actively involved in an affair at the time of the murder.

 

[oenophile]

We were given an explanation. A civil judgment in the past went against BC at the time he was living with his then-fiance and his wages were garnished because he didn't pay the judgment. As a result he also was not able to pay the rent. As to what the civil case was about, Calgary may not be free to disclose the exact details of what the case entailed that caused a judgment to go against BC.

That isn't an explanation. What was the civil suit about? Why didn't he pay the judgement? Who served the civil suit against him? Was it just against him or him and several others? Civil suits are a matter of public record. There is no reason why Calgary would not be free to disclose unless Calgary was perhaps party to the suit. Nonetheless, if you can't disclose the details, then there it shouldn't be raised.

To me there's nothing subjective about a person having their apartment improperly (and illegally) entered after a roommate has moved out. It either happened or it didn't happen. This caused the person who remained in the apartment to leave the building and move to an undisclosed new apartment. Sounds pretty factual to me. In this case there's an affidavit. Those are facts that can be verified and corroborated through other means like records kept, phone records, witnesses to an event, landlord/building owner records, etc.

"Improperly (and illegally)" are often subjective descriptors. If the person had a reason to believe that they had a right to enter, then it is quite possible that they did. Roommate issues are usually highly subjective. And as we discovered with the affidavit's of NC's friends, what is claimed in an affidavit isn't always true.

 

[oenophile]

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.

You are correct. Rosemary Zednick positively identified NC while she was running that morning, which means that BC is innocent.

That is, assuming that you believe neutral eyewitnesses. And assuming you believe testimony.

What strikes me as ironic is that the same people who are willing to completely dismiss Zednick's testimony are also the ones that take NC's friends statements as absolute truth, not to mention Gracie's eyewitness testimony in the Jason Young trial.

Personally, I think Zednick saw a runner, and that it was likely NC, but not beyond a doubt. The reason I think it is NC is because her description matches NC, there is corroboration, and no other runner was ever found to have been out that morning. Likewise, I find some of the statements by NC's friends to be credible, and others to not be.

 

[Madeleine74]

Knowledge of the affair and his alleged disclosure he was "in love" with HM in early 2008 precipitated NC's decision to end the marriage because she just could not get over this. It was right after that disclosure (apparently during a couples therapy session) that the wheels began turning in earnest leading to NC's determination to end the marriage and leave. I think it is relevant and does apply in this case. An affair need not be occurring on the day of a murder for it to have an impact. The affair lasted longer than BC claimed, he finally (allegedly) admitted he thought he was "in love" with HM, and this disclosure did have an impact on NC and was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. From that point forward everything went downhill and ended in NC's murder, which I don't think is mere coincidence.

 

[Madeleine74]

You are correct. Rosemary Zednick positively identified NC while she was running that morning, which means that BC is innocent.

That's false.

Rosemary Zednick identified a woman with a long face with hair in ponytail, tall, slender and wearing an iPod type device who ran by and said "hello." She did not identify Nancy, she described a person with some similar physical characteristics as Nancy. Her testimony was impeached to the point the defense didn't even mention Mrs. Zednick during closing arguments. She even thought the day the runner went past her might have been Sunday.

Considering eye witness testimony is one of weakest forms of direct evidence, and that fact has been pummelled to death in other cases (like the JY case) it's kind of amusing and ironic it's used as some kind of holy grail in this case.

I have zero doubt Mrs. Zednick did see a runner that morning. I do have doubt as to the identity of the runner, especially with the inclusion of the runner wearing an iPod, which Nancy did not use.

 

[calgary123]

If the past civil suits are raised, then I think they should have an explanation. Otherwise it is just a hit-and-run smear (and in respect to Calgary123, I don't think that is what it was, I just think it deserves greater explanation).

As far as the supposed behavioral patterns, these are VERY subjective and I don't think very credible. I saw more red flags in the behavior of the neighbors than in BC. But you are correct, they are quite prejudicial.

The information about the case (claim, defence, result) is publicly available via the Alberta Courts. For $10 you can search his name, and you'll find the information via a list, and then order whatever documents you please for, I think, $1 a page. Here's some help you if you're actually interested... look for around 1998-2001 as the name Brad Cooper could result in several hits that aren't him.

My only point with this information, is it demonstrates that Brad had a prior lesson about how civil actions could go if you don't treat them seriously. It seems to me though he behaved the same once Nancy was starting to take formal steps to dissolve their marriage-- he didn't really deal with it, though I was unaware he couldn't afford to hire counsel. Its awful for him that, as I believe, Nancy overspent, then hires a lawyer to demand a lot of money from him (which he knows because he was intercepting her email), and he tries to hire a lawyer but he can't... because Nancy overspent. You could totally imagine someone feels they're cornered in that situation.

His ex-fiancee was never called as a witness, though she was on the list and they had her on standby during the trial. Her information would have been pretty ugly about Brad's prior actions, in a criminal not civil sense, though she wasn't aware of the civil issue until the account was garnished while they were still living together. I'm actually glad those things didn't come out.

I could go on and on about things like this. The lies in his family law deposition are extensive. I've been asked to not say some things by others, and I'll abide by that. I have said many things and you'll find them in my history of posting about this case, and how my thoughts about the case developed ever since I first was shocked to see Brad's face on Nancy Grace when this first went down-- its not very common to see someone you know from Canada on a national US network unless they play hockey.

 

[calgary123]

Two things that did become known as a result of his deposition and most importantly the resulting affidavit filed by the former fiance who became aware of the lies told during that depo and felt compelled to set the record straight, is that Brad had a subversive side as well as a stalkery side, which fully emerged when the ex-fiance was done and finished with him and the relationship.

I think the ex would have liked to have stayed out of this, but once she was aware what happened, felt a duty to contact the authorities to tell what she knew long before. Brad's wife was missing, under suspicious circumstances, and she (like all of Brad & Nancy's neighbours) felt Brad was capable of this. But the difference with her is she had some pretty solid information about how he can be. That's not to say past behaviour should be used as evidence about a different crime.

She was very stressed about the potential of having to testify, and absolutely did not want to-- but felt she was doing the right thing. I'd guess the prosecutors regret not calling her and calling the neighbours only. Though her information is more incendiary for a jury. I still think her evidence shouldn't be used in a second trial but who knows?

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm sure it's risky either way to call her or not. If Brad has criminal activity in his past and his ex-fiance has information and details about that, his defense team would certainly fight vigorously to keep that out, which would be their legal obligation to their client. Whatever testimony the ex would then give would have to be deemed relevant to the current case. The past civil legal case and/or any prior criminal type offense would likely be ruled too prejudicial and/or irrelevant to the current murder charges. I'm sure it must be totally surreal to see someone you know and lived with on the news, and facing a first degree murder conviction. It's interesting that none of the people who knew Brad from the same time you knew him thought him incapable of committing this murder. That's not evidence but it's still interesting.

 

[oenophile]

That's false.

Actually, you are correct, that is false. Ms. Zednick believes she identified NC that morning, however it is reasonable to question that. (I tried to clarify that a little in the statements that followed).

My point was exactly as you said, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and that includes eyewitness testimony from events that happened years ago. People tend to remember emotions, or how they felt at the time, rather than what actually happened.

 

[macd]

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.

For those who haven't been to Cary, it is the land of the Soccer Moms. On any given Saturday morning you're going to see dozens of athletic women, wearing a typical running outfit with their hair pulled back. It would be strange to not see many runners matching Nancy's general description on any sunny summer Saturday morning in Lochmere.

 

[oenophile]

For those who haven't been to Cary, it is the land of the Soccer Moms. On any given Saturday morning you're going to see dozens of athletic women, wearing a typical running outfit with their hair pulled back. It would be strange to not see many runners matching Nancy's general description on any sunny summer Saturday morning in Lochmere.

While that is somewhat true (and yes, I lived in Cary for over five years), Cary is also abundant with trees and tends to somewhat isolate houses, such that it wouldn't be that difficult to abduct someone without anyone hearing early on a Saturday morning. I've driven those early mornings and there are roads that are desolate of cars. In addition, you would think someone would have come forward and said they were running that morning in Lochmere, but no one did.

 

[Madeleine74]

Insisting that every (female) runner in the area should have come forward to identify themselves is a ridiculous assertion and somehow postulating that if this elusive runner didn't come forward then that means it was Nancy, is even more ridiculous. MacD is right -- there are many scores of women running any given day in Cary and on the weekends even more so. Every woman with hair long enough to tie back has their hair in a ponytail of some sort.

No one ever seems to question why upwards of 16 witnesses who saw a female runner with hair in ponytail (of which 3, I think, came in to testify) saw a woman in actual distress, saw anyone struggling, heard anyone screaming out in Cary that morning. 1 witness saw 2 women running together down Fielding. 1 witness (Mrs. Zednick) saw a woman who was wearing an iPod who smiled and said hello as she ran by. The most "incriminating" thing any witness saw (Curtis Hodges) was a van turning around on a main road in Cary, which had the van then going in the same direction as a female runner -- a runner who was in plain view in daylight on the sidewalk and was not in any distress. Somehow this elusive runner was secretly abducted without anyone seeing or hearing anything and the excuse is "well, it's possible, so therefore that's what happened." And then the logic goes, if this woman doesn't come forward and identify herself then obviously she was abducted because this case was in the news and therefore 'she' would know she needed to do that.

 

[oenophile]

Insisting that every (female) runner in the area should have come forward to identify themselves is a ridiculous assertion and somehow postulating that if this elusive runner didn't come forward then that means it was Nancy, is even more ridiculous. MacD is right -- there are many scores of women running any given day in Cary and on the weekends even more so. Every woman with hair long enough to tie back has their hair in a ponytail of some sort.

No one ever seems to question why upwards of 16 witnesses who saw a female runner with hair in ponytail (of which 3, I think, came in to testify) saw a woman in actual distress, saw anyone struggling, heard anyone screaming out in Cary that morning. 1 witness saw 2 women running together down Fielding. 1 witness (Mrs. Zednick) saw a woman who was wearing an iPod who smiled and said hello as she ran by. The most "incriminating" thing any witness saw (Curtis Hodges) was a van turning around on a main road in Cary, which had the van then going in the same direction as a female runner -- a runner who was in plain view in daylight on the sidewalk and was not in any distress. Somehow this elusive runner was secretly abducted without anyone seeing or hearing anything and the excuse is "well, it's possible, so therefore that's what happened." And then the logic goes, if this woman doesn't come forward and identify herself then obviously she was abducted because this case was in the news and therefore 'she' would know she needed to do that.

Again, this is clearly a prosecution-biased post. We did have 16 witnesses who saw a female runner. We didn't have any other female runners identified in the area other than NC. These are facts. If you live in the area (and apologies if you did not), then you would know definitively that this was extremely high profile for Cary.

It is a FACT that many of the running areas around Lochmere are desolate enough to make an abduction a possibility. It is a FACT that people saw a runner that morning. It is a FACT that no other runners were made public that morning. Is it possible that there was another runner? Of course. Is it probable? Given the overwhelming number of people that saw a runner, especially those that fit the description of NC, and given the lack of other runners identified, it is probable that this was NC.

What is really ridiculous is the extent to which people are willing to deny the obvious: a random abduction of Nancy Cooper fits the facts better than ANY other theory.

And this is where, in my opinion, the blatant sexism comes in. To many, BC was such a bad guy because he was the male in a bad marriage, and of course the men are always the bad guys in bad marriages. And this is why I find the "Butterfly Fund" so incredibly offensive and infuriating, as NC was NOT the victim of domestic violence according to the evidence.

 

[Madeleine74]

The only bias in my post is "where's the evidence from these eye witnesses that anyone, including a runner, was in distress that morning?" Nothing sexist about that.

It is a FACT that Nancy's phone was never used after 11pm the night before to communicate with anyone (verified by AT&T).

It is a FACT that while many people saw a runner that morning (and likely saw many runners out and about), no one who actually knew the victim saw her running that day. There was no verified sighting by anyone who actually knew her, of her running or even being outside. The only reported sightings were a tall, female runner, with brown hair in a ponytail, who matched NC's general description, running in public view.

It is a FACT not one report was made which indicated anyone in danger or was in distress.

It is a FACT that none of the various 'van' sightings on that Saturday morning indicated anyone outside of a van, a van stopped, or activity of anything other than said van driving down a major public street. Yet somehow we now have a runner on "desolate" paths being abducted and transported to a location 3 miles away, with zero evidence of that. (one must wonder where these vans or other vehicles were to get onto desolate running paths).

It is a FACT a DV expert testified in the trial that behaviors she became aware of and exhibited by the defendant, behaviors that were verified in court to be true, raised red flags to her and she was concerned and contacted Interact. It is also a FACT that somewhere between 12 to 18 hours later, after their lunch that day, Nancy was dead from strangulation.

It is a FACT the Butterfly Fund was never mentioned in any legal proceeding, including the trial, the appeal, or any motion. Further, it is a FACT NBF raised over $100K just in NC, and another $60K+ in Canada, which helped fund numerous new initiatives across the state and then in Canada for anyone affected by escalating domestic situations (including men, women, & children). If the family had instead started a fund to raise monies for heart-related issues (something neither Nancy or Brad suffered from) I suspect you would not feel offended or be furious in the least. Your continued feelings of resentment and fury toward a nonprofit that was wildly successful in raising monies that made a difference to statewide programs, programs that benefit both genders as well as children, are most amusing and quite illuminating. Yet such raw negative emotion around this good deed continues years later. Very illuminating, indeed.

 

[oenophile]

The only bias in my post is "where's the evidence from these eye witnesses that anyone, including a runner, was in distress that morning?" Nothing sexist about that.

No, you shifted the burden of proof onto the defendant. You dismissed a relevant fact: that no other runner fitting the description provided by the witnesses, was located that morning. And then you make a claim that is not supported by the facts: that a runner would need to be seen in distress in order to support the random attack theory.

It is a FACT that Nancy's phone was never used after 11pm the night before to communicate with anyone (verified by AT&T).

A fact, but also CONSISTENT with the random attack theory.

It is a FACT that while many people saw a runner that morning (and likely saw many runners out and about), no one who actually knew the victim saw her running that day. There was no verified sighting by anyone who actually knew her, of her running or even being outside. The only reported sightings were a tall, female runner, with brown hair in a ponytail, who matched NC's general description, running in public view.

A fact, but also CONSISTENT with the random attack theory.

It is a FACT not one report was made which indicated anyone in danger or was in distress.

A fact, but also CONSISTENT with the random attack theory.

It is a FACT that none of the various 'van' sightings on that Saturday morning indicated anyone outside of a van, a van stopped, or activity of anything other than said van driving down a major public street.

And it is a FACT that none of the Brad observations have him stuffing a body into a trunk.

Yet somehow we now have a runner on "desolate" paths being abducted and transported to a location 3 miles away, with zero evidence of that. (one must wonder where these vans or other vehicles were to get onto desolate running paths).

No one said "desolate running paths", I stated that running on the sidewalk in some of these areas is desolate if there are no other cars around. Have you been to Cary? Have you been to Lochmere?

It is a FACT a DV expert testified in the trial that behaviors she became aware of and exhibited by the defendant, behaviors that were verified in court to be true, raised red flags to her and she was concerned and contacted Interact. It is also a FACT that somewhere between 12 to 18 hours later, after their lunch that day, Nancy was dead from strangulation.

This is where I vehemently differ on the aspect of domestic violence. When it was examined in court, there was NO evidence of domestic violence. However, you have these so-called experts that claim every financial decision is a means of manipulation, etc. THIS is where the anti-male bias comes in.

It is a FACT the Butterfly Fund was never mentioned in any legal proceeding, including the trial, the appeal, or any motion. Further, it is a FACT NBF raised over $100K just in NC, and another $60K+ in Canada, which helped fund numerous new initiatives across the state and then in Canada for anyone affected by escalating domestic situations (including men, women, & children). If the family had instead started a fund to raise monies for heart-related issues (something neither Nancy or Brad suffered from) I suspect you would not feel offended or be furious in the least. Your continued feelings of resentment and fury toward a nonprofit that was wildly successful in raising monies that made a difference to statewide programs, programs that benefit both genders as well as children, are most amusing and quite illuminating. Yet such raw negative emotion around this good deed continues years later. Very illuminating, indeed.

I would not be furious if the Butterfly Fund was used for something that Nancy loved or had a passion for. The REASON why the Butterfly Fund was so offensive was it ACCUSED BC OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BEFORE HE WAS EVER BROUGHT TO TRIAL. You cannot deny this. BC was innocent until proven guilty, but the fund basically made a very public and prominent accusation that he had committed DV, and he was not able to defend himself. It was as much a PR stunt as it was a fund.

Let's put it another way. Let's say that Robin Williams's friends started a fund in his name to conquer spousal abuse. Let's say it raised $1m for the cause. Would that be fair to his widow?

 

[Madeleine74]

I would not be furious if the Butterfly Fund was used for something that Nancy loved or had a passion for

Nancy loved and had a passion for children. Children are always victims in domestic situations in which there is escalating tensions, and domestic dysfunction, leading to eventual violence and sometimes homicide. When one parent is killed at the hands of someone else (and especially when that is the other parent), the children left behind are perhaps the biggest victims of all. Monies raised are helping children, along with men & women. Who would deny helping out families and children?

Nancy didn't have a passion for heart disease or cancer ....would there be such fury and rage if monies raised went to fight cancer or heart disease? If no, why not? Neither of those causes are things Nancy "loved" or "had passion for" No, this being furious and enraged is all about Brad and feelings about and for Brad. Personal feelings.

And such personal offense for one nonprofit that never factored into Brad's legal case and never will, and had nothing to do with Brad's appeal. The Fund was formed many months after he was arrested for first degree murder. $160K+ raised. His name was never mentioned. Thousands of men, women & children benefited. Yet this effort, not a factor in any legal case past, present or future, made such an impression and continues to inspire such feelings of raw passion, those efforts will clearly never be forgotten. It's been years since, and the light continues to be shone on the cause just by those who are so offended and enraged. Fury? Rage? Offense? Disgust? For donating monies to men/women/children who need help? The best PR ever is from those who can only muster disgust and hatred for monies raised that go to needy people across the state and in Canada. I say keep that fury going. Best free advertising ever!

BTW, Robin Williams supported many philanthropic programs during his life, and a wide variety of programs. If anyone raised monies and donated to any worthy cause in his memory, I doubt his current (or ex) spouse would be offended.

 

[oenophile]

Nancy loved and had a passion for children. Children are always victims in domestic situations in which there is escalating tensions, and domestic dysfunction, leading to eventual violence and sometimes homicide. When one parent is killed at the hands of someone else (and especially when that is the other parent), the children left behind are perhaps the biggest victims of all. Monies raised are helping children, along with men & women. Who would deny helping out families and children?

Nancy didn't have a passion for heart disease or cancer ....would there be such fury and rage if monies raised went to fight cancer or heart disease? If no, why not? Neither of those causes are things Nancy "loved" or "had passion for" No, this being furious and enraged is all about Brad and feelings about and for Brad. Personal feelings.

And such personal offense for one nonprofit that never factored into Brad's legal case and never will, and had nothing to do with Brad's appeal. The Fund was formed many months after he was arrested for first degree murder. $160K+ raised. His name was never mentioned. Thousands of men, women & children benefited. Yet this effort, not a factor in any legal case past, present or future, made such an impression and continues to inspire such feelings of raw passion, those efforts will clearly never be forgotten. It's been years since, and the light continues to be shone on the cause just by those who are so offended and enraged. Fury? Rage? Offense? Disgust? For donating monies to men/women/children who need help? The best PR ever is from those who can only muster disgust and hatred for monies raised that go to needy people across the state and in Canada. I say keep that fury going. Best free advertising ever!

BTW, Robin Williams supported many philanthropic programs during his life, and a wide variety of programs. If anyone raised monies and donated to any worthy cause in his memory, I doubt his current (or ex) spouse would be offended.

You are ignoring the obvious. There would not be outrage over raising money to fight heart disease, etc, because doing so did not wrong someone else in the process. It isn't personal. It IS outrage over using altruistic means to accuse someone of murder. That IS outrageous. That IS infuriating. That IS offensive.

Just assume, for the moment, that NC was indeed the victim of a random attack. Do you seriously think that she would want a fund set up in her name to protest Domestic Violence?

Which goes to the point on Robin Williams. Yes, he supported many philanthropic programs during his life. And YES, I do think that his spouse would be offended if a fund was set up in his name to protest spousal abuse, because doing so implies that she was abusive.

Frankly, the whole "it was for the children" argument is trying to deflect. If she was so dedicated to children, why not support the Children's Fund or some other program that benefits children? No, this was a BLATANT effort to publicly accuse Brad of Domestic Violence and, therefore, murder. And frankly, the Butterfly Fund was when I lost all respect for Nancy's "friends".

Edited to add: It DOES factor into Brad's legal case when the jury pool is tainted due to a sustained effort by a group of people to publicly tarnish Brad's reputation. I would have moved for a change of venue just because of the publicity associated with the case in the Triangle.