Brad Cooper Pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Murder of Nancy Cooper

[CyberPro]

That is not what was said at all.

The discussion was of a log file that showed that BC's laptop was attached to a router which could have been used to route a phone call. This router was shown to have been signed out of an inventory by BC, and could not be located later. There was an outline in dust conforming to a device that was physically similar to the router. There was supposedly a log file showing that the MAC address of that router was connected to on the laptop within the time frame where he said he was asleep. He said he didn't have the router, but his computer attached to it on the night in question. The MAC address is burned into the network interface and is unique to that device.

The log showing a connection to the router did not have to have any correlation at all to any phone call that was made, neither in duration, time or date. In theory, I could configure a router to do this, and not use that function for years, but when I eventually chose to do it, it would not change the fact that my computer was used to attach to that router. I have worked in IT, networking and computer systems for 35 years. I have worked on all types of equipment. So, please elaborate on where I have made a misstatement if I conclude that someone says that because the log file duration of the connection and the duration of the phone call do not match, I have made a mistake?

The log file is one set of data, the duration of the phone call is another set of data. They do not have to agree, if they do not, it neither proves nor disproves anything. However, since he claimed that he didn't have that piece of equipment, but his computer was used to attach to it on that night, there is a clear provenance to this data. The log file was likely found on his computer, had to be since the router has not been found.

 

[SStarr33]

The discussion was of a log file that showed that BC's laptop was attached to a router which could have been used to route a phone call. This router was shown to have been signed out of an inventory by BC, and could not be located later. There was an outline in dust conforming to a device that was physically similar to the router. There was supposedly a log file showing that the MAC address of that router was connected to on the laptop within the time frame where he said he was asleep. He said he didn't have the router, but his computer attached to it on the night in question. The MAC address is burned into the network interface and is unique to that device.

The log showing a connection to the router did not have to have any correlation at all to any phone call that was made, neither in duration, time or date. In theory, I could configure a router to do this, and not use that function for years, but when I eventually chose to do it, it would not change the fact that my computer was used to attach to that router. I have worked in IT, networking and computer systems for 35 years. I have worked on all types of equipment. So, please elaborate on where I have made a misstatement if I conclude that someone says that because the log file duration of the connection and the duration of the phone call do not match, I have made a mistake?

The log file is one set of data, the duration of the phone call is another set of data. They do not have to agree, if they do not, it neither proves nor disproves anything. However, since he claimed that he didn't have that piece of equipment, but his computer was used to attach to it on that night, there is a clear provenance to this data. The log file was likely found on his computer, had to be since the router has not been found.

What were the dimensions of the router and what were the dimensions of the dusty cabinet space?

And again the State’s expert testified that the maximum amount of time that a call can be automated using the router is 23 seconds.

 

[CyberPro]

There is a picture of it in evidence from the trial. It is possible it is not from that piece of equipment, but it showed there was a place where a piece of equipment had been long enough for a print to be seen in the dust, and it was approximately the same dimension.

 

[SStarr33]

There is a picture of it in evidence from the trial. It is possible it is not from that piece of equipment, but it showed there was a place where a piece of equipment had been long enough for a print to be seen in the dust, and it was approximately the same dimension.

Link please with the dimension info.

 

[Madeleine74]

Just watched the interview with the Rentz family. Gosh they are so, so loving and gracious and just a class act. I know I've said that before, but every time I see them and listen to them I'm struck by how wonderful they are in contrast to the horrible reality they've had to contend with over the last 6+ years since they lost their daughter/sister. At one point a reporter (I think this is the Canadian reporter from the 2011 trial) asked Krista, "so with this custody agreement he'll never see the children again?" And she answered "yes." So it's confirmed and here's your link. The family must have a copy of the written and signed agreement.

 

[Hez]

Just watched the interview with the Rentz family. Gosh they are so, so loving and gracious and just a class act. I know I've said that before, but every time I see them and listen to them I'm struck by how wonderful they are in contrast to the horrible reality they've had to contend with over the last 6+ years since they lost their daughter/sister. At one point a reporter (I think this is the Canadian reporter from the 2011 trial) asked Krista, "so with this custody agreement he'll never see the children again?" And she answered "yes." So it's confirmed and here's your link. The family must have a copy of the written and signed agreement.

Thank you. This discussion can be put to rest then.

 

[calgary123]

What were the dimensions of the router and what were the dimensions of the dusty cabinet space?

And again the State’s expert testified that the maximum amount of time that a call can be automated using the router is 23 seconds.

-I don't think you understood what CyberPro said. You've oversimplified the state's case to the point your information is no longer accurate.
-Why set up the straw-man about the size of the space and the router? Its not like if they match you'd change your mind about Brad's guilt.

 

[SStarr33]

Just watched the interview with the Rentz family. Gosh they are so, so loving and gracious and just a class act. I know I've said that before, but every time I see them and listen to them I'm struck by how wonderful they are in contrast to the horrible reality they've had to contend with over the last 6+ years since they lost their daughter/sister. At one point a reporter (I think this is the Canadian reporter from the 2011 trial) asked Krista, "so with this custody agreement he'll never see the children again?" And she answered "yes." So it's confirmed and here's your link. The family must have a copy of the written and signed agreement.

Actually, I posted that link earlier and I said I found it interesting that Gary told Krista to be careful when she was talking. Plus I found it strange that she didn't know she was going to adopt the kids.

BTW, she has no idea if he will ever see the kids again. None, nada, zip.

PS, I found the praise of the CPD laughable.

 

[SStarr33]

-I don't think you understood what CyberPro said. You've oversimplified the state's case to the point your information is no longer accurate.
-Why set up the straw-man about the size of the space and the router? Its not like if they match you'd change your mind about Brad's guilt.

Um, not my strawman. He was the one who posted about the dusty cabinet. And the call was 32 seconds and the router can only automate a call for maximum of 23 seconds.

 

[oenophile]

The discussion was of a log file that showed that BC's laptop was attached to a router which could have been used to route a phone call. This router was shown to have been signed out of an inventory by BC, and could not be located later. There was an outline in dust conforming to a device that was physically similar to the router. There was supposedly a log file showing that the MAC address of that router was connected to on the laptop within the time frame where he said he was asleep. He said he didn't have the router, but his computer attached to it on the night in question. The MAC address is burned into the network interface and is unique to that device.

The log showing a connection to the router did not have to have any correlation at all to any phone call that was made, neither in duration, time or date. In theory, I could configure a router to do this, and not use that function for years, but when I eventually chose to do it, it would not change the fact that my computer was used to attach to that router. I have worked in IT, networking and computer systems for 35 years. I have worked on all types of equipment. So, please elaborate on where I have made a misstatement if I conclude that someone says that because the log file duration of the connection and the duration of the phone call do not match, I have made a mistake?

The log file is one set of data, the duration of the phone call is another set of data. They do not have to agree, if they do not, it neither proves nor disproves anything. However, since he claimed that he didn't have that piece of equipment, but his computer was used to attach to it on that night, there is a clear provenance to this data. The log file was likely found on his computer, had to be since the router has not been found.

That evidence, presented in court with no adequate rebuttal, would make me 95% certain of his guilt. (Right now I'm around 80% certain based on his plea, whereas previously I was around 90% certain of his innocence prior to the plea).

 

[Hez]

Actually, I posted that link earlier and I said I found it interesting that Gary told Krista to be careful when she was talking. Plus I found it strange that she didn't know she was going to adopt the kids.

BTW, she has no idea if he will ever see the kids again. None, nada, zip.

PS, I found the praise of the CPD laughable.

She is about to legally become their mother, so yes she does. :moo:

 

[Hez]

That evidence, presented in court with no adequate rebuttal, would make me 95% certain of his guilt. (Right now I'm around 80% certain based on his plea, whereas previously I was around 90% certain of his innocence prior to the plea).

I appreciate that you are willing to keep an open mind.

 

[SStarr33]

She is about to legally become their mother, so yes she does. :moo:

It does not matter. They can do what they want when they are of age and what she wants them to do is meaningless. This could completely backfire on them if the girls watch the trial and see what the State did to their dad.

 

[SStarr33]

That evidence, presented in court with no adequate rebuttal, would make me 95% certain of his guilt. (Right now I'm around 80% certain based on his plea, whereas previously I was around 90% certain of his innocence prior to the plea).

But it wasn't, lol.

 

[dgfred]

The simple fact remains, there is only a binary possibility: either he killed her or he did not. No one here knows for a fact either way. His admission in court contributes to the belief as to whether or not he did it, but it is not definitive either. It simply moves the bar way onto the guilty side. But he also had an incentive to lie.

The celebrations and self-congratulatory rhetoric on the part of the people who believed him to be guilty are really disgraceful.

It is interesting a criminal can admit to murdering someone in court... but you still fight on for his innocence.
It is not a celebration... it is comforting to know the debate (bar) WAS moved to the guilt side. Like was argued for such a long time.

 

[oenophile]

Just watched the interview with the Rentz family. Gosh they are so, so loving and gracious and just a class act. I know I've said that before, but every time I see them and listen to them I'm struck by how wonderful they are in contrast to the horrible reality they've had to contend with over the last 6+ years since they lost their daughter/sister. At one point a reporter (I think this is the Canadian reporter from the 2011 trial) asked Krista, "so with this custody agreement he'll never see the children again?" And she answered "yes." So it's confirmed and here's your link. The family must have a copy of the written and signed agreement.

I agree, particularly Garry Rentz. I don't agree with everything they said, but I do think they did it with class and respect.

 

[oenophile]

It is interesting a criminal can admit to murdering someone in court... but you still fight on for his innocence.
It is not a celebration... it is comforting to know the debate (bar) WAS moved to the guilt side. Like was argued for such a long time.

I'm not fighting for anything. I am merely observing the facts. The fact is: he had an incentive to admit guilt, even if he were innocent. That cannot be ignored. At the same time, his new defense attorney would not allow the plea if he thought he was innocent, or else he would be suborning perjury. And that is something to consider as well.

My problem, and the reason why I'm only 80% believing his guilt, is there are still so many unanswered questions and inconsistencies with him being guilty, including the exculpatory evidence. That doesn't just disappear.

 

[Tipstaff]

You can spin and spin and spin.

Brad said he did it. He admitted it in open court. He signed a document that said it and then verbally admitted it in court. His choice. Dumped his wife like trash. That's it. End of story. He knew exactly what he was doing and he knew exactly what he was agreeing to that happened. He even admitted the state had enough evidence to convict him.

And to add to this - not once did the murderer every state 'he couldn't take the plea deal because then LE would never find the REAL KILLER"

You are right this is the 'end of story'. Some people could have watched him murder Nancy and find excuses for him.

 

[dgfred]

Well, at this point he is guilty beyond a doubt. Whether yours is reasonable or not is no longer a factor. Right?

 

[borndem]

We now know it was Trenkle who was in talks with the DA's office about a plea deal. Confirmed in today's hearing.

IF Kurtz, as lead attorney, barred Trenkle from taking a deal to Brad, and Brad didn't know he could have had a plea back when those discussions were occurring, Kurtz could be in trouble.

IANAL -- but IIANM, an attorney MUST inform the defendant if a plea deal is offered.