I agree.
Brad Cooper: Appeal info
- Thread starter jrb0124
- Start date
- Status
I agree.
Does this mean we're getting the get-along gang back together?
I'd really like to see what this particular case would look like with no hiding behind the various federal agencies (some of which are now public) protocols might look like.
Also, Stephens would be perfect for this. He has seemed to have been on all the more media-ish trials recently.
I'd really like to see what this particular case would look like with no hiding behind the various federal agencies (some of which are now public) protocols might look like.
Also, Stephens would be perfect for this. He has seemed to have been on all the more media-ish trials recently.
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 19,331
- Reaction score
- 50,992
Exactly, Skittles -- the Rentz family was my first thought as well. And now the girls are older and understand more about things in general, certainly.
Witnesses re-called, autopsy reviewed again, CPD will have to review their case notes and be up on all of it again, as if the prosecutors have time to do a thorough job again in the midst of everything else they are juggling - but they will, Rentz family testimony & truly long-distance travel and having to relive it again --someone staying back to take care of the girls, trying to find the neighbors who were at the party and saw the Coopers interact and their conversations with BC and or NC, the next door neighbor and the garage door, the HT videos, etc., etc., etc., etc., as if it were all fresh in their minds. Arrggghhhmmmfff. Woe upon woe. And more of that hated statement: "Your Honor, I want to be heard."
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Putting the fun back in dysFUNction...:rockon:
As a federal agency I don't imagine the FBI agreeing to disclosure of their methods, so that will be interesting to see if they themselves attempt to fight it.
Stephens has the experience, the tenure, the gravitas and seems to be mostly respected far and wide. He's cool under pressure, doesn't throw tantrums or hold his breath, he's feared and revered in equal parts, knows the law inside and out, and would be the optimal choice.
Just heard the news ... isn't that interesting! I guess it is a problem if the defense is not allowed to present witnesses to address prosecution testimony. Why didn't the judge get the right in the first trial?
Will he get bail?
Will he get bail?
seattlechiquita
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 259
Great question. Was he out on bail during the first trial? If so, he might have the bail reinstated and be sent home. No clue.
I hope I am able to follow the second trial and keep an open mind (I didn't follow it the first time, but try to stay on top of DV/spousal cases). Coffee to all. We will need it.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
He was given a bail amount of $2M after his arrest. He could not come up with the money to gain release on bail so he stayed in prison awaiting trial. He'll likely get bail again, but it will be interesting to see the amount. He's indigent so unless people are going to bail him out he'll likely stay put.
seattlechiquita
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 259
Thanks Madeleine for the info. I will rely on much of your wisdom in the months to come friend.
I won't be able to follow the trial, but will catch the updates at the end of the day. Hopefully people here will post the highlight ... and any irregularities that happen.
If he is granted bail and if he's able to come up with the amount, will there also be a ruling that he should have access to his daughters? Regarding bail, isn't there some law about a bail amount being reasonable in terms of the suspect's ability to pay? That is, if the amount is ridiculously high, and bail should be granted, isn't that the same as denying bail?
calgary123
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 0
This is stunning news!
More comments in the days or months to come, but I do believe the computer evidence will be presented better the second time around, on both sides, and that the reasons for the conviction will become even more clear.
I disagree with the suggestion in this thread earlier yesterday that the Rentz's themselves were or should have been unsure of the verdict's factual validity. Such suggestion is, frankly, offensive. You have no idea where they stand on this issue. To suggest they need a new trial for their own security in the verdict is simply a statement of your own beliefs, and you shouldn't cast that onto others, especially the parents of the victim, whom are certainly blameless.
I'll try to open my mind for trial 2.0, but I think there's too much evidence to expect anything other than another guilty verdict, the original court's now determined legal errors notwithstanding.
More comments in the days or months to come, but I do believe the computer evidence will be presented better the second time around, on both sides, and that the reasons for the conviction will become even more clear.
I disagree with the suggestion in this thread earlier yesterday that the Rentz's themselves were or should have been unsure of the verdict's factual validity. Such suggestion is, frankly, offensive. You have no idea where they stand on this issue. To suggest they need a new trial for their own security in the verdict is simply a statement of your own beliefs, and you shouldn't cast that onto others, especially the parents of the victim, whom are certainly blameless.
I'll try to open my mind for trial 2.0, but I think there's too much evidence to expect anything other than another guilty verdict, the original court's now determined legal errors notwithstanding.
borndem
Anglophile & registered demwit
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 19,331
- Reaction score
- 50,992
Dayam! And Good Morning, Peeps --
It's still All About Kurtz -- he says below, "I feel vindicated." "I," "Me," "My," he prolly has those words in his breakfast cereal, IMO. No, Mr. K, it's not about you... Grrrrrr (All is JMHO)
It's still All About Kurtz -- he says below, "I feel vindicated." "I," "Me," "My," he prolly has those words in his breakfast cereal, IMO. No, Mr. K, it's not about you... Grrrrrr (All is JMHO)
And the world is still spinning, as it should. No earthquakes, no monsoons, nothing was a result of this statement he made. But he has a happy client, methinks. Grrrrrr. :stormingmad:
Cherry
Pie
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,933
- Reaction score
- 1,615
I read an article just last week that it's being discussed Stephens is about to Retire. You can tell; just watching the Hayes trial. something has made his hair go white, almost over night. Either he is ill; or is tired, or just needs a break. He has had the worst Domestic Violence cases ever. And I think they are haunting him, even ever more so with the Hayes trial. He sounds weary. The article stated that if he does retire that he will be "sorely missed" his presence is highly respected, and much needed.
I've really grown to like this judge.
I've really grown to like this judge.
There was an awful lot of turmoil and dishonesty in the marriage. I still have the lingering question of who fathered the second child. Nancy did have adulterous affairs and she was not forthcoming about how she was conducting herself. She told everyone that would listen that Brad was responsible for her unhappiness, but I think that there was a lot more to the story. She had previously been involved with a married man, and that wouldn't have been a happy time for her either. That marriage ended in divorce, and her relationship fell apart.
The fact that her phone was wiped clean by investigators doesn't help, as we don't know what else she was involved with at the time of her murder. Because Nancy had a history of involvement with other men (some married) before and during the marriage, it doesn't look like a straight forward "husband did it" murder. Others could have had motive, means and opportunity - but it doesn't appear that those possibilities were explored. It appears that neighbors decided Brad's guilt, police went along with it and that was the extent of the investigation. Hopefully another trial will clarify the facts.
If he's the Judge from the Michelle Young murder trial, then I had some concerns about him being unbiased. I was really surprised that a day care worker with no formal early childhood education training was allowed to testify about the activities of a two year old - with implications about how those activities should be interpreted. I was also surprised at his comments at the end of the trial, where he stated that Jason was a abusive husband. I agreed with those comments, but was surprised because that was not a theme presented during trial.
Cherry
Pie
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,933
- Reaction score
- 1,615
Otto: yes it was allowed, I believe he is 100% guilty and won't change my stance, lol. But I know he has alot of "supporters" and I thought the doll play was brilliant myself.
Judge Stephens:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/148230/#/vid148230
Judge Stephens:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/148230/#/vid148230
Cherry
Pie
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,933
- Reaction score
- 1,615
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10814366/
Judge Stephens on Jason Young
Judge Stephens on Jason Young
seattlechiquita
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 259
I remember that sentencing. Loved every word of it.
StJohn
Caribbean Paradise
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2011
- Messages
- 356
- Reaction score
- 330
Here is what this appeal will come down to:
1) Defense witnesses re: tampered files, expert classification.
The reason the appeals judges pestered the State about this is because there is precedent. I expect the appeals court to rule that Gessner erred in disallowing JW (and GM in that) to testify in this capacity. He did allow an airport cop looking at his 3rd computer to testify in this regard for the State
2) Would the purported tampering testimony (disallowed) have affected the verdict?
Of course, it would have. The jurors said as much. To compound this, Boz insisted in the State's closing argument that (paraphrasing here) "not one witness from the defense testified that these files were tampered with". Dumb...because this reinforces the concept that "untampered" map files were crucial to the State's case. If Boz had not said that, I'd give this appeal a 50/50 chance at a new trial. As its stands i would be surprised if THIS appeals court (based on past rulings) does NOT grant BC a new trial due to Gessner's error in not allowing testimony.
I don't think the FBI issue with "national security" will even need to come into play.
my prediction:
*State emphasis in closing i.e. "no defense witness told you there was tampering"
*Gessner (in error) disallowing above testimony
=reversal, new trial and Gessner has Boz, in part, to thank for that.
BC guilty or not, it is what it is.
Don't know your background, but sincerely hope that you will continue to post as this case progresses. I followed the entire trial & became completely disillusioned with the justice system based on JG's rulings. I don't know if BC is guilty, but I don't think I could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for any reason other than the google map search.
Your analysis of the basis for a new trial has been spot on and it would be great to hear your thoughts on what might happen in a new trial.
Interesting, too, that the appellate court judges, in their ruling, specifically stated they were going beyond what was required to grant the new trial and ruled on the 2 additional arguments so any one of the three would have sufficed to grant the new trial.
The appellate judges, IMO, indicated that the google map search was the only evidence that directly linked BC to the murder. Any chance, you think, based on any possible subsequent analysis/findings, that the evidence could be ruled inadmissible in a new trial?
I, for one, am quite pleased with the result of the appeal. Although I do not think it is over yet, as the state still can take this to the NC Supreme Court to have the appeal renewed. However, Brad deserves a fair trial, and he did not get one the first time. Having followed the original trial, I am still convinced that he is innocent. And I really cannot comprehend how anyone can believe otherwise based on the full evidence presented at trial.
That being said, the thing that I find the most outrageous and manipulative is the "Butterfly Fund" for Nancy Cooper. Unless you presume that Brad was guilty, there was NO evidence of domestic violence. By making the "Butterfly Fund" against domestic violence, the sponsors promoted an agenda (blame Brad) and dishonored Nancy. This was the M.O. of Nancy's friends that blamed Brad from the outset. And I find it contemptible. Had Nancy's friends used the fund for something other than trying to frame Brad, it would have been very different. But clearly, they had an agenda, and that was to blame Brad for the murder at all costs.
That being said, the thing that I find the most outrageous and manipulative is the "Butterfly Fund" for Nancy Cooper. Unless you presume that Brad was guilty, there was NO evidence of domestic violence. By making the "Butterfly Fund" against domestic violence, the sponsors promoted an agenda (blame Brad) and dishonored Nancy. This was the M.O. of Nancy's friends that blamed Brad from the outset. And I find it contemptible. Had Nancy's friends used the fund for something other than trying to frame Brad, it would have been very different. But clearly, they had an agenda, and that was to blame Brad for the murder at all costs.
- Status