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

[JusticeFever]

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

So glad you brought this up......
Reality.........Mike Hiller testified that he not only made plans with Brad to play tennis at 9:30 am, he specifically sought Nancy out to make sure it was okay.......He states Nancy had no objection, and that she planned to jog that am but would be back in time for Brad to go with Mike....He specifically recalls her saying that, and just to be sure he calls Brad again, using Nancy's cell phone to once again confirm !!
That was the plan......no mention of any painting.!!

Facts with actual links to support them: www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9510146/
Begin at the 18:50 mark.......

 

[otto]

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.

I seem to recall that the decorative sticks (and ducks) were held up as the murder weapon.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

Actually, if you listen to his taped interview with police, he only ever stated that he heard of plans "sometime that weekend", certainly not for the next day.

 

[sunshine05]

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

That isn't accurate, Maddy. It was worth pointing out that he was indeed "innocent until proven guilty" again because people continued to state "A jury of 12 voted guilty." That vote was based on not hearing the defense case and that was why the emphasis was made about presumed innocence when a conviction is overturned.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

I can tell you that it was of course offered and I believe it was before the trial began. No response would likely mean "No deal". Don't you think?

 

[sunshine05]

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.

You know what? We will never know what may have been on the phone that possibly could have been exculpatory. They didn't just delete the Blackberry, they also deleted her other phone. It wasn't a screw-up, Maddy. As far as FB goes, we really don't know what was on her account, page, posts, photos or messages because police never subpoenaed the information. That was an epic fail too.

We don't have the content of the text messages. I will always be suspicious that there may have been a message on there that indicated something - a relationship, a meeting, something that would again point away from Brad's involvement. Combine two wiped phones with completely botching the handling of the computer and I tend to distrust the Cary police and that is permanent.


The final call was not at 10:30, it was 9:50 from Brett Adam's cell phone. Her phone received one text message at 2PM on 7/12 from J. Fetterholf. We don't know what it said.

This was inexcusable.

 

[sunshine05]

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.

That is your opinion. My opinion is that they were NOT going to use it because they knew it was bogus and Johnson himself refused to testify about what he allegedly found.

 

[sunshine05]

Here is Ross Tabachow's testimony during cross examination. Though he testified during direct that he heard plans to paint for Saturday, when pressed he had to admit that he never told police any specific day. Also keep in mind that JA testified that NO paint plans were discussed during that 9:50 phone call. She said they discussed a bathing suit and she invited NC for a drink but volunteered at trial that there was no further confirmation of paint plans. It is this kind of disinformation that went on all throughout that is simply unbelievable....talk about twisting things. Truth is what we should all want!

 

[calgary123]

They didn't just delete the Blackberry, they also deleted her other phone.

Where did this come from? What other phone?

And on the issue of a plea deal before the first trial started, where is the information on that? First I've heard of it is on this forum. And if it was less than life in prison, what was it?

 

[JusticeFever]

Where did this come from? What other phone?

And on the issue of a plea deal before the first trial started, where is the information on that? First I've heard of it is on this forum. And if it was less than life in prison, what was it?

Lol, why is it usually only the Brad supporters who provide actual links.

The former plea deals were mentioned in this video of the plea hearing. 36:00 minute mark.

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

Mr. Cummings says a plea deal was offered to the defendant during the trial to Mr. Trenkle and to Mr. Kurtz before the case started. Sounds like it was the same deal for 2nd degree offered 2x, but not accepted. Mr. Cummings then starts to complain about how much money it cost the state and also says it was not enough time for Brad to serve.
And, yet it was his deal......

 

[calgary123]

I watched that before I didn't recall hearing about 2 prior deals. Can you say at what minute? And what about erasing 2 cell phones?

And I call BS on only Brad supporters providing links.

 

[JusticeFever]

I watched that before I didn't recall hearing about 2 prior deals. Can you say at what minute? And what about erasing 2 cell phones?

And I call BS on only Brad supporters providing links.

You can call BS on anything you want, I think the Brad supporters (which I guess is supposed to be some veiled insult) have proven it to be true, though... :wink:

I added the timestamp for you.....hope this helps.

 

[Madeleine74]

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

Yes I think he did make tennis plans when MH called to ask him. However, since he planned to kill his wife that night and then claim she went out running the next morning and never came back home, he (obviously) wasn't actually planning to go play. That's if one concedes that BC did kill his wife. I believe he did kill his wife. I also believe, based on testimony from various witnesses, that neither Brad or Nancy were communicating well that week and certainly not her last day alive. I find it probable she made plans to do her own thing and paid no attention and gave no further thought to MH asking her if it was ok if Brad played tennis the next morning. Testimony is she just dialed the phone and handed it over to MH and went back to her discussion with whoever she was talking to at the time.

 

[JusticeFever]

^^^^^^^^^ Thats not what was testified to at all in the video I just posted.....she talked to Brad and then handed the phone to Mike.
He asked Nancy if she knew exactly what time they were going to play and wanted to confirm.
Why do you keep doing this, when there is a link to what he said!

 

[Madeleine74]

I watched that before I didn't recall hearing about 2 prior deals. Can you say at what minute? And what about erasing 2 cell phones?

And I call BS on only Brad supporters providing links.

Cisco wiped Brad's cell phone with security software they install on their employee's phones. That was done remotely by Cisco (not by police) and for security purposes.

Nancy's phone got wiped when the AT&T customer service person gave (what I believe to be) incorrect info. Or, the agent gave correct info but not for what was actually needed and following the directions given by the AT&T rep ended in a wiped phone.

There wasn't anything about 2 prior deals. There was 1 deal (Trenkle talking to Cummings) that went nowhere with no word back either way and, according to Cummings in the Aug hearing, was "still available."

 

[Madeleine74]

I can tell you that it was of course offered and I believe it was before the trial began. No response would likely mean "No deal". Don't you think?

No response is no response. It leaves it hanging in the air. According to the hearing, which is publicly available on video, the plea was "before the jury got the case," which means deliberations. Cummings said it, the judge repeated it and Cummings reaffirmed it.

 

[sunshine05]

Where did this come from? What other phone?

And on the issue of a plea deal before the first trial started, where is the information on that? First I've heard of it is on this forum. And if it was less than life in prison, what was it?

There is testimony. Look at Detective Thomas's testimony about her older phone. When it was given to him it had no data on it.

There is not an article about the initial plea deal but I do know from a reliable source that it was the same thing offered in September --- 12 years, 2nd degree. That's why Cummings said "The offer still stands" at the August hearing.

 

[sunshine05]

No response is no response. It leaves it hanging in the air. According to the hearing, which is publicly available on video, the plea was "before the jury got the case," which means deliberations. Cummings said it, the judge repeated it and Cummings reaffirmed it.

I don't understand your point. Clearly he did not accept it or there would not have been a trial. Nothing was left hanging.

 

[sunshine05]

Cisco wiped Brad's cell phone with security software they install on their employee's phones. That was done remotely by Cisco (not by police) and for security purposes.

Nancy's phone got wiped when the AT&T customer service person gave (what I believe to be) incorrect info. Or, the agent gave correct info but not for what was actually needed and following the directions given by the AT&T rep ended in a wiped phone.

There wasn't anything about 2 prior deals. There was 1 deal (Trenkle talking to Cummings) that went nowhere with no word back either way and, according to Cummings in the Aug hearing, was "still available."

That is correct. It was one deal offered on two separate occasions.

 

[sunshine05]

Yes I think he did make tennis plans when MH called to ask him. However, since he planned to kill his wife that night and then claim she went out running the next morning and never came back home, he (obviously) wasn't actually planning to go play. That's if one concedes that BC did kill his wife. I believe he did kill his wife. I also believe, based on testimony from various witnesses, that neither Brad or Nancy were communicating well that week and certainly not her last day alive. I find it probable she made plans to do her own thing and paid no attention and gave no further thought to MH asking her if it was ok if Brad played tennis the next morning. Testimony is she just dialed the phone and handed it over to MH and went back to her discussion with whoever she was talking to at the time.

That is incorrect. Actually, I read some of the custody transcripts and the tennis plans were discussed while Brad was still there and Nancy agreed to watch the kids. He wanted to confirm once more with Nancy because he had been stood up in the past and that is when she dialed.

There is absolutely nothing indicating that she ever made plans to paint on Saturday but she told three people she planned to jog in the morning.