Do you have a link? Thanks.
Brad Cooper Pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Murder of Nancy Cooper
- Thread starter Grammy Jean
- Start date
- Status
Do you have a link? Thanks.
The murder is not a factor in custody. The only issue I see is whether Brad was under duress when he agreed to give up custody. Being given two choices: give up custody, or spend a year in a foreign prison, clearly falls under duress.
"Finally, the Court outlined the prerequisites to the application of the common law defence of duress.
[72]As to the common law defence of duress it carries four elements, namely:
(i) threats of death or serious bodily harm to the accused, or another person;
(ii) a subjective belief on the part of the accused that the threats could be carried out;
(iii) viewed objectively, the threats could have caused a reasonable person in the same circumstances to do what the accused did; and
(iv) the accused had no safe avenue of escape."
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abpc/doc/2004/2004abpc79/2004abpc79.html
"The crux of common law duress is its focus on the choice to act, or to not act, wrongfully under threat of death or serious injury. The question is whether the accused had a reasonable legal alternative"
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/1998/1998abca357/1998abca357.html
I might even go so far as to suggest that, after he is released, Brad could reasonably claim that the plea was made under duress. He had personal experience of a foreign court system that violated his rights. He had no reason to believe that his rights would not continue to be violated in another trial.
"Further, the appeals court panel added that “whether the error was constitutional or not,” failure to let Brad Cooper use his experts at trial was a key error that warranted a new trial. “(T)here is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises,” the ruling stated."
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01...court-will-not-review.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
"Further, the appeals court panel added that “whether the error was constitutional or not,” failure to let Brad Cooper use his experts at trial was a key error that warranted a new trial. “(T)here is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises,” the ruling stated."
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/01...court-will-not-review.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy
Just the Fax
Justice For The Fisher's
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 4,924
- Reaction score
- 105
Their father is a convicted -self admitted violent felon that said, in fact, he murdered their mom.I seriously doubt they will have any feelings other than hate, the older they get.
thefragile7393
Verified - Registered Psychiatric Nurse
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 4,481
- Reaction score
- 2,697
Lolol yes....kids can be rebellious. However I am quite sure that it will be difficult for the girls to visit him in jail without any adult with them....minors are NOT allowed without an adult to visit any prisoner. So not sure how they are going to be getting any contact that hasn't been pre-appoved by the family. Facts are facts.
I sure hope not. That would be a terrible way for them to go through life.
I don't think anyone is expecting that his children should visit him in prison.
thefragile7393
Verified - Registered Psychiatric Nurse
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 4,481
- Reaction score
- 2,697
It was said kids can be rebellious and finding a way to contact him. Merely pointed out how it would be impossible for them to do so. They can't visit him on their own or get any letters on their own or get any phone calls on their own. So logic says, rebellious or not, it isn't really likely to happen. I see what's happening here though...and I will happily move away from it.
The comment was in the context of 14 and 16 year old children having contact with their father after he has completed his prison sentence.
tarheellvr
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 582
- Reaction score
- 76
I read these comments and I just have to laugh........
They are NOT his children. They are NOT his family. In the eyes of the law, they are no different than you or me.
They know their father kiled their mother. Therapy and love is helping them come to terms with this fact. We don't know what these girls were witness to the horrible day their father took theri mother's life. I honestly feel they will hate BC more and more the older they get. They are in a loving environment, surrounded by their mother's family. Their mother's memory is kept alive.
The comments saying BC was somehow "railroaded" into anything involving his sentence/plea deal is absolutley preposterous IMO!!! Why do some continue to defend him or his actions is just beyond my realm of thinking.......
tarheellvr
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2008
- Messages
- 582
- Reaction score
- 76
As am I.........
BBM
I hope the children are healing, and that "hate" is not part of that emotional experience. I sincerely hope that that children of murder victims receive the counselling they need to process what has happened, and to forgive, as forgiveness is a necessary part of healing.
I introduced the concept of "duress" as a factor in Brad giving up custody of his daughters. The murder sentence should be completely unrelated to custody, but since the two have been connected, the question is: can anyone reasonably be expected to make an objective decision about custody of children when the choices are: give up custody of children, or spend a year in a foreign prison? I don't think that there is a court in Canada that will not view that as a decision made under duress. Although a NC court forced Brad to make that choice (custody of children or a year in prison), Canadian courts do not operate that way, and I sincerely doubt that the decision can be upheld in Canada. In Canada, "once a child turns 12 years of age, his or her wishes to live with one parent or another are usually respected by the courts." and "When determining child custody the past behaviour of a parent will not be taken into consideration by the courts". It may be different in NC, but the children are in Canada, and that is where Brad can appeal to the courts after release from prison. I suspect that every judge in the country will be stunned that, in NC, custody decisions are attached to the length of murder sentences.
Furthermore, anyone that has been in the position where a foreign court violated constitutional issues, such that the Supreme Court believes that there would have been a different verdict had rights not been violated, would be very reluctant to take their chances with that foreign court a second time. Most people would look to negotiate in every way possible to get out of that country as soon as possible.
Nothing about Brad's plea agreement is clean.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Some simply refuse to acknowledge he murdered his wife and dumped her body in a drainage ditch. Why this is so difficult to concede is curious. Even after he finally admitted it, they still refuse to believe the truth and believe Brad needs to be coddled and protected. There are no and will be no "do overs." He signed away his rights, fully informed and in agreement with what he was doing, and he signed away his parentage too. He is a murderer, he said so himself. Those facts will never change. It won't change in the U.S. and it won't change in any other country.
Finally, no one in their right mind would ever want children to be around or anywhere near a murderer, yet that's what some continue to hope for and insist will happen...that children who now know the truth -- that their father brutally killed their mother and admitted it, will want that murderer in their lives and this murderer should be in their lives, even from behind prison walls. Crazy and irrational simply knows no bounds.
Finally, no one in their right mind would ever want children to be around or anywhere near a murderer, yet that's what some continue to hope for and insist will happen...that children who now know the truth -- that their father brutally killed their mother and admitted it, will want that murderer in their lives and this murderer should be in their lives, even from behind prison walls. Crazy and irrational simply knows no bounds.
thefragile7393
Verified - Registered Psychiatric Nurse
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2007
- Messages
- 4,481
- Reaction score
- 2,697
If I am innocent I am not ever going to agree to a deal that makes me guilty. I do believe it has happened but by and large-no. And Brad isn't one of these-he isn't exactly someone easy to manipulate or coerce into something against his will. After a while one has to accept that some only see what they want to see, instead of how things are.
I'm not ready to forget that the motive presented by prosecutors is that Brad wanted to prevent Nancy from taking the children away from him.
"During his trial, prosecutors said Brad killed Nancy because he was angry she planned to divorce him and move with their two daughters to Canada."
http://edmonton.ctvnews.ca/brad-coo...n-2008-murder-of-wife-1.2018284#ixzz3FCD3WZxl
Today, the opposite is argued: that Brad has no interest in having a relationship with his own children. We can't have it both ways. Either he didn't care about his children, and Nancy's wish to take his children away from him was of no concern, or he was so angry that Nancy wanted to take his children away that he murdered her. The court appears fickle when there is such a radical shift in the interpretation of facts.
In Canada, no one is put in a situation where they must choose between retaining custody of their children, or spending a year in prison. I do not believe that the courts will uphold a foreign custody decision made under those circumstances. Specifically, in Canada, custody decisions can only be made in the context of a divorce application, and never in the context of a murder sentence.
This is how custody works in Canada:
"The following Twenty-Three Commandments are extracted from the almighty Parliament of Canada's Divorce Act, and from a variety of legal decisions that have since given different twists to the words of that Divorce Act.
1.Thou shalt not receive a custody order under the Divorce Act unless it is part of a divorce application. Sounds simple enough but you'd never believe the things people try to get away with!
4.The court will look at one and only one thing when deciding where to place a child in the aftermath of a family's divorce breakup: the best interests of the child.
7.The court shall not take into consideration the past conduct of a spouse in determining custody unless the conduct is relevant to the ability to parent.
16.Thou shalt disregard the preference of a child under the age of nine in deciding custody. The wishes of a 9-13 year old child is important but not necessarily persuasive. The older a child gets, the more relevant is the child's preference. The 14 year old write-eth his or her own ticket unless nuts.
20.Divorce Act custody orders are never set in stone and can be varied where there has been a change in circumstances "such as warrants a variation of custody having regard only to the best interests of the child."
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalResourc...ivorce-Act-The-Twenty-Three-Commandments.aspx
Even if it is argued that this was not a custody decision, but rather a decision to give up parental rights, it was still made in the wrong context per Canadian law.
JusticeFever
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 1,373
- Reaction score
- 94
Exactly, Otto. and no one knows what is going to happen when Brad is released and the girls are older. Just like no one knew Brad's conviction would be overturned or that he would agree to a plea deal.
As for admitting guilt, it is a standard part /requirement of a plea deal, but how come after admitting guilt he hesitated when it came to the next question that involved any details. So much so, that he looked at his attorney and they had to approach the bench.
Was Brad told he only had to admit guilt, and the Judge slipped this one in there without notifying him or his attorney ahead of time? Sure seems that way.
Maybe when the girls are older they will research the case on their own, and find that even at the plea
hearing, the state used the opportunity to try and twist / exaggerate the facts from this case and ask themselves why...
JMO
As for admitting guilt, it is a standard part /requirement of a plea deal, but how come after admitting guilt he hesitated when it came to the next question that involved any details. So much so, that he looked at his attorney and they had to approach the bench.
Was Brad told he only had to admit guilt, and the Judge slipped this one in there without notifying him or his attorney ahead of time? Sure seems that way.
Maybe when the girls are older they will research the case on their own, and find that even at the plea
hearing, the state used the opportunity to try and twist / exaggerate the facts from this case and ask themselves why...
JMO
If Brad's children ever decide to delve into the trial documents then, as Canadians, I suspect their first question will be: why were the first two-three weeks of trial nothing more than neighbours badmouthing the accused? That's not allowed in a Canadian courtroom and, on the surface, appears to be an intent to prejudice the jury with gossip prior to presenting the facts of the case. Seriously ... who needs an impartial jury if the first thing they're going to hear is gossip? If the children can get past the nasty gossip, the next hurdle will be questions about the refusal by the judge to allow the defence to present rebuttal evidence. In that context, they will see that the Supreme Court concluded that had the accused's right been respected, “there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises,” (link). That speaks volumes.
If Brad was a US citizen and his rights were similarly violated in, say, Italy, no one would have any problem understanding why Brad did what he did in order to avoid further violation of rights in a foreign courtroom. Similarly, no one would have any problem understanding that if someone is given a choice of a year in a foreign prison, or relinquish parental rights, that decision is made under duress, and the decision is a no-brainer.
I suspect that, if his children take an interest in their father's court case, they will have doubts about his guilt.
Are you reading the same thread? I haven't seen anyone insist or hope that he ever sees the kids again. Most of us believe that he will at some point when they are of age to do so? That is just common sense. I fully believe they will seek him out if for nothing more than to ask why.
calgary123
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 0
I strongly disagree with this statement. I could not imagine a judge in Canada ignoring a murder conviction when making a custody decision. Since you seem competent at using CANLII (an excellent resource, by the way) look up custody cases where one person has criminal convictions and you will see that those convictions often come up and are considered. What you probably won't find is a case where someone was arguing for custody as a convicted murderer (I couldn't find any), but even much less serious convictions have prevented a party from obtaining custody or even access.
I don't think that Brad will ever have full custody of his children for several reasons. First, his daughters will be of an age, when he is released, that they can make their own decision about where they want to live (in terms of parents). That is, the courts are more likely to mediate, rather than impose a court ordered decision. Essentially, the days of court ordered custody are gone at the time that Brad is released from prison. Secondly, given that the children have been with Nancy's sister and her husband throughout their childhoods, the status quo would mean that a judge would not, without good cause (and there is none), remove them from the home they know. However, I do believe that the order that Brad relinquish full parental rights can be reversed due to the decision having been made under duress, and I believe that he can appeal to the courts to have contact with his daughters, and perhaps have some parental rights restored ... but all of that is at least 6-7 years in the future.
- Status