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

[thefragile7393]

I can see being angry about the first trial because it led up to this plea bargain. I get that.

 

[calgary123]

Just wanted to drop in and post a link to a book that has been written by a former Secret Service agent about this case. He also wrote a book about the JonBenet case:

Isolated Incident: Investigating the Death of Nancy Cooper Paperback – October 3, 2014
by John W. Taylor (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Isolated-Inci...=1412340903&sr=1-3&keywords=isolated+incident

I would love to read a well researched and well written book about this case, but the introductory pages available do not inspire confidence. I would also add that I am not a fan of the Love Lies book by that media person (name escapes me), it was also not a well written or researched book.

This persons writings on the JonBenet case appear to have been poorly received....that is not to say this one should also be the same.

I might buy and read this but based on the few pages available publicly (with timelines about the Brad-Nancy relationship which do not sound right to me-- I think detail is missing which would improve the story) I would rather not waste my time... though again based on the typeface it looks like a quick read.

Anyone read it....comments

 

[calgary123]

I did not see the attachment or your post before my own post... but yeah, TCPL is not a technology company... though calling it that could help an author not researching facts gloss over things to help reach a conclusion he might be trying to reach... lets be clear, Brads job at TCPL had nothing to do with pipelines... at the time... he was on the cutting edge of network technologies due to that companies huge need for it. He was working on computer network solutions which we massive, but which at the time included him configuring manually hundreds to thousands of routers with hundreds to thousands of cables... things that became software configurable a few years later.... and then he jumped to the next technologies, which included VOIP.

 

[otto]

I did not see the attachment or your post before my own post... but yeah, TCPL is not a technology company... though calling it that could help an author not researching facts gloss over things to help reach a conclusion he might be trying to reach... lets be clear, Brads job at TCPL had nothing to do with pipelines... at the time... he was on the cutting edge of network technologies due to that companies huge need for it. He was working on computer network solutions which we massive, but which at the time included him configuring manually hundreds to thousands of routers with hundreds to thousands of cables... things that became software configurable a few years later.... and then he jumped to the next technologies, which included VOIP.

When there's an error of fact in the first couple of pages, one has to wonder whether the author researched any facts. It takes about 2 minutes to learn that TransCanada Pipeline is an oil/energy company with an IT department. The fact that Brad worked in IT doesn't make the company a technology company, so that's a rather huge leap in terms of assumptions. I'd say that it doesn't bode well for the rest of the book.

 

[sunshine05]

Do you think every post is about you or your opinions or is somehow pointed at you?

I focus on the victims in cases. And I point out when empathy, pity and concern is given to the killer (no, not by you, NCSU95, not everything is about you) by those who continue to try and make Brad into an innocent victim. The real crime here was committed by the killer.

Be angry at the state all you want, for they did make errors, as did the judge and even the police. And for the judge's decision to not allow Ward to testify about the hard drive and to not consider him a "forensic" expert but only a "network expert," the conviction was overturned. The appellate judges could have decided differently but they didn't. Had everyone done their jobs perfectly at every moment and had no one made any mistakes, Brad's butt would be in prison for life. Had the appeals court decided Ward wasn't a "forensic" expert Brad would still be in prison for life unless he won at a higher level court. Humans make mistakes, and while they should be perfect they aren't. I can spend energy on being angry that mistakes were made by police or the state that ultimately benefited Brad's defense and allowed them to go whole-hog on a conspiracy tangent, but at the end of the day I believe the mistakes were from human error and not done intentionally to frame or railroad. Then again, speaking of humans and mistakes, had Brad done everything perfectly he might have gotten away with the murder.

I'll save my own disgust for the killer and continue to focus on who the real victims are in this case.

Has it ever dawned on you that all of the "mistakes" (if you want to be generous and refer to them that way) were deliberate because they knew they had NO evidence to convict this man? It's very clear that this is indeed the case.

The "mistakes" and manufactured evidence allowed them to charge him. Take away the made up evidence and there was nothing to charge him at all. He should have never even gone to trial. They got in waaay over their heads. Police really screwed this investigation up and the judge who is an ex cop bailed them out by allowing the sham trial to go on as it did. We must protect the reputation of the cops at all cost. Forget about truth and justice.


Everything that pointed away from his involvement --- 16 witnesses who saw a woman believed to be Nancy jogging that morning, Bella seeing her mom that morning, tire tracks and foot prints that did not match up to Cooper, .06 BAC consistent with all consumed alcohol having been metabolized through time and sleep, empty stomach contents, other witnesses from the party who said Nancy planned to jog in the morning --- ALL of it was sloppily stifled. THAT was the investigative focus - to stifle evidence that pointed toward innocence.

What was the focus? Fraudulent computer evidence and nothing else. I recently spoke to a forensic crime scene reconstruction expert about this case and he told me that anytime "national security" is used in a case it is because they are hiding the truth about the evidence. It is so obvious that is what occurred in this case.

The "mistakes" shouldn't bother you as much as the government having gotten away with abusing their power by making the ridiculous national security claim in the first place and then a judge saying "okay, fine". Please understand the impact of this --- it means that anytime they want to prosecute someone they can just say "No discovery will be shared because we're the FBI and we do not have to share it. You are not permitted to contest this evidence. We are all powerful." That is the brutal reality and it should take your breath away. What were they so afraid of if this evidence was solid? Common sense --- they knew it couldn't stand up to scrutiny so they abused the system.

 

[sunshine05]

When there's an error of fact in the first couple of pages, one has to wonder whether the author researched any facts. It takes about 2 minutes to learn that TransCanada Pipeline is an oil/energy company with an IT department. The fact that Brad worked in IT doesn't make the company a technology company, so that's a rather huge leap in terms of assumptions. I'd say that it doesn't bode well for the rest of the book.

Yes, that is a shame he made that error but it happens. I just received the book. I'll read it and then post a review and will share my thoughts about it here if I get a chance.

 

[Madeleine74]

Paranoia.. Everything has to be a conspiracy.

The facts of the case were nuanced and conclusions were molded to fit a paranoid-conspiracy agenda.

- No evidence pointed away from Brad.

- When were the shoe prints made? Can you date them? How do you know they were made that night? Do you know for a fact those shoe impressions were not there the day before? Where's the proof? Further, those prints were physically distorted and the CCBI agent testified to their condition and why he didn't take castings of them. The prints were filled with water from the rains that day. Photos were taken but CCBI testified they could not get a print or accurate shoe size out of that distorted shoe impression. Oooh conspiracy!

- Tire tracks - Can you date them? When were they made? How do you know they were made that night? Where's the proof? It's another "had to be made that night because..." Do you know for a fact those tire tracks were not there the day before?

- The weather report was that there had been no rain at all the few days before the body was dumped. Zero rain the day of the dump and zero rain the day after. Then the rains started. Yet the claim is somehow those tire tracks were made on muddy/wet ground by the vehicle that carried Nancy's body. Where's the proof of that? The ground was dry the day she was dumped; it rained sometime after her body was dumped.

- The job of investigators is not to try and prove someone innocent. This is a fundamental misunderstanding if you think that's their role. Their job is to investigate a case, gather information, and go where the evidence leads, not spend their time to try and prove someone didn't do a crime. The crime scene techs (who are different people, not in the local police dept) catalog and process scenes, photograph and turn potential evidence in. Claiming there was "no evidence" is ridiculous. Hundreds of exhibits were entered at trial and given Bates stamps. Each item is considered evidence in a case. That you don't consider them evidence doesn't make it so.

- What 16 eyewitnesses came into court? Please point to them. Three came into court. 1 person saw two women running down Fielding Dr. 1 witness (Rosemary Zednick) saw a woman wearing an iPod who smiled as she passed. One witness was Curtis Hodges who saw a woman running down a major street, not in distress, not being attacked, not stopped. He saw a "van" turning around and heading in the same direction as that runner. At no point did he see anyone in trouble or being hassled. Did Hodges get a license plate number? No. Good identification of the vehicle? No. Where are the 13 other witnesses who testified? You said there were 16 witnesses. Who are they?

It's been pointed out at least once, if not more, that the first trial essentially never happened. Over. Done. Overturned. Move on. Now it's being dragged back up yet again. Why? Because Brad did something his supporters never ever thought he would. He declared himself guilty. He admitted it. Instead of finally conceding he's actually the killer, no it can't be. Back to conspiracy-land once again, ratcheted up. The whole town conspired against this guy..no the whole government. He only took a plea because "he had no choice" and "it's all so unfair he couldn't ever get a fair trial so even though he won a new trial it didn't matter...he didn't even need to try."

He was back to "innocent until proven guilty" legally and then when he finally had his opportunity to prove every claim he/his team made, when given an alternative, he folded.

Brad was back to innocent, legally. It was then on the state to prove guilt. Well Brad ended it and he wrote the last chapter. He said he was, in fact, guilty, and he in fact killed his wife and dumped her body. That's what he told the world Sept 22, and that's how he and his case will be remembered.

 

[oenophile]

- No evidence pointed away from Brad.

Sorry to jump back in here, but.... That, Madame, is a false statement.

It is untrue. It does not hold water. It is bogus. It is factitious. It rings hollow. It is devoid of truth. It does not pass muster. Accuracy has left the building. It is a false statement.

Why do you insist on repeating it?

 

[Madeleine74]

Because evidence that can be identified points toward or at the source. And if it can't be identified it points no where.

If you have enough evidence (circumstantial or direct) pointing toward someone then at some point one may conclude there's enough evidence to prove a specific person or persons were involved in the crime. Ultimately a jury decides when there's enough or if there's enough.

Here's an example. There was allegedly blood under Nancy's nails, that is circumstantial evidence (forensic, but circumstantial). Those samples when tested proved to be so degraded a DNA profile could not be obtained. That evidence could not be identified; it pointed no where; we don't even know if it was the victim's own blood. That evidence doesn't point away from Brad and it doesn't point to Brad (or anyone). It's inconclusive.

 

[JusticeFever]

Sorry to jump back in here, but.... That, Madame, is a false statement.

It is untrue. It does not hold water. It is bogus. It is factitious. It rings hollow. It is devoid of truth. It does not pass muster. Accuracy has left the building. It is a false statement.

Why do you insist on repeating it?

No clue, and we are also supposed to overlook all the incorrect things the state said at the plea hearing but not in any way question why BC went with the 3rd plea deal offered.

 

[JusticeFever]

I have to ask this, how exactly did Brad Cooper fold his cards? He wasn't holding any cards to begin with.
It was the state who folded their cards and case and wanted to go home. So, they made him the same offer they gave him twice before. They had all the cards to go forward and didn't want to. Brad chose not to play and took what they offered this time.
If Brad did have one card, it was his parental rights, the state wanted that card, and offered him a year less. With the children's ages and his missing 12 years of their life, it made sense.
How in the world could Brad or anyone expect him to get a fair trial, when the ADA stood up at the plea hearing and twisted facts? Did you see Judge Gessner, this was his case, stop Mr. Cummings and say" Things didn't happen that way, sir?" Lol, hell no.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

Because evidence that can be identified points toward or at the source. And if it can't be identified it points no where.

If you have enough evidence (circumstantial or direct) pointing toward someone then at some point one may conclude there's enough evidence to prove a specific person or persons were involved in the crime. Ultimately a jury decides when there's enough or if there's enough.

Here's an example. There was allegedly blood under Nancy's nails, that is circumstantial evidence (forensic, but circumstantial). Those samples when tested proved to be so degraded a DNA profile could not be obtained. That evidence could not be identified; it pointed no where; we don't even know if it was the victim's own blood. That evidence doesn't point away from Brad and it doesn't point to Brad (or anyone). It's inconclusive.

That has nothing to do with the question. You stated that there was no evidence pointing away from Brad. This is simply not true. There is plenty of evidence pointing away from Brad. The big one is the phone call. It is evidence that points away from Brad. The prosecution spent lots of time trying to discredit it, but it remains a piece of evidence that points away from Brad.

Evidence doesn't have to point toward a particular person to point away from Brad. It simply has to be evidence (circumstantial or direct) that is inconsistent with BC committing the crime.

I may disagree, but you can make a valid, reasoned argument that the evidence that incriminates Brad outweighs the evidence that points away from him. However, it is factually incorrect to state that there is no evidence that points away from him.

 

[sunshine05]

Paranoia.. Everything has to be a conspiracy.

The facts of the case were nuanced and conclusions were molded to fit a paranoid-conspiracy agenda.

- No evidence pointed away from Brad.

- When were the shoe prints made? Can you date them? How do you know they were made that night? Do you know for a fact those shoe impressions were not there the day before? Where's the proof? Further, those prints were physically distorted and the CCBI agent testified to their condition and why he didn't take castings of them. The prints were filled with water from the rains that day. Photos were taken but CCBI testified they could not get a print or accurate shoe size out of that distorted shoe impression. Oooh conspiracy!

- Tire tracks - Can you date them? When were they made? How do you know they were made that night? Where's the proof? It's another "had to be made that night because..." Do you know for a fact those tire tracks were not there the day before?

- The weather report was that there had been no rain at all the few days before the body was dumped. Zero rain the day of the dump and zero rain the day after. Then the rains started. Yet the claim is somehow those tire tracks were made on muddy/wet ground by the vehicle that carried Nancy's body. Where's the proof of that? The ground was dry the day she was dumped; it rained sometime after her body was dumped.

- The job of investigators is not to try and prove someone innocent. This is a fundamental misunderstanding if you think that's their role. Their job is to investigate a case, gather information, and go where the evidence leads, not spend their time to try and prove someone didn't do a crime. The crime scene techs (who are different people, not in the local police dept) catalog and process scenes, photograph and turn potential evidence in. Claiming there was "no evidence" is ridiculous. Hundreds of exhibits were entered at trial and given Bates stamps. Each item is considered evidence in a case. That you don't consider them evidence doesn't make it so.

- What 16 eyewitnesses came into court? Please point to them. Three came into court. 1 person saw two women running down Fielding Dr. 1 witness (Rosemary Zednick) saw a woman wearing an iPod who smiled as she passed. One witness was Curtis Hodges who saw a woman running down a major street, not in distress, not being attacked, not stopped. He saw a "van" turning around and heading in the same direction as that runner. At no point did he see anyone in trouble or being hassled. Did Hodges get a license plate number? No. Good identification of the vehicle? No. Where are the 13 other witnesses who testified? You said there were 16 witnesses. Who are they?

It's been pointed out at least once, if not more, that the first trial essentially never happened. Over. Done. Overturned. Move on. Now it's being dragged back up yet again. Why? Because Brad did something his supporters never ever thought he would. He declared himself guilty. He admitted it. Instead of finally conceding he's actually the killer, no it can't be. Back to conspiracy-land once again, ratcheted up. The whole town conspired against this guy..no the whole government. He only took a plea because "he had no choice" and "it's all so unfair he couldn't ever get a fair trial so even though he won a new trial it didn't matter...he didn't even need to try."

He was back to "innocent until proven guilty" legally and then when he finally had his opportunity to prove every claim he/his team made, when given an alternative, he folded.

Brad was back to innocent, legally. It was then on the state to prove guilt. Well Brad ended it and he wrote the last chapter. He said he was, in fact, guilty, and he in fact killed his wife and dumped her body. That's what he told the world Sept 22, and that's how he and his case will be remembered.

Actually, it IS the responsibility of LE to clear those close to the victim. They could have cleared Brad but instead they ignored evidence that pointed to innocence. It wouldn't have been feasible for the defense to bring in 16 people to testify about seeing her, but the names of the people were read aloud at trial. One of them was Officer Hayes who wrote a note that very day that he saw a woman who looked like NC on the bike trail at 7:10 that very morning and he made that note *after* he had been at the house and saw a photo of her.

If 16 people called and said they saw a white BMW driving around that morning, do you think police would have been all over it? Of course. It is too many people to dismiss and don't forget about the 6:40 phone call that also supports she was alive and don't forget that Bella described seeing her mom that morning with a clothing description that matched many of the 16 witnesses' descriptions.

Re: Evidence at the scene - the freshest tire tracks led right up to the body and did not match the Cooper's tires. I don't see that vehicles would have been driving up to that area, do you? The footprint was too small to be Brad's. It could have been from EMS but then why didn't anyone compare their boots to the print?

As well, the time of death determination, the evidence that we have is more consistent with Nancy being killed sometime after going jogging than after midnight as the state alleged. Facts are facts.

He never had a chance, Maddy. He was going to go to trial with Gessner again....something that many feel should have been unheard of.

 

[sunshine05]

I have to ask this, how exactly did Brad Cooper fold his cards? He wasn't holding any cards to begin with.
It was the state who folded their cards and case and wanted to go home. So, they made him the same offer they gave him twice before. They had all the cards to go forward and didn't want to. Brad chose not to play and took what they offered this time.
If Brad did have one card, it was his parental rights, the state wanted that card, and offered him a year less. With the children's ages and his missing 12 years of their life, it made sense.
How in the world could Brad or anyone expect him to get a fair trial, when the ADA stood up at the plea hearing and twisted facts? Did you see Judge Gessner, this was his case, stop Mr. Cummings and say" Things didn't happen that way, sir?" Lol, hell no.

JMO

As well, Gessner wanted to preside over the new trial.

 

[sunshine05]

I read the book, Isolated Incident. I thought the author made some good points but unfortunately many of the facts were incorrect. I wish he had sent it to me for fact checking because I could have easily corrected them. However, he does call the investigation into question and points out the flaws by police, prosecutors and the judge. He also has an interesting discussion of alternate suspects that I'm not completely on board with but I think he was heading in the right direction.

 

[sunshine05]

Because evidence that can be identified points toward or at the source. And if it can't be identified it points no where.

If you have enough evidence (circumstantial or direct) pointing toward someone then at some point one may conclude there's enough evidence to prove a specific person or persons were involved in the crime. Ultimately a jury decides when there's enough or if there's enough.

Here's an example. There was allegedly blood under Nancy's nails, that is circumstantial evidence (forensic, but circumstantial). Those samples when tested proved to be so degraded a DNA profile could not be obtained. That evidence could not be identified; it pointed no where; we don't even know if it was the victim's own blood. That evidence doesn't point away from Brad and it doesn't point to Brad (or anyone). It's inconclusive.

Yes, inconclusive but remember the presumption of innocence, right? Brad does not have to prove he is innocent. What did the state provide to prove guilt? Nothing. This case was about character assassination and misstated evidence.
Affair! (never mind that it occurred 3 years prior and NC hadn't slept with him since the younger child was conceived)

Bella didn't drink green juice! (forget the fact that NC purchased it for her the week prior while at the beach with family)

NC was to paint on Saturday (forget the fact that 3 people at the party were told she had plans to run the next morning and another witness verified that she agreed to watch the kids that morning while BC played tennis. Forget the fact that the Adams could not even keep their stories straight at trial about this)

Spoofed call (forget the fact that there is no piece of evidence to support this even though they spent years searching for it. Forget the fact that there "may be" a missing router because even if there is a spoofed call with a router can not exceed 23 seconds)

Google search (forget the fact that the PC was improperly collected, improperly stored, improperly hashed and had all of the tell tale signs of tampering yet the state dragged out their nice little national security blanket to shield it from the defense so they could never properly cross examine the witnesses about it and they also found clever ways to bar the experts even though it violated NC codes and the constitution)

Gut feelings. That is about all we are left with. Sad.

 

[borndem]

I would love to read a well researched and well written book about this case, but the introductory pages available do not inspire confidence. I would also add that I am not a fan of the Love Lies book by that media person (name escapes me), it was also not a well written or researched book.

This persons writings on the JonBenet case appear to have been poorly received....that is not to say this one should also be the same.

I might buy and read this but based on the few pages available publicly (with timelines about the Brad-Nancy relationship which do not sound right to me-- I think detail is missing which would improve the story) I would rather not waste my time... though again based on the typeface it looks like a quick read.

Anyone read it....comments

I was not aware of this book until I saw it referenced here, but after reading what was available on the Amazon "read me" offering, I must agree. It seems to me to be a quickly-written and superficial book. The price is right for a read, but it would prolly only make me angry with the lack of good sources and sound research. I could be wrong, but what I read in the offering just does not sound confident or well-informed to me. I think I'll skip it.

 

[sunshine05]

First degree murder is the intentional killing of a human with malice and premeditation.

Nothing to figure out in this case. Nancy was murdered via strangulation. It takes up to 4 minutes to strangle or asphyixiate someone to death. In that time the killer knows if they continue to cut off the air supply to the victim, the victim will die. And if they continue to cut off the air they are doing so deliberately and with malice. Premeditation can be formed in a matter of seconds, but in this case the killer had up to 4 minutes to realize what he was doing. Slam dunk on meeting the premeditation test. It was obviously done intentionally and with malice.

In addition, Brad pre-planned the murder, looking on his work computer while in his office at work, where he would dump his wife's body about 12 or so hours later. He increasingly zoomed in on the exact spot. Do you have any evidence to support that Brad did the Google search? Police failed to verify it.
He was convicted of first degree murder in the first trial because he planned & committed the murder.

However, in a plea situation, most defendants who are charged with first degree murder are not going to plead to first degree murder. They would at least take their chance at trial with a jury. An incentive from them to plead guilty is to obtain a lesser conviction where they will get less years in prison. That's where negotiations occur between the defense lawyer(s) and the attorneys representing the state. It's a compromise where each side wins some and loses some. It's not really justice for the victim, but it is a resolution and a way to adjudicate cases and allow closure for the family of the victim.

An innocent person would not have pled guilty before the first trial. Brad didn't. He could have taken the deal from the beginning - 12 years. Why 12 years for 2nd degree if they have evidence? After seeing the circus that went on, how could anyone feel confident in receiving a FAIR trial in Wake county? He had no choice.

Also, did anyone catch that the prosecution never mentioned the most damning evidence in opening statements which is standard? Did they plan on NOT presenting the G map search because they knew it was bogus and then when they realized how bad they were losing, they threw it in at the end? That is how it appears. Then they had to discredit the defense experts but that was no problem with Gessner on the bench.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

None of it matters because the children will almost be legal adults by the time he is released and naturally they will search for the truth and the truth will be available. Once they understand what really happened, they may resent the people who are keeping the truth from them. The truth usually has a way of bubbling to the top. Just saying.

 

[ncsu95]

An innocent person would not have pled guilty before the first trial. Brad didn't. He could have taken the deal from the beginning - 12 years. Why 12 years for 2nd degree if they have evidence? After seeing the circus that went on, how could anyone feel confident in receiving a FAIR trial in Wake county? He had no choice.

Also, did anyone catch that the prosecution never mentioned the most damning evidence in opening statements which is standard? Did they plan on NOT presenting the G map search because they knew it was bogus and then when they realized how bad they were losing, they threw it in at the end? That is how it appears. Then they had to discredit the defense experts but that was no problem with Gessner on the bench.

It is odd that they didn't mention the google search in opening statement. Almost like they wanted a Perry Mason moment during the trial.