State v Brad Cooper 4-8-2011

[cityslick]

Well, maybe when Brad's side gets to present evidence all of your conspiracy theories will be played out by him. Because surely if there is any chance at all that he could point the finger to someone else he would - in fact, it's so funny to me that in all this time Brad never once said he suspected anyone in their circle, in their neighborhood, in their friends, in his co-workers. If he knew, as the defense says and the group of SODDI on here say, that he was targeted from day one by the police then don't you know he'd be throwing anybody under the bus that had a remote chance of having done this to Nancy. No, he cooked up the stranger abduction/rapist/killer story before he dumped the body, hence the sports bra and running story, and he had to stick with it from then on out. He said she went running - therefore stranger had to have done it. He made a veiled attempt at a slight chance of suspicion on CC, but that didn't float past the first minute. She was accounted for at 7 a.m. apparently with an alibi. If he or his defense team have any minute, teeny, tiny, obscure piece of evidence that someone they knew did this to Nancy they will shout it from the top of the courthouse when they have their turn. I'll wait on it, but I won't hold my breath.

Hypothetically, he may not know who did what. All he knows (thinks) is he's getting railroaded by her friends.

 

[johnfear]

Well, maybe when Brad's side gets to present evidence all of your conspiracy theories will be played out by him. Because surely if there is any chance at all that he could point the finger to someone else he would - in fact, it's so funny to me that in all this time Brad never once said he suspected anyone in their circle, in their neighborhood, in their friends, in his co-workers. If he knew, as the defense says and the group of SODDI on here say, that he was targeted from day one by the police then don't you know he'd be throwing anybody under the bus that had a remote chance of having done this to Nancy. No, he cooked up the stranger abduction/rapist/killer story before he dumped the body, hence the sports bra and running story, and he had to stick with it from then on out. He said she went running - therefore stranger had to have done it. He made a veiled attempt at a slight chance of suspicion on CC, but that didn't float past the first minute. She was accounted for at 7 a.m. apparently with an alibi. If he or his defense team have any minute, teeny, tiny, obscure piece of evidence that someone they knew did this to Nancy they will shout it from the top of the courthouse when they have their turn. I'll wait on it, but I won't hold my breath.

Right, but from where I am sitting, that portion is not the defense's job. I think they were actually PERFECT in not pointing the finger because they had seen the State's case.

The defense's job, since America has generally thrown "innocent until proven guilty" out the window and made it "we only hold the guilty ones on remand", is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their CLIENT did not do it. And in this case, that involves shedding doubt of some kind on the bulk of what the prosecution presents.

IMO, the prosecution here has torpedoed their own case and it's starting to show through in the sloppiness. If I were a juror and Howard Kurtz had told me in the opening that mistakes were made and sloppiness was involved in the investigation, AND I were then given the opportunity to see things like say: a deputy sheriff inadvertently being called out on a subpoena issue OR a chunk of testimony not allowed being shown and everyone causing a hub-bub then the judge telling me to ignore it OR a blackberry REALLY did lose all it's data in the course of the investigation, I would start to go....what in the world is going on here? Those things aren't conscious. They just happened. They CAN'T be part of the defense, can they?

Also, did anybody else think Gess was EXCEPTIONALLY specific on telling the juror's the "no contact and don't initiate" speech this Friday?

 

[sunshine05]

Well, maybe when Brad's side gets to present evidence all of your conspiracy theories will be played out by him. Because surely if there is any chance at all that he could point the finger to someone else he would - in fact, it's so funny to me that in all this time Brad never once said he suspected anyone in their circle, in their neighborhood, in their friends, in his co-workers. If he knew, as the defense says and the group of SODDI on here say, that he was targeted from day one by the police then don't you know he'd be throwing anybody under the bus that had a remote chance of having done this to Nancy. No, he cooked up the stranger abduction/rapist/killer story before he dumped the body, hence the sports bra and running story, and he had to stick with it from then on out. He said she went running - therefore stranger had to have done it. He made a veiled attempt at a slight chance of suspicion on CC, but that didn't float past the first minute. She was accounted for at 7 a.m. apparently with an alibi. If he or his defense team have any minute, teeny, tiny, obscure piece of evidence that someone they knew did this to Nancy they will shout it from the top of the courthouse when they have their turn. I'll wait on it, but I won't hold my breath.

First, I don't think BC cooked up any story about strangers/abductions, etc. Nobody cooked up any stories except JA - the painting story. And BC did say she was lying, actually he said "they" were lying, referring to the "clique" circle. It was not the job of the defense attorneys to try to track down the real killer, the detectives and the police were supposed to be doing that. It was their responsibility and they clearly failed. There will be no justice for Nancy and her family if they put the wrong guy in prison.

 

[johnfear]

I just looked them up and read them and, did I see that correctly that they both have the same date? (7/23/08)

It makes no sense to write two documents that completely contradict each other! And I thought it was interesting that M and NC went on vacation together without C and BC. That is so odd.

Does that invalidate him as a witness?

 

[Just the Fax]

Right, but from where I am sitting, that portion is not the defense's job. I think they were actually PERFECT in not pointing the finger because they had seen the State's case.

The defense's job, since America has generally thrown "innocent until proven guilty" out the window and made it "we only hold the guilty ones on remand", is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their CLIENT did not do it. And in this case, that involves shedding doubt of some kind on the bulk of what the prosecution presents.

IMO, the prosecution here has torpedoed their own case and it's starting to show through in the sloppiness. If I were a juror and Howard Kurtz had told me in the opening that mistakes were made and sloppiness was involved in the investigation, AND I were then given the opportunity to see things like say: a deputy sheriff inadvertently being called out on a subpoena issue OR a chunk of testimony not allowed being shown and everyone causing a hub-bub then the judge telling me to ignore it OR a blackberry REALLY did lose all it's data in the course of the investigation, I would start to go....what in the world is going on here? Those things aren't conscious. They just happened. They CAN'T be part of the defense, can they?

Also, did anybody else think Gess was EXCEPTIONALLY specific on telling the juror's the "no contact and don't initiate" speech this Friday?

2 1/2 days is a long time.
He has been extra firm every Friday afternoon.

Kurtz didn't just say sloppy...he said inept and corrupt.
That was a big mistake.

 

[cityslick]

I read MM affidavits and you are correct, they are both pretty different.

 

[NCEast]

Right, but from where I am sitting, that portion is not the defense's job. I think they were actually PERFECT in not pointing the finger because they had seen the State's case.

The defense's job, since America has generally thrown "innocent until proven guilty" out the window and made it "we only hold the guilty ones on remand", is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their CLIENT did not do it. And in this case, that involves shedding doubt of some kind on the bulk of what the prosecution presents.

IMO, the prosecution here has torpedoed their own case and it's starting to show through in the sloppiness. If I were a juror and Howard Kurtz had told me in the opening that mistakes were made and sloppiness was involved in the investigation, AND I were then given the opportunity to see things like say: a deputy sheriff inadvertently being called out on a subpoena issue OR a chunk of testimony not allowed being shown and everyone causing a hub-bub then the judge telling me to ignore it OR a blackberry REALLY did lose all it's data in the course of the investigation, I would start to go....what in the world is going on here? Those things aren't conscious. They just happened. They CAN'T be part of the defense, can they?

Also, did anybody else think Gess was EXCEPTIONALLY specific on telling the juror's the "no contact and don't initiate" speech this Friday?

Bless my soul, I just can't get a grip on what you are saying JF. Your thoughts above sound like the entire Lochmere circle of friends as well as the CPD with some extras thrown in killed Nancy and are in it together and are conspiring to cover it up....and I know you don't mean that. Maybe I'm just too dumb to read between the lines.
And yes, I too, noted a slight stacatto in Judge Gessner's instructions to the jury this afternoon....and it raised my curiosity.

 

[Just the Fax]

So what's up with the deputy being subpoenaed?
If there was suspected juror misconduct, that would be immediately addressed before any further testimony.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I just looked them up and read them and, did I see that correctly that they both have the same date? (7/23/08)

It makes no sense to write two documents that completely contradict each other! And I thought it was interesting that M and NC went on vacation together without C and BC. That is so odd.

Yeah I thought that was odd too.

 

[Palomine]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2010-2011/aquestionofinnocence/

 

[less0305]

Oh, I was just saying that if it's so obvious that someone in the clique did this that surely it will come out when the defense takes over their portion of the trial. And then I was only commenting that it's funny so many people here argue a point that Brad never argued himself - not from the first days, not from the first month, not from the first months before anyone was charged to go down to the police department and say, "Hey, you know what is fishy? Do you know what is odd about this whole thing? Do you know who is not telling the truth? So-and-so!!!" Can you PLEASE look into so-and-so's story, so-and-so's alibi, so-and-so's actions, because man, you think I did this, but I'm telling you there's a problem here with so-and-so." Never once!

 

[LyndyLoo]

Does that invalidate him as a witness?

Apologise..but just how does this person fit into this cas?..I have been so side tracked today..I missed most of it..just a synopsys would be helpful for me TYIA :waitasec::waitasec:

 

[SleuthinNC]

First, I don't think BC cooked up any story about strangers/abductions, etc. Nobody cooked up any stories except JA - the painting story. And BC did say she was lying, actually he said "they" were lying, referring to the "clique" circle. It was not the job of the defense attorneys to try to track down the real killer, the detectives and the police were supposed to be doing that. It was their responsibility and they clearly failed. There will be no justice for Nancy and her family if they put the wrong guy in prison.

Mike Hiller and Scott Heider also said JA was lying. I hear all the time on here that BC had no friends, in my opinion MH and SH are true friends because they stuck by him when everybody else was throwing him under the bus.

 

[BrownRice]

Has anyone read the front page of the newspaper today? The trial article gives the woman's name BC had the affair with, the activities they engaged in, where they engaged in the activity.

This group is one thing but the entire readership of the local paper. Oh my.

How does one go through this and remain in the area. It is horrible and the name recognition after the trial - well I would have to change my name and probably move cross country.

One should try to live a more honorable life and not worry about these things. I have NO sympathy for her at all.

 

[cityslick]

Oh, I was just saying that if it's so obvious that someone in the clique did this that surely it will come out when the defense takes over their portion of the trial. And then I was only commenting that it's funny so many people here argue a point that Brad never argued himself - not from the first days, not from the first month, not from the first months before anyone was charged to go down to the police department and say, "Hey, you know what is fishy? Do you know what is odd about this whole thing? Do you know who is not telling the truth? So-and-so!!!" Can you PLEASE look into so-and-so's story, so-and-so's alibi, so-and-so's actions, because man, you think I did this, but I'm telling you there's a problem here with so-and-so." Never once!

Not that this has anything to do with anything, but didn't BC hire a private investigator on his own?

 

[SleuthinNC]

Does that invalidate him as a witness?

It should.

 

[less0305]

Right, but from where I am sitting, that portion is not the defense's job. I think they were actually PERFECT in not pointing the finger because they had seen the State's case.

The defense's job, since America has generally thrown "innocent until proven guilty" out the window and made it "we only hold the guilty ones on remand", is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their CLIENT did not do it. And in this case, that involves shedding doubt of some kind on the bulk of what the prosecution presents.

IMO, the prosecution here has torpedoed their own case and it's starting to show through in the sloppiness. If I were a juror and Howard Kurtz had told me in the opening that mistakes were made and sloppiness was involved in the investigation, AND I were then given the opportunity to see things like say: a deputy sheriff inadvertently being called out on a subpoena issue OR a chunk of testimony not allowed being shown and everyone causing a hub-bub then the judge telling me to ignore it OR a blackberry REALLY did lose all it's data in the course of the investigation, I would start to go....what in the world is going on here? Those things aren't conscious. They just happened. They CAN'T be part of the defense, can they?

Also, did anybody else think Gess was EXCEPTIONALLY specific on telling the juror's the "no contact and don't initiate" speech this Friday?

So rather than point the finger and put the REAL killer in jail, you just sit back and try to confuse a jury, talk in circles, object 40,000 times, quote that BC's this right and that right is being validated and not tell one single soul this information that is so obvious and hope to God the jury isn't a bunch of dumb rocks that actually might believe the prosecution's theory and witness and convict your client of first degree murder??!!! That makes no sense. No, if they had one scintilla of evidence that one of the clique or neighbors or friends or acquaintances did this Brad would have had an appointment with the police department WITH his attorney and they would have given that info to the police. They don't have it. They simply don't have it. Everybody else checks out and is not a suspect.

 

[sunshine05]

Oh, I was just saying that if it's so obvious that someone in the clique did this that surely it will come out when the defense takes over their portion of the trial. And then I was only commenting that it's funny so many people here argue a point that Brad never argued himself - not from the first days, not from the first month, not from the first months before anyone was charged to go down to the police department and say, "Hey, you know what is fishy? Do you know what is odd about this whole thing? Do you know who is not telling the truth? So-and-so!!!" Can you PLEASE look into so-and-so's story, so-and-so's alibi, so-and-so's actions, because man, you think I did this, but I'm telling you there's a problem here with so-and-so." Never once!

I'm not saying someone in the "clique" did this. I believe some of them know more to this than they are admitting.

 

[Just the Fax]

I never paid much attention to those affidavits early in the custody case .

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2008/7/24/20080724_cooperstatements.pdf

1. Affidavit Scott Heider

2. Affidavit Kathy Dorr

3. Affidavit Tracey VanCott

4. Affidavit Terry Cooper

5. Affidavit Paul Dittner

6. Affidavit Chris Wall

7. Affidavit Michael Morwick

8. Affidavit Carol Cooper

9. Affidavit Mike Hiller

10. Affidavit Grant Cooper

11. Rebuttal Affidavit Scott Heider

 

[LyndyLoo]

Oh, I was just saying that if it's so obvious that someone in the clique did this that surely it will come out when the defense takes over their portion of the trial. And then I was only commenting that it's funny so many people here argue a point that Brad never argued himself - not from the first days, not from the first month, not from the first months before anyone was charged to go down to the police department and say, "Hey, you know what is fishy? Do you know what is odd about this whole thing? Do you know who is not telling the truth? So-and-so!!!" Can you PLEASE look into so-and-so's story, so-and-so's alibi, so-and-so's actions, because man, you think I did this, but I'm telling you there's a problem here with so-and-so." Never once!

I really do not think the defense HAS TO prove who else did it..Only reasonableness of someone else could have done it..Saying it doesnt make it so, suggesting it, doesnt make it so, but what they really need do is show that Brad couldnt have done it because he had no opportunity, means or motive to do it. Unfortunately for Brad, IF that 0640AM phone call is proven to have been "Self Sent" to his phone..he is in big do do...It would just show he was trying to create an alibi for something he wouldnt do???...Why would one send or create such a call unless it was to coverup something??

Not trying to argue Brads guilt or innocence..but what Defense teams need to do when mitigating al the circumstantial items being thrown at them :truce: