The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[borndem]

Many criminal defense firms retain a full-time PI.
Who can't forget the famous Paul Drake

Thanks for that -- We boomers certainly remember him -- and I remember the DA -- Hamilton Burger. (always chuckled at his name -- I was a kid). Drake was a cool drink of water -- he always had an off-balance remark... Drake was played by William Hopper -- son of Hedda Hopper.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Yes, MP has a "medium" custody classification, and Nash is a medium security facility. :behindbar

Thanks for the pix!

A murderer can be classified to be placed into a medium security prison. Before I retired, I was a Booking/Classification Lieutenant. I was over the Booking Department and was also in Classifications.

Brad Cooper murdered his wife. Had he (example) murdered a stranger, not known his victim, or even went on the prowl for a victim to violently murder, he would be classified as 'violent' (also see below example). I know this would not seem right due to the way he murdered Nancy and left her at Fielding Drive almost naked except for a rolled up sports bra, but there you are. Had he cut her throat, or even left a bloody crime scene, he would then be considered violent.

In classifying an inmate, whether or not he is a threat to other inmates is a factor. He will be housed with inmates who do not go out and randomly murder. He will not be a threat to other inmates because he cowardly murdered his wife. I doubt Brad Cooper will accost another inmate. He will be considered cowardly by other inmates because he murdered his wife, a woman. The only way a prison gang would even want to recruit BC would be on the lowest rung and only to do their fetching and carrying, IMO. Even they would consider him a coward, IMHO.

Brad Cooper will not have an easy life in prison, IMO. His days of sitting in a courtroom in a business suit drinking coffee brought to him by his defense team are over. BTW, in Louisiana, an inmate in court can drink from the water pitcher at the defense table, but would not be allowed to touch/drink anything brought in from the outside. His smirks will not be regarded well in prison and he will need to keep to himself at the beginning. After a while, BC will find his niche in prison. I predict he will become a 'prison lawyer'. The more intelligent/nerdy ones usually do. It doesn't require any legal expertise, but it does require intelligence. He will look up law and help write appeals on smaller cases where the inmate does not have a lawyer. In his own case, BC will have an appeals lawyer and it may be turned down altogether. I suspect it will be.

Anyway, this is my :twocents: worth and my last post on the subject. I have always thought BC guilty and am pleased he is where he belongs - in prison. I would think he is in PC right now because he was just sentenced to LWOP and if he has ever had suicidal thoughts, now would be the time he would be having them, IMO. All sentenced inmates are in Isolation or in a small holding cell with maybe one or two other inmates until classified.

I can only speak for the way it is in Louisiana.

I have enjoyed posting with all of you and will hopefully do so again on another case!

:seeya:

 

[gracielee]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10150669-38.html

I'm listening to an old Dateline on TLCHD, 2010, Justin Barber, and how google searches resulted in his conviction for first degree murder of his wife.

 

[macd]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/video/9524242/#/vid9524242

Comment begins at 16:00. Trenkle's comments explain my statement.

There's more here than meets the eye.

1) A poster who seems to be in-the-know said that the defense spent their expert budget on jury selection.

2) Trenkle was arguing about Cisco evidence. There was much discussion about Cisco VPN logs. The VPN logs were never mentioned in open court, but they exist. If there is a second trial, they'll be in the original discovery.

3) The windows system event log information was allowed by the judge, but never presented in court. It shows a call-spoofing-capable router being configured in the house on 7/11/08 at 10:21pm, but that router was not there when police arrived. If there is a second trial, this evidence will be front and center.

Trenkle was arguing to keep out information, that the prosecution, in the end, decided not to present.

If an appeal gives BC a second trial... he'll have a bigger mountain of digital circumstantial evidence to scale the second time. If that happens, maybe they'll spare us the neighborhood drama testimony.

 

[RPD]

I've been asking this question for a very long time. Perhaps some of the legal team who has been posting here would answer that question. :innocent:

The jury selection was not that selective. What would normally take 3 days, took 5 1/2 because it proved difficult to find 12 jurors that were able to commit to a 2 month trial. A jury consultant was a no go on this indigent defense budget.

 

[borndem]

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/ids/

info from the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services

Here's something interesting from that website:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Public Defenders[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Public Defenders are full-time, state-paid attorneys whose function is to represent indigent criminal defendants and indigent respondents in civil cases in which there is a right to counsel. If a defendant cannot afford an attorney and is accused of a crime that could result in imprisonment, the defendant is eligible for the services of a lawyer at state expense. If the defendant is found guilty, he or she must pay back the money spent on his or her defense. Sixteen districts in the state have Public Defenders.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]===> [/FONT]http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/ids/


Red bold by me.


Interesting...

 

[Tink56]

Here's something interesting from that website:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Public Defenders[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Public Defenders are full-time, state-paid attorneys whose function is to represent indigent criminal defendants and indigent respondents in civil cases in which there is a right to counsel. If a defendant cannot afford an attorney and is accused of a crime that could result in imprisonment, the defendant is eligible for the services of a lawyer at state expense. If the defendant is found guilty, he or she must pay back the money spent on his or her defense. Sixteen districts in the state have Public Defenders.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]===> [/FONT]http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/ids/


Red bold by me.


Interesting...

Are prisoners paid in prison? If not, this directive probably isn't effective for those sentenced to life with no possiblity of parole....

 

[borndem]

Ignored, you say? :great: I'm guessing the jury didn't *ignore* it though. Wonder what was on the menu tonight at central prison? :fence: Does brad get a roomie if he's in general population? And what trial are we moving on to next? :seeya:

Many WS'ers, including me, are returning to the Jason/Michelle Young case since his murder trial will start soon. It's already on WS from back when all of this started. Michelle Young was brutally beaten to death in their home while their 3 (??) year old daughter was there. This case will have some direct evidence such as bloody footprints of a man's shoes and a little girl's bare feet. Oh, she was badly, badly beaten and hubby was out of town on business... :no: :shakehead:

 

[borndem]

And still, not a peep out of him about the verdict? Really strange. Usually all the lawyers comment. Kurtz is certainly making the most of his 15 minutes of fame.

JMO, but I don't think Trenkle operates that way...

 

[cody100]

Why didn't the defense use an expert from Brad's work (Cisco) surely that wouldn't have cost that much

They would not have been alowed to testify because they were not forensically qualified. Remember JW?

 

[cody100]

Kurtz was looking for a specific answer.
Cisco is a very reputable firm.

Again, do you really think BZ would allow a non-forensic person to testify? He was going to fight exposing any close scrutiny of the computer at all cost so only a forensic expert was going to get a remote crack at revealing exactly what is on that computer. Cisco is a reputable firm, but they aren't forensically qualified.

 

[cody100]

BBM

I believe the blackout was because the LE witness might need to go undercover in the future. Wish they had at least allowed audio. Silly since it was open court and there are pictures that are likely of them.

The National Security argument was the basis for denying the defense any way to evaluate or contest the work products provided by the FBI. This violates the defendant's rights under Article VI and the 6th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution. (You heard K object on these grounds repeatedly.) If let stand, this one seemingly tiny exception is enough to deprive you of all your other rights and protections.

To show how this works, let's further restrict the N.S. exception to apply just to the forensic analysis of computers, including disks and their content. Now suppose that under a valid search warrant the police and FBI perform a computer forensic analysis of your laptop and its disk. You are suddenly arrested for possession of child *advertiser censored*, distribution, money laundering, wire fraud, and lots of other charges. (Your assets might be seized or forfeited, and even if charges are dropped or you are found NG, you have no guarantee to regain your former assets.)

In court, the FBI testifies that they analyzed you computer and were able to recover the hidden files presented into evidence against you. "Where are these files? The defense is unable to find this evidence on its forensic copy of the disk? The defense requests the prosecution provide its processes and methods for examination and evaluation by defense. Objection -- National Defense. You can trust the FBI. Sustained.

Defense objects on grounds the submitted files lack proper foundation no basis established supporting State's claim the submitted files are derived and flow from the defendant's computer disk already in evidence. These files could be from anywhere. Overruled. Files recovered from defendants disk are admitted into evidence. Objection, denial of defendants Constituional rights. Overruled.

The State has already provided to Defense a forensic copy of the disk with all the data, and placed in evidence the files recovered from it by the FBI. The defense claims their expert needs us to provide detailed instructions on how to do his job. The State is not responsible for the Defendant's choice of expert witnesses, nor for him lacking the adequate qualifications, skills, or tools.

Who will they believe? The FBI forensic expert and the files he recovered, or a filthy lying scum like you -- denying you did it, expecting us to believe you're being framed. You are sick and disgusting. You can't fool us. You aren't ever going to get out or be allowed anywhere near another child ever again.

Just one missing link in the chain of evidence.

Again thank you for such a well thought out post. Indeed, you have targeted exactly the core of what upsets a lot of folks who are not necessarily BC supporters but folks who believe in the right of the defendant to all methods, means, and notes used to obtain results of prosecution witnesses. Hiding behind the NS act in a court of law most definitely seems convenient for the FBI witness and certainly for the prosecution. So, after long delays, the defense finally receives some bits and pieces of the work product but the defense is not privy to much information because of the NS act. Yet, the defense must jump through hoops to present any rebuttal witness. BC was deprived of his 6th and 14th amendement rights IMO. And, to add insult to this, it seems outrageous to not allow the defense to use a forensically qualified expert to testify to what he found. If the State had nothing to hide on that computer, then why the extreme objections for a counter opinion on the findings. Whether having all of this information would make a difference in the jury decision, but it would make many citizens feel better about our legal system. And, the scenario posted by UNC70 is not so far fetched as one would suspect. Just hope it does not happen to you. I think we need to re-evaluate our handling of digital evidence in criminal courts within this country. IMOO

 

[cody100]

Who said anything about the timing? You are the first I have heard mention that.

Me too. I had no clue when it was. Perhaps that was on an alternative site. I have not seen any comments negative about the timing on this site. DV is horrible. I am glad to see this event take place.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Well folks, seems the sun has about set on Brad Cooper's crime & trial. Don't know about most of you guys, but for me it's high time to saddle up my donkey and clip-clop outta here. My closing opinion (only) follows ... er ... for those interested, that is.

1. The right killer was identified.
2. The wrong person was murdered.
3. The right verdict was rendered by an unbiased jury of 12 of BC's peers.
4. The wrong tech experts presented by Kurtz
5. The right court procedures were followed
6. The wrong methods of Kurtz updating his statements (bloggers!) adopted.
7. The right to his life requested by Rentz family (no DP)
8. The wrong reasons for appeal will likely fail
9. The right city can be proud of their law enforcement / prosecution team
10. The wrong deed of murder is *never* an option.

The trial is over. The evidence clean and appropriate. Kurtz brought in his experts too late; it is not the fault of the American Justice System that, despite over 30 months preparation, he decides (probably via bloggers, heaven help us) to introduce a late witness at 11th hour. It is also not the USA Justice System's fault that Kurtz's "expert" was only partially qualified.

In addition, I am convinced US Judges do *not* have to be experts in every single commercial field on the planet. Their job is to ensure court proceedings, protocol and preliminary happenstance is conducted in such a manner that is fair, unbiased and systematically appropriate to the case. The Judge, therefore, relies on the defense and prosecution to do *their* jobs properly. That faith must be rendered to the court unconditionally - not doing so is a failure on the part of the relevant legal teams. To blame the Judge after the horse has bolted (in the wrong direction as anticipated) is ludicrous, IMO.

Equally, offering evidence after the fact is moot. Trenkle & Kurtz, IMO, is the office where such passionate complaints should be addressed - not to those accepting and knowing Brad Cooper was guilty and received his just desserts.

Fighting, hating, arguing with "the other camp" is not going to bring Brad Cooper back into the society he once knew and enjoyed - before his callous, calculated and controlling cunning caused him to commit such a heinous murder. Resent is never, ever going to "make it better" (as kids sweetly say so often) for B & K and their future lives. Love, as has been enveloped around them by K-Mom and the Rentz family, is the one most powerful asset those 2 sweet little girls have to ensure they continue a wonderful lifetime ahead of them.

May Brad's monstrous deed send out a very, very strong message to society that there are alternatives. That there is no such thing as the perfect crime and no matter *how* intelligent these murderers believe they are - there is a God. And He shalt Judge, if not on Earth, then in Heaven. God gave us our society as a precious gift - and He encourages us to use the tools of life to examine and follow a decent, moral and sanctified world. Those tools were well oiled in this trial, I believe. You see, I don't believe God gets off on "a technical hitch". He gets off on truth, might and power. The power we have as individuals to serve a good life - not a perfect life - but a good life.

Millions of relationships end regularly in an acrimonious fashion. However, stepping outside the bounds of "typical arguments / fighting" and entering a lethal level of eliminating someone through avarice, revenge and control is a whole new ball-game.

Brad Cooper's evil and very lengthy, ongoing deception, manipulation and coveting character brought him to the gates of judgment. NO-ONE else had the means, the motive and the opportunity to do what he did. Phase II of The Life & Times of Bradly Graham Cooper has just begun. A phase only he may have prevented.

Life's poetic justice has returned to give Brad what he couldn't handle - yet dished ut. NC was always looking over her shoulder, sleeping, running and living with her keys - not knowing where the next ambush would be - until the last one struck. Now it's Brad's turn to constantly live a life of fear, for it will be him looking over his shoulder - not knowing who is snooping on him .... or ready to pounce. Poetic justice. Indeed.

Good enough for most of us. Closure? Maybe not. Justice? Yyyyyip.

Looking forward to all of you watching Michelle and Baby Rylan receive equal justice.

Polk ... and for Nancy: :blowkiss:

 

[Danielle59]

BC had access to the laptop from 7.11.08 until 7.17.08, is this true? Did he bring it home on the evening of 7.11.08?

CPD secured the house on 7/15.

 

[Danielle59]

The laptop was connected to the Cisco corporate network via VPN for 27 hours, starting from when the house was seized via search warrant through when the CPD computer experts arrived to collect the computers.

During that time, lots of automated processes would have happened: email downloads, data back-ups, software updates, and hard drive defragmentation.

The FBI witness said he looked at everyone of the 691 file changes and attributed them all to automatic processes.

GM said that, to him, "tampering" is the same as "spoilation" and "spoilation" is the change of any bit on a hard drive while in custody. When asked about updates, he said "nothing from Microsoft". Well, it came from Cisco IT. Nice choice of words.

Yes, it's too bad that the computer was left on, running, connected to a network, and VPNed to Cisco while in custody. But, that was the way Brad left it. And CPD process was to leave everything be until the computer trained officers could come.

Something else to think about: the computer was connected to VPN for those 27 hours. That kills the "boot with a linux CD and copy files idea", because rebooting would kill the VPN connection.
For the "plug a USB drive in" idea: what is in the windows system event log? If you plug something in, there would be a log. There is a log of someone configuring the IP address of a router at 10:21pm. Is there a log of someone attaching external media?

No it doesn't because of the router that he did have. The router that they showed was one that would not require him to do anything more than turn his computer on as if he was right at the office. No additional steps through the VPN were required.

 

[Danielle59]

There's more here than meets the eye.

1) A poster who seems to be in-the-know said that the defense spent their expert budget on jury selection.

2) Trenkle was arguing about Cisco evidence. There was much discussion about Cisco VPN logs. The VPN logs were never mentioned in open court, but they exist. If there is a second trial, they'll be in the original discovery.

3) The windows system event log information was allowed by the judge, but never presented in court. It shows a call-spoofing-capable router being configured in the house on 7/11/08 at 10:21pm, but that router was not there when police arrived. If there is a second trial, this evidence will be front and center.

Trenkle was arguing to keep out information, that the prosecution, in the end, decided not to present.

If an appeal gives BC a second trial... he'll have a bigger mountain of digital circumstantial evidence to scale the second time. If that happens, maybe they'll spare us the neighborhood drama testimony.

The only thing you know about that bolded part is what what Boz said. You don't know if it would have been found to be something else on cross. You don't know why Pros decided to not present it. You are hoping that what you are saying is exactly how it happened, but you don't know.

 

[misstibbs]

Consciousness of guilt

I am not blaming Brad's family in any way for what has transpired but I believe they knew he was guilty and that a lot of what we saw during the trial was for show. They did not have a relationship with Brad or Nancy and when they heard the news that Nancy was deceased, yes, they came to Cary, but they traveled for several days without trying to even call Brad to tell him they were coming. To tell him that they loved him and they were doing everything they could to get to him and his girls as quickly as possible.

Brad admitted during the deposition that he did not know the name of his only brother's child. Bella and Katie's only cousin on the Cooper side of the family and he doesn't even know the child's name? Safe to assume they did not send birthday cards/gifts.

And everyone loved Nancy...so why didn't Brad's family? Even if Brad was socially inept we know that Nancy was a wonderful mother and loved by all so what was the issue w/ Brad's family?

For their sakes I hope they take the Rentz family up on their generous offer for visitation but I am not sure that they will. I believe they will just go back to Canada and move on.

 

[Danielle59]

So that promotion that someone got that people assumed had to have been one of the ADAs? It wasn't. It was Trenkle.

What are you talking about? Where did Trenkle get a promotion, he is a partner in a law firm, not much higher he could go than partner in his own law firm. Boz got the promotion, not Trenkle.

 

[Danielle59]

I am not blaming Brad's family in any way for what has transpired but I believe they knew he was guilty and that a lot of what we saw during the trial was for show. They did not have a relationship with Brad or Nancy and when they heard the news that Nancy was deceased, yes, they came to Cary, but they traveled for several days without trying to even call Brad to tell him they were coming. To tell him that they loved him and they were doing everything they could to get to him and his girls as quickly as possible.

Brad admitted during the deposition that he did not know the name of his only brother's child. Bella and Katie's only cousin on the Cooper side of the family and he doesn't even know the child's name? Safe to assume they did not send birthday cards/gifts.

And everyone loved Nancy...so why didn't Brad's family? Even if Brad was socially inept we know that Nancy was a wonderful mother and loved by all so what was the issue w/ Brad's family?

For their sakes I hope they take the Rentz family up on their generous offer for visitation but I am not sure that they will. I believe they will just go back to Canada and move on.

You have written a lot of supposition in your post, things you are posting as fact without knowing if it is. The Coopers said they did have a relationship with BC and NC, they had stayed there and vice versa. They may not have been as close knit of a family as the Rentz's but to assume that they didn't like NC, or that they had no relationship is not fact in any manner.

So what he didn't know the name of his nephew he had never seen, may NC knew the name, and maybe they did send cards. You have no clue about these things.