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

[calgary123]

Its getting pretty punchy around here. I think all of us want to see justice done its just we have different views of the facts of this case, the evidence (which doesn't necessarily equate to the facts), and what should be happening with Brad and his children going into the future. There is some very vocal opposition to Brad spending time in jail, and that seems to be divided into two camps, those who think he is innocent and didn't receive due process, and those who aren't sure but think he didn't receive due process.

I'm on the side that says he clearly did kill Nancy, but I have concerns about the process that that led to where things are at now. I think Brad can thank his lucky stars that the circumstances of the first trial led to a successful appeal and led to him having a second opportunity to take a plea deal. I have no idea where this other supposed offer from the state came from, I haven't heard any actual source mentioning it, just innuendo to me.

Brad won't be spending enough time in jail for what I think he did, though I'd also agree that the state offering a plea deal twice points to less than desireable evidence in some respects. For example, the erasing of Nancy's cell phone is a travesty, and the state relying upon "national security" to prevent the defence from challenging some aspects of the case troubles me. At the same time I thought Jay Ward's intended testimony was a crock, and the defence was putting up a smoke screen as opposed to a genuine challenge of the technical evidence. I can not fathom that the level of conspiracy that would be required to plant those files in the way they showed up could be carried out by what appears to be a less-than-stellar group of officers; beyond that I can not fathom that any group of people in law enforcement would have the desire to even try to carry out such a plan. What could they possibly gain by implicating Brad at the expense of their own careers and freedom?

I also don't buy that Brad wouldn't want a second trial with Judge Gessner. The Appeals Court put him in his place, its clear what he needed to allow in terms of evidence, the second time around. The appeal system is there to right wrongs, and that's proof the appeal system worked in this case. Brad absolutely would have received a fair trial, and would have had the benefit of only having to convince one juror out of 12 that there is doubt as to whether he killed Nancy. Those are great odds for a murder suspect who professes their innocence and wasn't caught in the actual act or via DNA evidence. My working theory is these plea offers only occurred because of the grace of the Rentz's, though I don't know that.

In murder cases there are no winners, there are only varying degrees of losing. Nancy lost her life, her children a mother, Brad a career and for some years his freedom. Both families have been devastated, the people of NC are out a pile of money, and lingering questions remain about the what-ifs of a second trial. Myself, I'm comfortable that the right person is in jail, and my own thoughts (not shared by everyone out here in Alberta) are that Brad will not be a risk to anyone once he's released excepting an intimate partner, who will experience eventual similar abuse as Brad's prior girlfriends. I think he's learned he isn't smart enough to commit the perfect crime, and will not be likely to murder again. Just a guess though.

 

[Hez]

Excellent post, calgary.

 

[MyBelle]

Still no reason to be snarky to another poster. I have posted on cases where I thought the NG's were secretly wackos, but I was still nice to them.

JF, you always are nice. No complaints there. Adults should be capable of posting without snark. They also should be capable of refraining from posting opinions as fact without a link. Just use ignore. Then you only get to see nonsense when it is quoted. LOL

Sadly, the Cooper case is a sad reflection on the poor quality and unfairness of the criminal justice system in that particular state. Those of us who live in other states should be thankful.

JMO

 

[sunshine05]

Its getting pretty punchy around here. I think all of us want to see justice done its just we have different views of the facts of this case, the evidence (which doesn't necessarily equate to the facts), and what should be happening with Brad and his children going into the future. There is some very vocal opposition to Brad spending time in jail, and that seems to be divided into two camps, those who think he is innocent and didn't receive due process, and those who aren't sure but think he didn't receive due process.

I'm on the side that says he clearly did kill Nancy, but I have concerns about the process that that led to where things are at now. I think Brad can thank his lucky stars that the circumstances of the first trial led to a successful appeal and led to him having a second opportunity to take a plea deal. I have no idea where this other supposed offer from the state came from, I haven't heard any actual source mentioning it, just innuendo to me.

Brad won't be spending enough time in jail for what I think he did, though I'd also agree that the state offering a plea deal twice points to less than desireable evidence in some respects. For example, the erasing of Nancy's cell phone is a travesty, and the state relying upon "national security" to prevent the defence from challenging some aspects of the case troubles me. At the same time I thought Jay Ward's intended testimony was a crock, and the defence was putting up a smoke screen as opposed to a genuine challenge of the technical evidence. I can not fathom that the level of conspiracy that would be required to plant those files in the way they showed up could be carried out by what appears to be a less-than-stellar group of officers; beyond that I can not fathom that any group of people in law enforcement would have the desire to even try to carry out such a plan. What could they possibly gain by implicating Brad at the expense of their own careers and freedom?

I also don't buy that Brad wouldn't want a second trial with Judge Gessner. The Appeals Court put him in his place, its clear what he needed to allow in terms of evidence, the second time around. The appeal system is there to right wrongs, and that's proof the appeal system worked in this case. Brad absolutely would have received a fair trial, and would have had the benefit of only having to convince one juror out of 12 that there is doubt as to whether he killed Nancy. Those are great odds for a murder suspect who professes their innocence and wasn't caught in the actual act or via DNA evidence. My working theory is these plea offers only occurred because of the grace of the Rentz's, though I don't know that.

In murder cases there are no winners, there are only varying degrees of losing. Nancy lost her life, her children a mother, Brad a career and for some years his freedom. Both families have been devastated, the people of NC are out a pile of money, and lingering questions remain about the what-ifs of a second trial. Myself, I'm comfortable that the right person is in jail, and my own thoughts (not shared by everyone out here in Alberta) are that Brad will not be a risk to anyone once he's released excepting an intimate partner, who will experience eventual similar abuse as Brad's prior girlfriends. I think he's learned he isn't smart enough to commit the perfect crime, and will not be likely to murder again. Just a guess though.

It's difficult to grasp that this could happen, I agree. Yet, they are protected so there is no risk to them. I do not know who planted the files but everything that could have been done to make it possible occurred. The computer was seized and instead of being put into the evidence locker as is standard protocol the cops were instead directed by Young to place it in an unsecure lab, where no signature is required to access the room. Had it been put into evidence, a signature would have been needed every time someone checked it out of evidence.

When it was two days before the FBI was to take it, records indicate that Young signed it over to Bonin but there's a problem because two days later a different cop signed it over to Bonin according to FBI custody records. Add to that the fact that they never took the time to verify the search. There are just way too many things that went against protocol and even what CPD would typically do with evidence such as this.

I think you are naive to believe that Brad could have received a fair trial with Gessner but I respect your opinion. You are entitled to it.

I do not believe the deal was due to the good grace of the Rentz family. I think the prosecutors absolutely did not want to go back to trial and have to come up with a witness willing to sit in the witness stand and testify that all of the anomalies associated with the files were normal. It was a problem for them the first time around and I think it would have been a much tougher challenge a second time. I can not imagine a reputable forensic expert testifying that "all is well" with that evidence.

I agree that there are no winners here. In my mind, the corrupt officials got away with irreparable misconduct and the crime remains unsolved. The killer remains free.

 

[MyBelle]

It's difficult to grasp that this could happen, I agree. Yet, they are protected so there is no risk to them. I do not know who planted the files but everything that could have been done to make it possible occurred. The computer was seized and instead of being put into the evidence locker as is standard protocol the cops were instead directed by Young to place it in an unsecure lab, where no signature is required to access the room. Had it been put into evidence, a signature would have been needed every time someone checked it out of evidence.

When it was two days before the FBI was to take it, records indicate that Young signed it over to Bonin but there's a problem because two days later a different cop signed it over to Bonin according to FBI custody records. Add to that the fact that they never took the time to verify the search. There are just way too many things that went against protocol and even what CPD would typically do with evidence such as this.

I think you are naive to believe that Brad could have received a fair trial with Gessner but I respect your opinion. You are entitled to it.

I do not believe the deal was due to the good grace of the Rentz family. I think the prosecutors absolutely did not want to go back to trial and have to come up with a witness willing to sit in the witness stand and testify that all of the anomalies associated with the files were normal. It was a problem for them the first time around and I think it would have been a much tougher challenge a second time. I can not imagine a reputable forensic expert testifying that "all is well" with that evidence.

I agree that there are no winners here. In my mind, the corrupt officials got away with irreparable misconduct and the crime remains unsolved. The killer remains free.

BBM. I can only hope there is an investigation into how evidence in this case and that of Jason Young was handled and stored.

http://truthinjustice.org/p-pmisconduct.htm

North Carolina. The North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission has decided unanimously that a three-judge panel should review the cases of Kenneth Kagonyera and Robert Wilcoxsin. Both pled guilty to 2nd degree murder in the death of Walter Bowman of Fairview, NC, even though both maintained their innocence before and after their pleas. DNA results have excluded both men. Worse, convenience store surveillance tape that would have supported their alibis was taped over with footage from a soap opera while in the sheriff's department custody. The ghost of Rosemary Woods must be haunting the Buncombe County Sheriff's Department.

UPDATE: September 22, 2011 - Kenneth Kagonyera and Robert Wilcoxson walked free when a panel of judges ruled they didn't kill a man during a home invasion despite their guilty pleas a decade earlier. They pled to avoid the death penalty.


North Carolina. Pity Durham County. First there was the fiasco of publicity hound Mike Nifong, eventually disbarred for his handling of the infamous "Duke LaCrosse Rape Case." An investigative series by the Charlotte News & Observer examines evidence that his successor, Tracey Cline, may be following in Nifong's footsteps, literally.

 

[oenophile]

I can not fathom that the level of conspiracy that would be required to plant those files in the way they showed up could be carried out by what appears to be a less-than-stellar group of officers

My bolding.

Although I found your post to be very well-thought-out and reasonably balanced, I wanted to address something that has come up repeatedly from multiple posters, specifically the theory that any planting of evidence required a conspiracy.

The word "conspiracy" has a very specific definition, and yet it is also misused often to provide an emotional response. Specifically, a conspiracy is the act of plotting by more than one person to achieve something. In this case, no one that I know of has even suggested that there was a conspiracy related to the tampering. In fact, if there was tampering, it was likely done by a single person who was not necessarily in law enforcement. Any claims of conspiracy are coming entirely from those who are convinced he is guilty. In fact, even if Ward's never-heard testimony was entirely accurate, and even if there was conclusive evidence of tampering, and even if the FBI agreed that the Google map files were placed there purposefully, that does not reveal or suggest any evidence of a conspiracy. All it takes is one knowledgeable person to tamper.

 

[Madeleine74]

Here's one example of how facts get nuanced and twisted.

The oft-repeated "Nancy told no one of her plans to paint at JA's house. It was never mentioned at the party the night before."

Reality: There was a witness (Ross Tabachow) who testified at trial (source wral.com video of RT testimony) he overheard Nancy's phone call with JA because he was sitting with Nancy outside when that call from JA to Nancy came in. Ross testified he could hear Nancy's side of the conversation and he understood from what he heard that it was about plans to paint at JA's house the next morning. So yes, those plans did exist, yes someone at the party did know, and yes, there was sworn testimony about it.

 

[Madeleine74]

BBM. Maybe because this is the Nancy Cooper trial forum. If you have issues with people continuing to bring up stuff from the trial that never happened, then why do you continue to engage in the conversation? He's guilty. He plead guilty. So why do you care if people continue to discuss the trial?

You gloriously managed to miss my point. *I* don't have a problem discussing any part of this case.

Before Brad took a plea, some of Brad's supporters on this very board pointed out that Brad's first trial was over and done and there was no reason to bring up his first trial again since Brad was getting his new day in court and Brad was considered "innocent until proven guilty." A couple supporters even tried to thwart discussion that mentioned Brad's guilt or any outcome from his first trial (again, in the few week(s) before his Sept 22 hearing). Then, as soon as Brad plead guilty, out came the cries from some of Brad's supporters .... specifically about the first trial...the very same people who had previously told forum posters to stop focusing on the defunct first trial that had been overturned. /irony

 

[Madeleine74]

We still don't have the full story about the plea deal. The way I heard it, and this is based on what was said at the hearing in August, is that a plea deal came up/was discussed between Trenkle and Cummings in 2011 at some point before the jury got the case to deliberate (video is available on the local ABC affiliate site). In that hearing Cummings said "the deal is still on the table."

Then Cummings at the Sept 22nd hearing added that the DA's office (and he, specifically) never heard back from either attorney on the defense side one way or the other. The plea was never turned down; it was complete radio silence. Doesn't sound at all like there were "2 plea deals." Just the one, which Trenkle was involved in originally, and which went no where in terms of an outcome. The state had no idea if that possible plea was ever mentioned to BC at the time it was originally discussed in 2011. That's what Cummings said in the Sept 22nd. No feedback, nothing was turned down, complete silence.

 

[Madeleine74]

While the screw up in erasing NC's phone was pitifully stupid, and while it ultimately served as a huge gift to the defense, because they could use that screwup to make a 2-prong attack: incompetence (which was accurate) and conspiracy (LOL), here's why it wasn't quite as dire as some thought:

- All phone calls are logged at the provider's servers. Date, time, length of call, whether call was answered or went to VM. There's other data in there as well, I just didn't list it all out.
- All activity in the form of txt messages sent or received through the provider is also logged. Not the content of the txt msg, but the basics: date, time, and phone number of the sender or receiver of the msg.
- All phone activity that uses the provider's network is captured via pings off one or more towers when a phone is on and transmitting, allowing the cell provider to know where the phone is in general, based on which tower was transmitting. This is in addition to logs which capture phone call and text/data activity from the phone.

Here's what was learned about Nancy's phone activity from Friday 7/11/08 at night and onward (all in various testimony at trial):

- The last phone call NC received the night of 7/11/08 occurred around 10:30pm
- Nancy never used her own cell phone again to make a call or send a txt. Not Fri night 7/11 after 10:30pm and not anytime on Sat 7/12.
- The morning of Sat 7/12/08 NC's phone did receive calls (which all went to VM) and at least one text. The identity of each of those people is known because the phone numbers were logged by the cell provider and the police had a copy of the logs.
- No one called or sent a txt to Nancy about some secret rendezvous (like from some boyfriend). There was nothing on the provider log. If there had been, the defense certainly would have highlighted that line item and made sure the jury knew about it.
- Nancy did not have her phone with her when she supposedly went running. No one could have gotten ahold of her.
- Nancy was not an active Facebook user. She had an account and had 2 or 3 people on her friends list. There was nothing contained in her Facebook account that provided any information. All Facebook activity lives on FB servers.

So her movements while she had her phone was determined. The calls received and sent from her phone were logged. Ditto txt messages. And there was zero activity from Nancy's phone outward (i.e. making a call or sending a txt) after 10:30pm Fri night.

 

[Madeleine74]

As for the theory that the state didn't mention the Google search in their opening due to some kind of "fear" or "hope they wouldn't have to use it" or "didn't believe it was real" all I can say to that is LOL!

I personally asked Boz Z. back in 2011, like a day after the opening statements, why the state's opening was so short? I remember saying, "28 minutes? Why only 28 minutes for an opening, you guys were just getting started!?" He smiled and said, "That's just how we like to do our openings. Keep them short." Sure enough, I later noticed short openings in other trials in this county. Cooper was the first case I followed in North Carolina. After the trial was all done I realized the state purposely did not disclose their most important evidence in their opening. They saved it up. Obviously they did that so it would have the greatest impact on the jury. Had nothing to do with 'fear' or 'not believing in their evidence.' That's a fallacy. They simply keep some of their cards close to the vest and that's a strategic decision. There is no requirement that either side lay out their entire case to the jury in the opening. The state's opening was 28 min. The defense's opening was 3+ hours. Go watch other openings of trials that have been streamed from this same county. They tend to run about 30 min by the state.

 

[oenophile]

I personally asked Boz Z. back in 2011, like a day after the opening statements, why the state's opening was so short?

Should of asked him why he lied in is closing.

 

[otto]

As for the theory that the state didn't mention the Google search in their opening due to some kind of "fear" or "hope they wouldn't have to use it" or "didn't believe it was real" all I can say to that is LOL!

I personally asked Boz Z. back in 2011, like a day after the opening statements, why the state's opening was so short? I remember saying, "28 minutes? Why only 28 minutes for an opening, you guys were just getting started!?" He smiled and said, "That's just how we like to do our openings. Keep them short." Sure enough, I later noticed short openings in other trials in this county. Cooper was the first case I followed in North Carolina. After the trial was all done I realized the state purposely did not disclose their most important evidence in their opening. They saved it up. Obviously they did that so it would have the greatest impact on the jury. Had nothing to do with 'fear' or 'not believing in their evidence.' That's a fallacy. They simply keep some of their cards close to the vest and that's a strategic decision. There is no requirement that either side lay out their entire case to the jury in the opening. The state's opening was 28 min. The defense's opening was 3+ hours. Go watch other openings of trials that have been streamed from this same county. They tend to run about 30 min by the state.

The missing/not-missing ducks were very important evidence in the prosecution theory. Were the ducks mentioned during opening statements?

 

[otto]

Should of asked him why he lied in is closing.

I know the answer to that one: he viewed the l for Nancy Cooper's murder as a career opportunity.

 

[Madeleine74]

Considering I'm not psychic I could not have asked him anything beyond what I saw at that point in time, which was only the opening. In fact, I didn't even know who he was when I asked him, never heard of anyone except (I think) Cummings. I thought he was an intern for the DA's office or something. Remember, he didn't do the opening statements. As for the closing arguments, none of that is evidence, which is something the jury is instructed on. I don't recall him lying, though I do recall Brad's supporters being very angry that Boz said things in his closing that made it seem Brad was guilty.

 

[JusticeFever]

Don't know why it is being stated as fact that only 1 plea deal was offered, when Cummings said at the plea hearing that he offered a plea deal to the defendant through Mr. Trenkle during the trial and a plea deal to Mr. Kurtz before the case ever started.......
I am pretty sure 1+1 = 2...........:thinking:

 

[Madeleine74]

The missing/not-missing ducks were very important evidence in the prosecution theory. Were the ducks mentioned during opening statements?

No they weren't as important as Brad's supporters claim them to be, and I don't recall them being mentioned in opening (I'm not saying they weren't mentioned, I just don't recall). They were just one piece of possible circumstantial evidence. One witness who was in NC's home the day before the murder was asked to look at photographs taken by police the day Nancy went missing and see if she noticed anything different from her prior visit. She remembered that Nancy kept wooden ducks on the front console table and a tall vase with long decorative sticks. Neither the ducks nor the sticks were seen in any photo she was shown and she thought the ducks were on the console table the last time she was inside the home and the sticks were in the vase. Big whoop. I never got the impression it was important evidence other than another possible brick in a circumstantial wall; by itself it didn't prove anything.

 

[JusticeFever]

You gloriously managed to miss my point. *I* don't have a problem discussing any part of this case.

Before Brad took a plea, some of Brad's supporters on this very board pointed out that Brad's first trial was over and done and there was no reason to bring up his first trial again since Brad was getting his new day in court and Brad was considered "innocent until proven guilty." A couple supporters even tried to thwart discussion that mentioned Brad's guilt or any outcome from his first trial (again, in the few week(s) before his Sept 22 hearing). Then, as soon as Brad plead guilty, out came the cries from some of Brad's supporters .... specifically about the first trial...the very same people who had previously told forum posters to stop focusing on the defunct first trial that had been overturned. /irony

You might want to be more specific when trying to group people together, because this Brad supporter has been on board with a plea deal for a long long long long time.... and I am happy he took it.

 

[ncsu95]

Here's one example of how facts get nuanced and twisted.

The oft-repeated "Nancy told no one of her plans to paint at JA's house. It was never mentioned at the party the night before."

Reality: There was a witness (Ross Tabachow) who testified at trial (source wral.com video of RT testimony) he overheard Nancy's phone call with JA because he was sitting with Nancy outside when that call from JA to Nancy came in. Ross testified he could hear Nancy's side of the conversation and he understood from what he heard that it was about plans to paint at JA's house the next morning. So yes, those plans did exist, yes someone at the party did know, and yes, there was sworn testimony about it.

Do you also agree that Brad Cooper had plans to play tennis at 9:30 AM that morning?

 

[ncsu95]

While the screw up in erasing NC's phone was pitifully stupid, and while it ultimately served as a huge gift to the defense, because they could use that screwup to make a 2-prong attack: incompetence (which was accurate) and conspiracy (LOL), here's why it wasn't quite as dire as some thought:

- All phone calls are logged at the provider's servers. Date, time, length of call, whether call was answered or went to VM. There's other data in there as well, I just didn't list it all out.
- All activity in the form of txt messages sent or received through the provider is also logged. Not the content of the txt msg, but the basics: date, time, and phone number of the sender or receiver of the msg.
- All phone activity that uses the provider's network is captured via pings off one or more towers when a phone is on and transmitting, allowing the cell provider to know where the phone is in general, based on which tower was transmitting. This is in addition to logs which capture phone call and text/data activity from the phone.

Here's what was learned about Nancy's phone activity from Friday 7/11/08 at night and onward (all in various testimony at trial):

- The last phone call NC received the night of 7/11/08 occurred around 10:30pm
- Nancy never used her own cell phone again to make a call or send a txt. Not Fri night 7/11 after 10:30pm and not anytime on Sat 7/12.
- The morning of Sat 7/12/08 NC's phone did receive calls (which all went to VM) and at least one text. The identity of each of those people is known because the phone numbers were logged by the cell provider and the police had a copy of the logs.
- No one called or sent a txt to Nancy about some secret rendezvous (like from some boyfriend). There was nothing on the provider log. If there had been, the defense certainly would have highlighted that line item and made sure the jury knew about it.
- Nancy did not have her phone with her when she supposedly went running. No one could have gotten ahold of her.
- Nancy was not an active Facebook user. She had an account and had 2 or 3 people on her friends list. There was nothing contained in her Facebook account that provided any information. All Facebook activity lives on FB servers.

So her movements while she had her phone was determined. The calls received and sent from her phone were logged. Ditto txt messages. And there was zero activity from Nancy's phone outward (i.e. making a call or sending a txt) after 10:30pm Fri night.

That covers 7/11 on....it doesn't cover the several months leading up to the murder. It doesn't cover pictures, texts, emails, or other things that might have been found on the phone. There might not have been anything found on it. But the simple fact is the defense team sent a letter specifically asking for that evidence to be preserved and it was destroyed AFTER receipt of that letter.