Brad Cooper April 1st Weekend

[jmflu]

It's in an odd part of one of the S/W (maybe for the Compact Flash card? or a phone) and I believe it is outlined in the probable cause portion sort of off-handedly. It could even be the later warrant that has the various google account/Adventures of Brad information.

I will dig around. It does state either that he accessed or read her emails. I am guessing at the times...but I think two times were earlier in the day and one time was later in the day. (NO, third time was the 10:30 or 10:13 PM one)

I wonder if they checked to see if he "monitored" her emails between Saturday at noon and when her body was found? (sorry for the K and B questament.) That would be BIG. Monitor, monitor, monitor, STOP.

That is a very interesting question!!!

 

[SleuthSayer]

I realize that many of the people here have convicted him and probably feel as you do. Again that is your choice. I am just glad that you are not on the jury. And if you thik close enough in this case is justice, you are kidding yourself.

I never said that this is how I would vote were I on the jury. But, it's my opinion that people like you and I who are willing to wait to see all of the evidence and non-evidence before forming an opinion are in the vast minority. I suspect that what you see here is fairly representative of the population. Particularly when you look at the makeup of this particular jury.

If you go back and look at the posts from Aug 08 you will see that many people were sure that Brad did it when all that was known was about the puzzling Harris Teeter visits and the fact that they were discussing separation.

I could see a hung jury with one or two holdouts, but I can't imagine a 'not guilty'.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Where did you get the info about the receipts? I thought he took her credit cards away so how could there be a NC receipt? The only one that I'm aware of that's been mentioned in court was the BC one that was shown when he was questioning JA.

I believe it was during Det. Young's testimony. It was either the actual receipts or the store records but I am fairly certain it was receipts and he kept saying "Sherman Williams"

 

[BrownRice]

Are you talking about a Home Depot account or??

It was Sherwin Williams. My assumption was they had a "charge" account there (would go in and pick paint/supplies and would be billed later). I don't recall hearing that testimony, but assumed it because of the receipts.

 

[Cheyenne130]

I am pretty certain he couldn't get into the text messages on her phone. She had it locked. The emails he could see. And yes, he could have been tipped over the edge that night.

He might not have been able to access the actual messages but as the account owner he could have looked to see what numbers she was contacting or what numbers where contacting her, when and for how many minutes.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I think that if you believe that this is the criteria by which this case will be decided, you are kidding yourself. It's nice to say the "innocent until proven guilty" stuff because it's the right thing to say and it's interesting to discuss theoretically whether the case has been proven. But after the first few days of the trial this turned in to a case of Brad having to prove that he didn't do it.

As many here have said, it's always the husband in cases like this. The jury knows that too. So, that's the baseline assumption. Then as soon as they heard that there were marriage problems (motive) and that Brad had no solid alibi (opportunity), it became the defense's challenge to prove that he's innocent.

After hearing from Nancy's mother's emotional testimony and seeing photos of Nancy and the kids, the jury is going to want to see someone punished for her murder. As long as it seems likely that Brad did it, they are not going to let him walk just because the DA's failed to prove it. They know that it's not like if they find him not guilty the Cary police are going to say "ok, I guess he didn't do it" and go out looking for someone else. So, if they don't find Brad guilty, Nancy's murder will go unpunished. They are human, they won't let that happen.

It's just like 90% of the people here. Even without a "smoking gun", the only thing that would make them believe that Brad didn't do it is if somehow the defense proved that he couldn't have done it. The onus has been on the defense from the beginning.

As I said, I think that he probably did it and that's going to be close enough in this case.

I tend to believe you are correct that the jury may convict over no justice at all which is unfortunately very sad. The only thing I think BC may have going in his favor in that event is that there are so many eyes on this trial.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Well, it's obvious we are only completely different sides of this thing! We shall see.

I'm not on a "side'. And I never said how I would vote if I were on a jury. It's just from reading this board a bunch back in '08 and then again since the trial started, I have concluded that this is how the majority of folks think. Many here will say that they have decided on his guilt after having seen all of the search warrants, affidavits, depositions, etc. But, if you go back and look in '08, you'll see some of these same names as people who had decided that he was guilty before any of that stuff came out.

I believe that this is not all that unusual for the population at large.

 

[NCEast]

I never said that this is how I would vote were I on the jury. But, it's my opinion that people like you and I who are willing to wait to see all of the evidence and non-evidence before forming an opinion are in the vast minority. I suspect that what you see here is fairly representative of the population. Particularly when you look at the makeup of this particular jury.

If you go back and look at the posts from Aug 08 you will see that many people were sure that Brad did it when all that was known was about the puzzling Harris Teeter visits and the fact that they were discussing separation.

I could see a hung jury with one or two holdouts, but I can't imagine a 'not guilty'.

I just finished watching the ADA's opening statement again and as she closes she asks the jury to bring with them to this case the same common sense that they use in their everyday lives. As we have said so many times previously, there may not be a smoking gun (yet) but there are so many lies and inconsistencies in this case and when they are added up they paint a pretty clear picture.

 

[sunshine05]

I believe it was during Det. Young's testimony. It was either the actual receipts or the store records but I am fairly certain it was receipts and he kept saying "Sherman Williams"

LOL! "Sherman Williams" I used to be a chemist/paint formulator for them and I always got that. I guess it's tough for people to say "Sher-win"

Thanks. When he showed the receipt to JA for the paint for them, she confirmed that it had his name on that specific receipt for the paint for her house at least.

 

[sunshine05]

I'm not on a "side'. And I never said how I would vote if I were on a jury. It's just from reading this board a bunch back in '08 and then again since the trial started, I have concluded that this is how the majority of folks think. Many here will say that they have decided on his guilt after having seen all of the search warrants, affidavits, depositions, etc. But, if you go back and look in '08, you'll see some of these same names as people who had decided that he was guilty before any of that stuff came out.

I believe that this is not all that unusual for the population at large.

Okay. I did got back and read your old posts so I think I see where you're coming from now. I do so hope you are wrong about this though.

 

[SleuthSayer]

I tend to believe you are correct that the jury may convict over no justice at all which is unfortunately very sad. The only thing I think BC may have going in his favor in that event is that there are so many eyes on this trial.

Yeah, I think if you take one item, the phone call that appears to come from the house to his cell. Say hypothetically the prosecution can never prove that he spoofed that call or even that he had equipment at home to spoof it. On the surface, it would seem that based on that one thing it is "reasonable to doubt" the prosecution's timeline and hence their claim of what happened.

So, if the jury followed the letter of the law, it would seem that there's your reasonable doubt and hence you can't convict. But, I don't find it realistic to think that 12 people are going to all agree to let him walk just because one phone call can't be explained.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Yeah, I think if you take one item, the phone call that appears to come from the house to his cell. Say hypothetically the prosecution can never prove that he spoofed that call or even that he had equipment at home to spoof it. On the surface, it would seem that based on that one thing it is "reasonable to doubt" the prosecution's timeline and hence their claim of what happened.

So, if the jury followed the letter of the law, it would seem that there's your reasonable doubt and hence you can't convict. But, I don't find it realistic to think that 12 people are going to all agree to let him walk just because one phone call can't be explained.

It seems to be a stretch but it would be possible for a four year old child to push a speed dial button to call his phone. The 6:34 could have been "practice" and then have her call again after some sort of set time or when a commercial came on in her show. Like I said, I don't think this is what happened but there would be no way to rule it out. MOO

 

[less0305]

Are you talking about a Home Depot account or??

Lowe's and the local hardware.

 

[cityslick]

I'm not on a "side'. And I never said how I would vote if I were on a jury. It's just from reading this board a bunch back in '08 and then again since the trial started, I have concluded that this is how the majority of folks think. Many here will say that they have decided on his guilt after having seen all of the search warrants, affidavits, depositions, etc. But, if you go back and look in '08, you'll see some of these same names as people who had decided that he was guilty before any of that stuff came out.

I believe that this is not all that unusual for the population at large.

I'm not sure if you're in the area or not, but I'm fairly certain that if you polled 1000 people in the Raleigh-Durham area you'd probably have a 50-50 split on if they think he's guilty or not, perhaps leaning toward not guilty. This forum is not representive of the local area.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I would agree with you if this were a death penalty case -- and that is probably why they didn't pursue it as a DP case. That decision is a lot more difficult to make.

The state didn't pursue the case as a DP case because of the two little girls, the Rentz family didn't want it, and Brad had no prior criminal history (i.e. aggravating factors).

 

[SleuthyGal]

As for the charge of Murder One, the fact that Nancy was strangled and it takes several minutes for death to occur is enough all by itself to prove Murder in the first degree. Now, was there pre-planning in addition? We will find out.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Yeah, I think if you take one item, the phone call that appears to come from the house to his cell. Say hypothetically the prosecution can never prove that he spoofed that call or even that he had equipment at home to spoof it. On the surface, it would seem that based on that one thing it is "reasonable to doubt" the prosecution's timeline and hence their claim of what happened.

So, if the jury followed the letter of the law, it would seem that there's your reasonable doubt and hence you can't convict. But, I don't find it realistic to think that 12 people are going to all agree to let him walk just because one phone call can't be explained.

I agree.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I tend to believe you are correct that the jury may convict over no justice at all which is unfortunately very sad. The only thing I think BC may have going in his favor in that event is that there are so many eyes on this trial.

I don't believe the jury will convict without getting past reasonable doubt. Perhaps I have more faith in the system. If I were on a jury that's the standard I would hold the prosecution to before I could convict. 'Probably did it' is never good enough.

 

[DogWood]

It was Sherwin Williams. My assumption was they had a "charge" account there (would go in and pick paint/supplies and would be billed later). I don't recall hearing that testimony, but assumed it because of the receipts.

I still can't figure out why JA didn't buy the paint and pay Nancy for the labor.

JA said she liked a paint color that Nancy had used in her home - so they must have had it color matched at Sherwin Williams.

The paint Nancy used was from Restoration Hardware.

Here's Krista's affidavit in which she mentions the paint.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/10/03/3668370/26277-Oct._2_affidavit_of_Krista_Lister.pdf

 

[SleuthinNC]

I don't believe the jury will convict without getting past reasonable doubt. Perhaps I have more faith in the system. If I were on a jury that's the standard I would hold the prosecution to before I could convict. 'Probably did it' is never good enough.

I wish I had more faith in the system. I think there are too many people who simply believe if he was arrested and brought to trial he must be guilty. Personally I hope more solid evidence is shown but as of right now I don't think it is beyond a reasonable doubt but I'm not convinced that would result in not guilty.