Brad Cooper April 1st Weekend

[SleuthyGal]

If you go back and look at the posts from Aug 08 you will see that many people were sure that Brad did it when all that was known was about the puzzling Harris Teeter visits and the fact that they were discussing separation.

Back in Aug '08 there was a specific poster who insisted that Brad had made a 4:20am visit to HT. Her son worked at that store and there was some info she got from said son about the police coming in to see the store surveillance videos and she claimed a 4:20am visit was found/confirmed in which Brad purchased bleach...then it changed to cleaning supplies...then settled on the Tide detergent. She spread the 4:20am RUMOR far and wide and stood by her info as infallible.

AND...most people at that time assumed she knew what she was talking about because she was so adamant about it. She got people put on time out or banned who questioned her about this assertion, her info, her source, etc.

BUT...she was wrong. VERY wrong.

When someone inserts themselves into a criminal case it should always be looked at with a critical eye, and absolute proof of their assertion(s) should be mandatory before anyone takes their belief as actual evidence. That rumor caused a lot of problems and it was a shame. I'm not in Brad's corner, but I found the spread of that rumor unfair. I too believed it for awhile and then realized it might not be true and only through testimony could I ever be certain.

When someone refers to the 'housewives of Cary' as 'gossiping hens' this is the type of person they should be referring to. Not someone actually in the know, like Nancy's friends. Someone who gets 3rd and 4th hand info and then spreads it.

 

[jmflu]

I keep coming back to the initial problem of Brad's explanation as to where Nancy went that morning. I call it the "original lie".

He said she went running with her friend CC. He states he knew this because Nancy told him that.

Nancy did not go running with CC, nor did she actually have plans to. These are the possibilities with regard to Nancy's alleged statement (which is heresay but admissible as an exception, but not for the truth of its contents):

(1) Brad was lying (to Nancy's friends, the police and those searching)
(2) Brad was mistaken
(3) Nancy was lying (to Brad)
(4) Nancy was mistaken
(5) Nancy changed her mind

Lets take these in reverse order.

(5) is not possible because Nancy did not tell either CC or her painting friend of her change in plans. If she wanted to go running with CC on short notice, certainly CC would have at least received a call from Nancy. It did not happen. (5) is excluded.

For (4) to be possible, it means Nancy was confused as to her plans that morning. It means Nancy forgot or misunderstood what she had planned that morning. It would also mean that she somehow thought she made a plan with her friend CC, and the evidence is clear from her friend that no such plan existed. Nancy is normally intelligent or better and had made the painting plans only a day earlier. She would not have forgotten or have been mistaken. (4) is not possible.

As for (3), this raises what I call the _________ sort of argument (insert particular poster in the blank... no offense intended.). Nancy was having an affair, Nancy lied to Brad to cover up what she was really doing. Whether or not Nancy was having an affair -- and keeping in mind it is possible -- on this fateful morning we can be certain she did not intend to meet her lover assuming one existed (and I don't believe one did exist at this time). She made a plan with her friend to paint. She did not call that friend to cancel. Brad even bought a plastic sheet and other supplies for Nancy to paint with. She did not call CC to go running. She was not lying about her intention to go painting Saturday morning. (3) can also be discarded as a possibility.

Lets talk about (2). Brad was asked by Nancy's friends where she was. This was on the same day, within hours of her supposedly doing it. Brad volunteered she was running with CC. Since Brad gave this information voluntarily, and within hours of her allegedly doing it, we know he was not mistaken. It is not possible he mistakenly believed Nancy was running with CC, because he claims that is what Nancy told him. He is normally intelligent or better and would not have made such a mistake. (2) is excluded.

This leaves (1), the only possibility. Brad lied about this. Why would Brad lie about Nancy telling him he went running with CC? We know Nancy was dead by this time. This original lie is damning and to me demonstrates clearly Brad is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reason for him to lie about this unless he's trying to cover up what we know already happened.

I put this out there and am open minded enough to consider counter-arguments, but I don't just think he did it, I think its been proven.

This is fantastic reasoning. Thanks, calgary123...post of the WEEKEND!

 

[jumpstreet]

[ ... small snip ... ]
I suspect that what you see here is fairly representative of the population. Particularly when you look at the makeup of this particular jury.

Actually, I would think GOLO is more representative of the general population... the general population isn't going to go so far as to sign up for a WS account and follow things this closely.

That said, I'm actually somewhat surprised they were able to get what they feel is a neutral jury in this area. A jury of the defendant's peers...in this area would need to be at least moderately astute technically, and yet have remained reasonably uninformed (unbiased) on local events (ie, not followed any local news for the past 3 years, as it pertains to this case.)

At to that the need to serve for at least 2 months... I'm still a little surprised...

 

[SleuthSayer]

Back in Aug '08 there was a specific poster who insisted that Brad had made a 4:20am visit to HT. Her son worked at that store and there was some info she got from said son about the police coming in to see the store surveillance videos and she claimed a 4:20am visit was found/confirmed in which Brad purchased bleach...then it changed to cleaning supplies...then settled on the Tide detergent. She spread the 4:20am RUMOR far and wide and stood by her info as infallible.

AND...most people at that time assumed she knew what she was talking about because she was so adamant about it. She got people put on time out or banned who questioned her about this assertion, her info, her source, etc.

BUT...she was wrong. VERY wrong.

When someone inserts themselves into a criminal case it should always be looked at with a critical eye, and absolute proof of their assertion(s) should be mandatory before anyone takes their belief as actual evidence. That rumor caused a lot of problems and it was a shame. I'm not in Brad's corner, but I found the spread of that rumor unfair. I too believed it for awhile and then realized it might not be true and only through testimony could I ever be certain.

When someone refers to the 'housewives of Cary' as 'gossiping hens' this is the type of person they should be referring to. Not someone actually in the know, like Nancy's friends. Someone who gets 3rd and 4th hand info and then spreads it.

Yes, I remember that, I think an abbreviation of her username is mt3k. And, I found it maddening at that time that so many folks bought it because there was no proof. No offense, but I tend to trust little of what anyone says on the Internet. :dunno: So, I was skeptical of that story from the jump.

But, this is kind of exactly my point. There was no proof of that happening and yet Brad's moron attorneys [inexplicably] found it necessary to post stuff on their web site to prove that it didn't happen.

 

[cody100]

I'm not sure if you're in the area or not, but I'm fairly certain that if you polled 1000 people in the Raleigh-Durham area you'd probably have a 50-50 split on if they think he's guilty or not, perhaps leaning toward not guilty. This forum is not representive of the local area.

I agree that the general opinion here is probably not consistent with the population in genera, especially if they have watched some of the courtroom proceedings. Your 50-50 split may be accurate. If the jurors follow the judge's instructions to the letter of the law. This is all based on current evidence presented. This could change with additional evidence presented. The other problem that the State has is showing that it is impossible for anyone else to have done this, i.e, they have ruled out all other possibilities. I am not sure that has been done.

 

[SleuthSayer]

That said, I'm actually somewhat surprised they were able to get what they feel is a neutral jury in this area. A jury of the defendant's peers...in this area would need to be at least moderately astute technically, and yet have remained reasonably uninformed (unbiased) on local events (ie, not followed any local news for the past 3 years, as it pertains to this case.)

Definitely agree there. I'm also a bit surprised that they ended up with a 10 woman, 2 man jury. On the surface, 10 women would not seem representative of Brad's "peers".

 

[borndem]

Obviously, I'm in the Brad-did-it camp, but let me say this about that.
(These are at random, and not in any kind of sequence.)

I'm sure all of us WS'ers agree that the spouse must be ruled out as a suspect as soon as possible. Unless the spouse was on Mars (or had a similar hard alibi), they investigate the spouse.

When asked where did Nancy go by JA, BC says she went for a run with CC. Why that little detail? Why didn't he just say "I don't know where she went." Sometimes the truth helps even a liar.

As the investigators progressed, they were not able to rule him out. No big deal, let's keep trying. All the while looking at other leads, which they did. Things just didn't add up as BC explained it, and they talked to neighbors. And they talked to BC some more. More weird things. More odd little details.

We've found a body, Mr. Cooper. And does he ask "Is it Nancy?" Isn't that what every one of us would have said??? No, he talks about clothing. Odd.

Based on the items above, if CPD did not pursue BC after this evidence they surely would have been derelict in their duty to the citizens of Cary and to Nancy.

Which shoes did she wear? Not her favorites - and not a normal pair of left/right asics (was it asics?). Sunny morning -- no Bosox hat. The car keys to the only little sanctuary she had; and her personal physical protection while running -- especially since she went running alone -- and she leaves the car keys at home for BC to do whatever with them??

There was never a lot of evidence pointing to the Mexican-Mormon-Marauders -- a van of men at a construction site is not very unusual...no evidence at the dump site -- the rain & mud took care of that. No eyewitnesses to the dumping (Special K would have mentioned it, I'd bet.)

The search parties, as it turned out -- no one's fault -- didn't search in the right places. Body found in a place that was not a likely running area for Nancy. She did not cancel her painting plans. No calls to anyone.

Anyway, it's a start. Just hard for me to put aside. :waitasec:

 

[jumpstreet]

I agree that the general opinion here is probably not consistent with the population in genera, especially if they have watched some of the courtroom proceedings. Your 50-50 split may be accurate. If the jurors follow the judge's instructions to the letter of the law. This is all based on current evidence presented. This could change with additional evidence presented. The other problem that the State has is showing that it is impossible for anyone else to have done this, i.e, they have ruled out all other possibilities. I am not sure that has been done.

Couple this with the other recent media (past 6-12 months) about LE/SBI and the "system" in general contributing to put innocent people away, and mis-handling of evidence, etc... [ not saying it's all true, or that any of it happened here, but there's a degree of 'perception' at play here too ]

To me it makes it all the more important for the state to have something solid. [ Otherwise, it's just takes one out of 12 wiling to hold their ground... ]

 

[cody100]

Yes, I remember that, I think an abbreviation of her username is mt3k. And, I found it maddening at that time that so many folks bought it because there was no proof. No offense, but I tend to trust little of what anyone says on the Internet. :dunno: So, I was skeptical of that story from the jump.

But, this is kind of exactly my point. There was no proof of that happening and yet Brad's moron attorneys [inexplicably] found it necessary to post stuff on their web site to prove that it didn't happen.

Well, can you blame Brad's attorneys for trying to make sure this was corrected? It was widely spread around as a fact. I heard it everywhere. And not to be argumentative with you, but Brad has some excellent attorneys. In fact Kurtz, although young, has been extremely well trained. It appears that the judge has some issue with the defense, and particularly Kurtz. I would hire him, particularly with a different judge. I hope I never need his services.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I think it was a tactical error made by K&B to post videos of their client on their website. Don't get me wrong--I'm glad they did it because it was interesting and gave us added information (different shoes worn, long sleeved jacket, zipped up, etc.), but from a strategy perspective, I thought it was not the smartest move. They could no longer complain about 'media' coverage for their client when they too were participating in the media frenzy with their own website. It came back to bite them when they attempted a legal argument for a change of venue. The judge threw their own website back in their face as an example.

But addressing that particular rumor itself, no I don't blame them. I would have been furious too!

 

[jmflu]

It seems like an awful lot of speculation. NC called BC several times on the 11th and they also spoke every single day when she was away on her trip with her parents.

He also purchased the paint for her to do her painting at JA's so they couldn't have been on that bad of terms or he would have said "forget it".

If it's like BC described, which was a vague answer when JA called "she went running....not sure who with....possibly CC" then even called JA a bit later to find CC's number....it could have happened that way and no lie occurred.

I'm not sure what to make of the apartments/contact with the real estate guy....unless? Maybe that was what the lawyer's email was about. Maybe it would stipulate that BC must provide immediately for her to have her own place. The timing makes it possible.

If they weren't on bad terms, and he still cared about her, and he didn't kill her, I would think someone, somewhere, at some time, would have seen him show emotion at his loss. But no, he didn't attend any memorials, reach out to her friends or family for comfort or to offer comfort (and that would be very important to most of us even if people thought we did it)...and even now, 3 years later, his testimonies and affidavits sound, to me, like he resents her still, that she did this to him, that he blames her.

I don't think they were on good terms when he killed her.

 

[Tipstaff]

It seems to be a stretch but it would be possible for a four year old child to push a speed dial button to call his phone. The 6:34 could have been "practice" and then have her call again after some sort of set time or when a commercial came on in her show. Like I said, I don't think this is what happened but there would be no way to rule it out. MOO

I have been thinking the same thing. If I remember correctly the small child in the Bobby Cutts murder case explained that 'mommy is in the rug'.....I think this toddler may have answered the phone in his home. I may be wrong about that BUT I have been wondering if small child in her home was coached on the redial.

 

[cody100]

Couple this with the other recent media (past 6-12 months) about LE/SBI and the "system" in general contributing to put innocent people away, and mis-handling of evidence, etc... [ not saying it's all true, or that any of it happened here, but there's a degree of 'perception' at play here too ]

To me it makes it all the more important for the state to have something solid. [ Otherwise, it's just takes one out of 12 wiling to hold their ground... ]

I agree completely with all of your comments.

 

[borndem]

I think you should give the jury more credit that they will only say guilty if it's been proven. To suggest that a jury will convict based on emotions is weak. I don't believe it and it's scary to think that our justice system could be based on gut feelings versus proof. So much of the testimony has been about "Brad didn't make eye contact, he walked wrong, he drank a beer, etc. " Please tell me a jury will not convict someone on that.

Okay -- I'll tell you. They won't. It's that little detail pile that gets bigger every day of testimony that will convict him. And it's not over yet.

Again, that Fat Lady is still at home, doing her nails. She hasn't even warmed up yet.

 

[Just the Fax]

I never said that this is how I would vote were I on the jury. But, it's my opinion that people like you and I who are willing to wait to see all of the evidence and non-evidence before forming an opinion are in the vast minority. I suspect that what you see here is fairly representative of the population. Particularly when you look at the makeup of this particular jury.

If you go back and look at the posts from Aug 08 you will see that many people were sure that Brad did it when all that was known was about the puzzling Harris Teeter visits and the fact that they were discussing separation.

I could see a hung jury with one or two holdouts, but I can't imagine a 'not guilty'.

9 women...75% women

I would guess 90% of the WS posters here are women.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I don't believe the jury will convict without getting past reasonable doubt. Perhaps I have more faith in the system. If I were on a jury that's the standard I would hold the prosecution to before I could convict. 'Probably did it' is never good enough.

Well, I had one experience of sitting on a jury myself. It was a pretty silly case. This guy went to the airport post-9/11 and was told to remove his shoes at the security checkpoint and refused. A lot of drama ensued and it ended up with him resisting arrest and ultimately getting arrested, etc.

The guy was a hardcore Libertarian type who didn't think that the government had a right to tell him to remove his shoes. He also claimed that he had never heard about this shoe removal requirement.

The trial was a bit of a circus because the guy was his own attorney. He kept doing things that the judge told him that he couldn't do and the judge kept correcting him. The guy was remarkably unlikeable and seemed like the type that someday would make a political statement by blowing up something.

Anyway, when we first went in to start deliberating, 7 or 8 of the people were ready to convict purely based on the fact that the guy was an annoying a-hole. They didn't really even want to discuss it. There were a few of us holdouts who wanted to review the applicable laws and work through it analytically before making a decision. There was 1 guy who seemed sympathetic to him and thought that the cops took it to far. I agreed that the cops may have overreacted, but the bottom line is he broke the law. It was kind of irrelevant that the cops went too far. We ended up finding him guilty.

I understand that the stakes are much higher in this trial, but just saying that based on my limited experience jurors aren't as focused on the letter of the law as you would hope.

 

[jumpstreet]

Yes, I remember that, I think an abbreviation of her username is mt3k

Yeah, pretty sure this was the same contrubitor that provided inside info that there may be a LTF connection also (BC either trying to swipe a card, or confirm a morning visit had occurred that morning).

There seems to have been at least some basis in fact for that one... (though what really happened here is either gonna remain a mystery, or to be explained later... it's kinda been glossed over a bit in the earlier testimony I think... maybe they're saving it.)

 

[SleuthyGal]

I understand that the stakes are much higher in this trial, but just saying that based on my limited experience jurors aren't as focused on the letter of the law as you would hope.

I agree. The O.J. jury fiasco convinced me of that (which btw I've never recovered from!!). The truth is that some people are dumb as a box 'o rocks and others are so stubborn and so set they cannot look at evidence, will not consider laws, and any promise they made to the court to be unbiased is a joke. That goes both ways--not always in favor of the prosecution. However, this is the only system we've got and hopefully most people take their oath very seriously.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I think it was a tactical error made by K&B to post videos of their client on their website. Don't get me wrong--I'm glad they did it because it was interesting and gave us added information (different shoes worn, long sleeved jacket, zipped up, etc.), but from a strategy perspective, I thought it was not the smartest move. They could no longer complain about 'media' coverage for their client when they too were participating in the media frenzy with their own website. It came back to bite them when they attempted a legal argument for a change of venue. The judge threw their own website back in their face as an example.

Agree, that was my point in calling them morons. They just seemed like they were in way over their head with a murder defense. I think that most experienced attorneys at this level would be smarter than getting into a he said / she said thing with an anonymous message board poster. If you recall back in those days, even after they posted the videos people believed that their producing videos of him being there at 6:30 didn't mean that he wasn't also there at 4:30am. So, they didn't squelch any of the talk by doing that.

 

[borndem]

The state didn't pursue the case as a DP case because of the two little girls, the Rentz family didn't want it, and Brad had no prior criminal history (i.e. aggravating factors).

Gee, Sleuthygal, again with the facts. Gee.


(thx)