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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MyBelle said:
BBM. Your friend must have slept thru class the day dual citizenship was explained. The Cooper children were born prior to 2009 to Canadian citizens living in the U.S. Also, the aunt and uncle are not "custodial parents" they are legal guardians.

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/helpcentre/answer.asp?q=356&t=5
Click to expand...

You likewise may not have been fully alert while making this response. The reason you have to apply is because Canada does not know when a child is born in a foreign country. You have to send in the birth certificate from the foreign country, etc..
 
calgary123 said:
Today I spoke with both a family law lawyer and an immigration lawyer on an informal, hey-what-do-you-think basis (ie not asking for a researched legal opinion, but what they thought. I even told them to assume Brad was factually innocent (though also I thought he was guilty). Neither had heard of this case before, but I forwarded them the link to the Dateline episode as they were curious and somewhat shocked I knew the perpetrator).

-The immigration lawyer commented that the girls would be automatic US citizens, as well as eligible for Canadian citizenship as the children of Canadian parents, but an application would have to be made. She noted that certain benefits in Canada require legal status in Canada, and so she couldn't imagine that these girls did not already have formal Canadian citizenship since they have been living here for some time. Whether they had it before Nancy died or after as a result of the Rentz's taking then-temporary custody is unknown. She also commented that Brad would be removed from the US upon release and so will no longer have access to the US for anything, including court proceedings.

-The family law lawyer commented that because the girls will be residing in Canada and by the time Brad is released, will have been for over a decade, there is little doubt that only the Canadian courts will take jurisdiction in any case involving custody of the girls. She pointed out that once released she thought Brad would be removed from the US and so there would be no reason for the US courts to take jurisdiction--- the custodial parents live in Canada, the girls live in Canada, and Brad can not enter the US. She said Brad would not have standing to bring any court application assuming a completed adoption, regardless of what jurisdiction that adoption happened in. Even then, by age 14 and 16 there is no way Brad would be eligible for custody, as he will have been out of their lives for a long time. Even access would not be in their best interests as, whatever the truth is, neither child has any relationship with Brad and the controversial disruption to their lives would only cause pain and frustration. Whether to allow contact with Brad would be a decision only the girls can make, and once again, only once they are adults. The actual conviction for killing their mom is important, but not necessary to prove to deny access.... even if Brad could get over the issue of not having standing, he will have serious problems in convincing the court the disruption would be in their best interests even being the biological father.

-I mentioned the duress argument to the family law lawyer, she thought it would be something she would ever recommend to even try.

Anyway, while these aren't legal opinions, they provide some insight.
Click to expand...

The legal guardians live in Canada, the children are Canadian citizens. The father is a Canadian citizen. A US court offered a man a shorter prison sentence if he would give up parental rights to his children. Everyone in that situation would opt for a shorter prison sentence.

1. is it possible for an adoption to be legal if all parties reside in, or are citizens of, another country? Does Canada allow parents to go to a foreign country to make application for adoption of children, and that adoption is recognized in Canada even though all parties are not residents, or citizens of, that foreign country? I don't think that's true.

2. the fact that a parent is not part of a child's life for years does not typically prevent that parent/child from having access to each other.

3. I have never heard that finances and income have any bearing on the ability of a parent to look after children. Child custody is never decided on the basis of which parents has more money. Brad will need to re-establish himself, but that might be done quickly ... hard to say.

4. why would it be considered disruptive for children to get to know their natural father?

A bulldog like Judy Boyes could probably pull off establishing the rights of the father to have contact, then visitation.
 
Hez said:
Nope, just that post because as I said the discussion had been helpful and information lately, without any snark.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not seeing that, but maybe snark is subjective to the reader. :)
Moving on........:seeya:
 
otto said:
The legal guardians live in Canada, the children are Canadian citizens. The father is a Canadian citizen. A US court offered a man a shorter prison sentence if he would give up parental rights to his children. Everyone in that situation would opt for a shorter prison sentence.

1. is it possible for an adoption to be legal if all parties reside in, or are citizens of, another country? Does Canada allow parents to go to a foreign country to make application for adoption of children, and that adoption is recognized in Canada even though all parties are not residents, or citizens of, that foreign country? I don't think that's true.

2. the fact that a parent is not part of a child's life for years does not typically prevent that parent/child from having access to each other.

3. I have never heard that finances and income have any bearing on the ability of a parent to look after children. Child custody is never decided on the basis of which parents has more money. Brad will need to re-establish himself, but that might be done quickly ... hard to say.

4. why would it be considered disruptive for children to get to know their natural father?
Click to expand...

All good points as usual, Otto. No one is saying that anything is going to be easy, but it really isn't all that different if Brad had not agreed to give up custody either.
 
JusticeFever said:
It is possible that when the original plea deal was offered that Brad turned down, the one the state for some unknown reason decided to keep quiet, because how would it look if a man charged with murder turned down a plea?
But, in the next deal , after the court error that won Brad his appeal and the right to a new trial, they re-offered their original deal and this time included an incentive for him to lose a year off his sentencing, if he gave up his children.
Pleas can be offered and counter-offers can be made but the state has almost all the bargaining power.
However, in this case there was something that they wanted from BC, his daughters, so they told him to sign away his rights and his sentence would be reduced by a year.
The ironic part is that after he agreed to do what they wanted , they chastised him for it.
This, imo, is the most likely scenario of what went down.JMO
Click to expand...

BBM

Unless you have a link or inside information to share, you and I and everyone else do not know how the issue of custody came to be entered and part of the plea bargain..........
 
Landonsmom02 said:
BBM

Unless you have a link or inside information to share, you and I and everyone else do not know how the issue of custody came to be entered and part of the plea bargain..........
Click to expand...
Exactly. The key point is Brad Cooper accepted it, and is giving his daughters up for adoption. It's as simple as that.
 
Good points Hez & Landonsmom.

For all we know it was Brad's custody attorney who demanded (erm... aggressively negotiated) an extra year off for him in exchange for his agreeing to give up all parental rights and then got the state to agree to those terms. The family may just have requested he give up rights and the state may have originally presented that, with no incentive for doing so.

It's a fait accompli. Brad has already given up his rights. He signed the agreement sometime before that hearing, when it was all announced. It's done and over.
 
Calgary,

Thank you for going the extra mile and chatting with your Canadian Family Law and Immigration Lawyer friends. I bet they found your questions to be very interesting in light of your knowing the convicted murderer. And also thank you for adding your own legal insight as well!
 
Landonsmom02 said:
BBM

Unless you have a link or inside information to share, you and I and everyone else do not know how the issue of custody came to be entered and part of the plea bargain..........
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why I used the word possible in bolded letters and then added JMO at the end. :wink:
 
Hez said:
Exactly. The key point is Brad Cooper accepted it, and is giving his daughters up for adoption. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is........even though we don't know how it came about and under what circumstances. Just like we don't know why HC stood up and announced that the deal he offered Brad wasn't good enough and that he wasn't happy with it. That made a lot of sense too.
 
JusticeFever said:
Yes, it is........even though we don't know how it came about and under what circumstances. Just like we don't know why HC stood up and announced that the deal he offered Brad wasn't good enough and that he wasn't happy with it. That made a lot of sense too.
Click to expand...

The prosecution has been fickle from beginning to end. During trial they claimed that Brad murdered his wife because he didn't want her to take his children to Canada. Sounds reasonable, and everyone bought it. Today, we see an entire about-face position. Today, apparently, Brad couldn't care less about his children and is deserving of a public scolding, according to the judge. Clearly the prosecutors don't know what they're talking about since both can't be true: either he murdered Nancy because he couldn't bear for her to take his children to Canada, or he couldn't care less about his children ... not both, but both is what the prosecutors have argued. It seems that the prosecution is prepared to say whatever advances their agenda, apparently completely ignorant of their own contradictions.

We see that same fickleness where we assume that the prosecutors are making a plea deal in good faith, but then they act like silly children by declaring throughout the official affirmation of that agreement that they don't agree with the deal. Why did they make the deal if they don't agree with it? No one is threatening to put them in prison if they don't agree with the deal.

I think they look silly at this point, but that's just my opinion. I don't think much of prosecutors that can't keep their story straight, who contradict their theory of the crime in court, and who can't behave honourably while affirming agreed upon decisions.
 
Brad finally admitting he murdered his wife trumps any "silliness" perceived in the first trial, which, btw, was overturned and as has been pointed out a few times by BC supporters on this board, legally it's as if it that trial never happened. Also pointed out a few times is that Brad was legally back to "innocent until proven guilty." Then Brad declares himself guilty.

BTW, the state did not say the reason he killed her was to prevent her from taking the children to Canada. Testimony was he didn't care that they were leaving, wanted them all gone, and in fact moved up the date of their move earlier, until he saw a copy of the separation agreement and then he cancelled everything. His defense claimed it was because he was worried he wouldn't see his children, but that was a ruse.

His motive for murder was claimed to be a combination of things, like many murders: build up of anger & hatred over a period of time, ongoing misery, loss of money, loss of even more money, thinking he could get rid of the problem without getting caught. He's a typical sociopath, complete void of empathy. He planned the murder for some period of time and executed his plan. And, apparently, this was not his only criminal act, though it was his first murder. He has a criminal past from Canada.
 
Madeleine74 said:
Brad finally admitting he murdered his wife trumps any "silliness" perceived in the first trial, which, btw, was overturned and as has been pointed out a few times by BC supporters on this board, legally it's as if it that trial never happened. Also pointed out a few times is that Brad was legally back to "innocent until proven guilty." Then Brad declares himself guilty.

BTW, the state did not say the reason he killed her was to prevent her from taking the children to Canada. Testimony was he didn't care that they were leaving, wanted them all gone, and in fact moved up the date of their move earlier, until he saw a copy of the separation agreement and then he cancelled everything. His defense claimed it was because he was worried he wouldn't see his children, but that was a ruse.

His motive for murder was claimed to be a combination of things, like many murders: build up of anger & hatred over a period of time, ongoing misery, loss of money, loss of even more money, thinking he could get rid of the problem without getting caught. He's a typical sociopath, complete void of empathy. He planned the murder for some period of time and executed his plan. And, apparently, this was not his only criminal act, though it was his first murder. He has a criminal past from Canada.
Click to expand...

We can whatever we want today, but ...

"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
 
Try using actual testimony and court transcripts rather than some reporter's interpretation of what they think occurred. There's a reason why media reports are not used in the courtroom.
 
otto said:
The prosecution has been fickle from beginning to end. During trial they claimed that Brad murdered his wife because he didn't want her to take his children to Canada. Sounds reasonable, and everyone bought it. Today, we see an entire about-face position. Today, apparently, Brad couldn't care less about his children and is deserving of a public scolding, according to the judge. Clearly the prosecutors don't know what they're talking about since both can't be true: either he murdered Nancy because he couldn't bear for her to take his children to Canada, or he couldn't care less about his children ... not both, but both is what the prosecutors have argued. It seems that the prosecution is prepared to say whatever advances their agenda, apparently completely ignorant of their own contradictions.

We see that same fickleness where we assume that the prosecutors are making a plea deal in good faith, but then they act like silly children by declaring throughout the official affirmation of that agreement that they don't agree with the deal. Why did they make the deal if they don't agree with it? No one is threatening to put them in prison if they don't agree with the deal.

I think they look silly at this point, but that's just my opinion. I don't think much of prosecutors that can't keep their story straight, who contradict their theory of the crime in court, and who can't behave honourably while affirming agreed upon decisions.
Click to expand...

BBM. Well said. Drawing those innocent children into it was beyond the pale for me.
 
Perhaps Mr. Cummings should have used the actual trial transcripts at the plea hearing.

www.wral.com/news/video/14004059/

1)States that Brad never called Nancy's parents the day she went missing. False.
Mr. Rentz testified that Brad did call him that day.

2)States that at the party, Brad showed no parenting skills. False.
It was Brad who took the girls home at approx 8:30 PM..

3)States that Nancy Cooper stayed at the party a little longer. False
She stayed for another 3-3.5 hours.

4)States that Brad Cooper's income was $17, 000 per month. :waitasec:
Yet, Brad would balk at paying $2, 100.00 in the custody agreement.
 
Yes, be disgusted by that and not the fact that the confessed murderer ended the life of his wife and destroyed his kids' childhood, perhaps leaving them with psychological scars that will never fully heal. Don't hold him accountable for anything, certainly not his own acts and decisions. Make sure to save all the sympathy for the killer who perpetrated the crime, lied about it for years, and left his children without their beloved mother and the family without their sister/daughter/niece.

Empathy is needed for the killer, the blank slate sociopath upon which has been projected various ills of society or personal mistrust of the government or anger over divorce, custody or family drama, or paranoid and conspiracy ideations. It's very important to be disgusted at everyone else but not the actual killer aka the innocent martyr who's been woefully railroaded. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
5)States that Brad fell in love with a female student in France, and wanted to move the entire family there.
Why? If he didn't love his daughters, why not just go himself?

6)States that Nancy had no money for the trip to Hilton Head. False
It was testified that Brad gave her approx $700.00 and that Nancy used the money to buy groceries for everyone.

7)States that Brad didn't give Nancy any money. False.
We all know about the $300.00 per week allowance.

8)States that he offered a plea deal through Mr. Trenkle during the trial and that he offered another one to Mr.
Kurtz before the case started. Wow. This information was never released until recently. Why did the state keep
the plea deals offered a secret and now there was not just 1, but 2, so it was the third one Brad accepted.



I know Mr. Cummings repeatedly referred to notes during the plea hearing, but I don't know where he got them from,
because the inconsistencies I listed were not facts or testimony from the trial.

Why hasn't anyone else pointed these things out , they just happened !!
 
Madeleine74 said:
Try using actual testimony and court transcripts rather than some reporter's interpretation of what they think occurred. There's a reason why media reports are not used in the courtroom.
Click to expand...

I have to rely on trial reporters because I simply don't have free time equal to the number of hours that it takes to conduct a lengthy trial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 75 more.
Total: 1,965 (members: 76, guests: 1,889)

Online statistics

Members online
76
Guests online
1,889
Total visitors
1,965
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,093
Messages
18,134,573
Members
231,231
Latest member
timbo1966
Back
Top