Discussions with a juror

[cody100]

NCSU, thank you again for sharing this with us. I don't understand why some people want to continue to argue over this. What you have done for us is so amazing and extremely helpful. It is a glimpse into the jury room and to the heart of our judicial system. I sincerely hope the BDI and BII folks will stop their fighting and just let everyone be peaceful for a change. Please on our behalf, thank her for letting you talk with her.

 

[calgary123]

Great post ncsu, thanks. I'll only comment on the character witness issue since I have some direct knowledge.

The witnesses called near the end of the defense case (the friends who said they were friends to both Brad and Nancy, not just Nancy) were probably the best the defense could get.

In the custody deposition, the two guys he mentioned as childhood friends (Scott Lamar*h and Mike McKe*zie, and I don't need to look at the video to remind myself because I know who they are and how they know Brad, and discussed their shock at being named as such) were not childhood friends. SL was a drinking buddy at best who he met after high school, and MM was at best a friend from high school but whom had no friendship with BC but their parents were acquainted. (I've added astrixes for google search purposes, no need to expose the alleged friends, but watch the video their names are clear.)

For one of those, I can say for sure he would give a strongly negative character reference. The other would simply say, he didn't really know Brad.

I know 2 former girlfriends. I know and have spoken with one he lived with, and one he dated. They would both provide very negative character references. I also know about what another live in girlfriend has said, TL (initials intentional since she wasn't brought up much but was mentioned in the depositions... she was the first live with girlfriend) and she would also be a negative reference. What I've been told TL would say is second hand information to me.

In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.

 

[BrownRice]

In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.

I agree. If I am reading/watching a trial and a defendant who is being tried for a horrible crime (and heavy evidence is pointing towards him being guilty), I will just roll my eyes at the witnesses who say what a great guy he was. HOWEVER, in my opinion, it was very telling BC had none of these.

 

[ncsu95]

Great post ncsu, thanks. I'll only comment on the character witness issue since I have some direct knowledge.

The witnesses called near the end of the defense case (the friends who said they were friends to both Brad and Nancy, not just Nancy) were probably the best the defense could get.

In the custody deposition, the two guys he mentioned as childhood friends (Scott Lamar*h and Mike McKe*zie, and I don't need to look at the video to remind myself because I know who they are and how they know Brad, and discussed their shock at being named as such) were not childhood friends. SL was a drinking buddy at best who he met after high school, and MM was at best a friend from high school but whom had no friendship with BC but their parents were acquainted. (I've added astrixes for google search purposes, no need to expose the alleged friends, but watch the video their names are clear.)

For one of those, I can say for sure he would give a strongly negative character reference. The other would simply say, he didn't really know Brad.

I know 2 former girlfriends. I know and have spoken with one he lived with, and one he dated. They would both provide very negative character references. I also know about what another live in girlfriend has said, TL (initials intentional since she wasn't brought up much but was mentioned in the depositions... she was the first live with girlfriend) and she would also be a negative reference. What I've been told TL would say is second hand information to me.

In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.

That's about what I figured as well. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[macd]

If you do get a chance to talk to her again, please ask what the jury thought about the autopsy evidence. Did the red liquid and onion fragment in the stomach and the extra large blow fly larvae carry any weight? Or was this evidence dismissed as not precise enough?

 

[Madeleine74]

NCSU, if you get a chance to talk to her again, please tell her 'thank you' for sharing her thoughts and also please let her know that there are many people who are interested in hearing their thoughts, no matter what they are, and I (or perhaps we all) hope she and the rest of the jury will consider doing the Dateline interview.

Hearing the jurors speak in their own voices and in their own words is always the best way for the jurors' words to not be twisted by anyone else into something else (I'm not accusing you of doing this, btw, just making a general and broad statement). The jury were the only people whose opinions mattered in the case. Their verdict was unanimous, and no matter how poorly the state presented, they obviously could not discard the evidence which convinced them of Murder 1 beyond a reasonable doubt. That indicates the evidence they saw was strong and compelling.

 

[gracielee]

Great post ncsu, thanks. I'll only comment on the character witness issue since I have some direct knowledge.

The witnesses called near the end of the defense case (the friends who said they were friends to both Brad and Nancy, not just Nancy) were probably the best the defense could get.

In the custody deposition, the two guys he mentioned as childhood friends (Scott Lamar*h and Mike McKe*zie, and I don't need to look at the video to remind myself because I know who they are and how they know Brad, and discussed their shock at being named as such) were not childhood friends. SL was a drinking buddy at best who he met after high school, and MM was at best a friend from high school but whom had no friendship with BC but their parents were acquainted. (I've added astrixes for google search purposes, no need to expose the alleged friends, but watch the video their names are clear.)

For one of those, I can say for sure he would give a strongly negative character reference. The other would simply say, he didn't really know Brad.

I know 2 former girlfriends. I know and have spoken with one he lived with, and one he dated. They would both provide very negative character references. I also know about what another live in girlfriend has said, TL (initials intentional since she wasn't brought up much but was mentioned in the depositions... she was the first live with girlfriend) and she would also be a negative reference. What I've been told TL would say is second hand information to me.

In short, I don't think character references are much of anything regardless, but even if allowed they wouldn't have amounted to anything in favour of Brad.

Pretty much what I was going to comment about BC. Much like scott peterson being 'a good golfer', I don't think the defense could find anybody to use as a character reference. JMO, but from all I read here, and heard from Canada, it didn't appear Brad 'had a good reputation' in general. It wasn't simply that 'he was a loner' or 'quiet', it appeared he left *negative* impressions with most people he came into contact with.

 

[calgary123]

It wasn't simply that 'he was a loner' or 'quiet', it appeared he left *negative* impressions with most people he came into contact with.

That is accurate, but there's more to the story. From my experience at first he seemed like a good guy. He can actually be very gregarious in some situations. But in a short while I noticed things changed even within my circle of friends and he does things that make people withdraw from him, and him from them. I think this is why he did not have any long term friends -- not even one when I met him. I'm not saying this because I hate him or have an axe to grind, but I think its really sad. I do dislike him though and I'm sure that's come through in my posts since I joined.

Its not that he was a loner because he was quiet, he is not quiet. Case in point, he goes to France and manages to start a relationship with a pretty French girl he met in a large group. There were people who testified that were part of the large group but whom didn't go out in the evening social events. Brad did, that is his element, a new group of people he doesn't know. That's where he does best. So he's sociable but when things go wrong he broods. If he thinks people don't like him he withdraws. He is generally non-confrontational.

 

[fromageball]

At least one of the jurors (not her) is having a very hard time because they read all of the juror bashing going on at a different site. She read some of it and had to stop before it got her angry.

I can only speak for myself, as someone who was completely shocked at the verdict, but I have no negative feelings towards the jury members. My negative feelings are directed entirely at the CPD, prosecution, and judge in this case, and I've expressed them through the appropriate channels.

Ok that's not entirely true - I didn't think too much of the juror who sent the note about wanting his/her life back. I think that was uncalled for, even if I understood the sentiment, but I realize that person did not speak for the entire jury.

The jury imo did the best they could with what they had. I think you said something about the lady you know not wanting to appear on Dateline and I don't blame her at all - I wouldn't want to either. I'm kind of alarmed at how concerned the jury seems to be at public perception of them, or even concerns for their own safety.

I think a lot of the people who have reacted negatively to the verdict are extremely frustrated and some of the frustration unfortunately came out in the form of attacks on the jury. I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation. I don't think this is an situation where the "crazies" are going to come out.

I've got open ears and an open mind for any jurors who are willing to talk about the extremely difficult task they faced.

 

[Just the Fax]

"I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation."

I live in Raleigh and most people i have spoken with agree with the verdict.
Perhaps I just run in a different circle?

Perhaps you missed this explanation:


To: Marianne Haggerty, Dateline NBC June 1, 2011
Esther Zucker, Dateline NBC
Amanda Lamb, WRAL News
Stacy Davis, WRAL News
Anne Blythe, The News&Observer

Thank you for your patience and understanding following the Bradley Graham Cooper trial. Since the
trial ended, the jurors have been able to reunite and reflect on our time together. After seeing this
group of 16 on a very regular schedule and referring to them now as a “jury family," we’ve learned that
it has since become nearly impossible to get everyone in a room together. And the concept of having a
unanimous decision on a topic such as talking to the media is more complicated than we knew.

Therefore, I am proceeding by letting everyone that has contacted me know my stance, and my stance
only. I want it to be clear that I’m not speaking for the group. The statements in this message are mine.
I know and understand the desire of the media in these matters. I want to thank Amanda Lamb for
taking time to talk with me on Friday, May 27. It helped me put into perspective that when a media
company is in the business of producing television programs, the target outcome is to have jurors on
camera. I understand and respect that position. As for me, I respectfully decline to be questioned in
front of a camera. This does not represent a group decision. If there are members of the jury that would
like to participate in an on-camera interview, I’m confident they will provide thoughtful responses and
represent themselves and our group appropriately in such a situation.

I am willing to share some of my thoughts here -- in writing -- regarding the trial, the deliberation
process, the media, and the verdict:

With a lengthy trial such as this one, the transition from the presentation of evidence into the
deliberation phase felt like being shot from a cannon. The emotional intensity of the last few days of the
trial (deliberation) was an important and necessary component of the jury process in this case. After the
verdict was delivered, the speed at which we were headed back to begin our regular lives felt abrupt.

Before the jury disbanded, all members of the group agreed that we would not talk publicly about the
trial for a while. (This was reported on WRAL after Stacy Davis pulled into my driveway and asked me a
few questions.) We didn’t have time to define what “a while” meant long-term, and we were unaware
of what the future would hold in terms of inquiries.

Since that time, we’ve heard not only from the media, but there is talk that the prosecution team wants
to discuss the case and I'm aware that some of the jurors were contacted by the defense team. (I have
not been contacted by either group.) It is my personal belief that we (the jurors) came into this process
verdict-neutral. Brad Cooper was innocent until proven guilty. For me, the result of the outcome will not
cause me to pick a side. I feel the same for the families. Because of our verdict, I didn’t form an alliance
or fall in favor with one side or the other. I came into this situation neutral and I left it that way. The
evidence was the only factor in determining our verdict. As such, I plan to share information [that is
appropriate to share] equally and in an impartial manner.

Regarding the start of deliberations and the evidence:
• Most of us [the jurors] were undecided when we started deliberations. As noted, the transition
happened quickly and we needed time as a group to focus on the process and the laws we were
instructed to follow. Then with our notes, the evidence presented became clear.
• The evidence presented by Special Agents Johnson and Chappell drove the outcome on this
case. It caused [a lot of] the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible.

I spoke with Anne Blythe today, primarily about social media and how we were required to address this
issue during our time on the jury (Feb 28 – May 5). She heard a preview of this message. I’ll also send
her a document we were required to sign as members of the jury that relates to her inquiry.

Please know that I will share this message with the members of the jury. I’m not trying to influence
them in any way. We’ve been consistent in sharing these types of communications with each other. I’ve
also been asked questions by some of the jurors, and this is my way of trying to address their questions
and the media's questions collectively.

As I’ve stated before, if I can clarify anything off-camera, let me know. Thank You.
Xxxx Xxxxxxx (Juror #7 / Foreperson)

 

[EnvoyDriver61]

... My negative feelings are directed entirely at the CPD, prosecution, and judge in this case, and I've expressed them through the appropriate channels.

Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.

The jury imo did the best they could with what they had.

I think they had a really good piece of evidence in the google search. The items brought forth here, especially by macd, indicate that the DT was trying to use smoke and mirrors to provide reasonable doubt rather than explaining specifically what occurred with proof it was planted, etc.

... but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation.

I think the letter is pretty close to the jury's thoughts on the process: the google search pretty much nailed him. The tech guy on the jury probably sealed the deal by dismissing the defense's main argument with the timestamps, etc. To me, if it were offered that he did use Vista and he was using a beta version of Internet with the buggy private browsing, then the items offered here pretty much explain that. A retrial will most likely include testimony about the supposed router use on Jul 11.

I think his goose will remain cooked either way.

 

[fromageball]

"I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation."

I live in Raleigh and most people i have spoken with agree with the verdict.
Perhaps I just run in a different circle?

I should have worded that differently. I'm only talking about people who do not agree with the verdict - that is my impression of what they are feeling. My point is that I don't think the jurors should feel threatened by the public if and when the others choose to talk about their experience.

 

[fromageball]

Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.

I'm not sure, but I didn't keep up with the Duke lacrosse case so I don't know the details of that. I'm not against LE or even the CPD. I've had good experiences with the Cary Police - Detective Young specifically - and other officers I've interacted with.

Oh, and I agree with you that it should have been a 3 week trial. The jury seems to agree with that as well.

 

[Madeleine74]

The state is the entity that put together the trial (not the CPD). The DA (and the DA's office) decides what to present during trial, decides which witnesses to call, etc. L.E. has no say in any of that. They have, by the time of trial, turned over everything they've collected to the DA's office, including notes, interviews, etc.

The DAs office should have trimmed that behemoth down to no more than 4 weeks, and cut the number of friends testifying down to 4 or 5, maximum.

I know why they hauled in every single piece of evidence they collected and tested--to prove they did collect and test as many items as they could, even though there were no DNA results and the crime scene (the house) had been cleaned, as had the car trunk. To not bring those items in would have the defense screaming "they didn't TEST!" So they had to prove they did, even though there was nothing to be found, forensically. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Unfortunately the rules of evidence don't allow you to just show a list of all the items you collected and then say, "but none of them had blood or DNA or anything identifiable, so we're not going to bring each one into court." You have to go through each and every one if you want it to be part of the court record. Tedious as heck though.

 

[ncsu95]

I can only speak for myself, as someone who was completely shocked at the verdict, but I have no negative feelings towards the jury members. My negative feelings are directed entirely at the CPD, prosecution, and judge in this case, and I've expressed them through the appropriate channels.

Ok that's not entirely true - I didn't think too much of the juror who sent the note about wanting his/her life back. I think that was uncalled for, even if I understood the sentiment, but I realize that person did not speak for the entire jury.

The jury imo did the best they could with what they had. I think you said something about the lady you know not wanting to appear on Dateline and I don't blame her at all - I wouldn't want to either. I'm kind of alarmed at how concerned the jury seems to be at public perception of them, or even concerns for their own safety.

I think a lot of the people who have reacted negatively to the verdict are extremely frustrated and some of the frustration unfortunately came out in the form of attacks on the jury. I don't live in Cary anymore, so I've only spoken with people online about this, but I get the sense that most people are simply baffled and would appreciate an explanation. I don't think this is an situation where the "crazies" are going to come out.

I've got open ears and an open mind for any jurors who are willing to talk about the extremely difficult task they faced.

:clap:

Excellent post.

 

[ncsu95]

Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.



I think they had a really good piece of evidence in the google search. The items brought forth here, especially by macd, indicate that the DT was trying to use smoke and mirrors to provide reasonable doubt rather than explaining specifically what occurred with proof it was planted, etc.



I think the letter is pretty close to the jury's thoughts on the process: the google search pretty much nailed him. The tech guy on the jury probably sealed the deal by dismissing the defense's main argument with the timestamps, etc. To me, if it were offered that he did use Vista and he was using a beta version of Internet with the buggy private browsing, then the items offered here pretty much explain that. A retrial will most likely include testimony about the supposed router use on Jul 11.

I think his goose will remain cooked either way.

I appreciate macd's efforts with regards to the timestamps. I simply don't understand why the "FBI" or prosecution team didn't offer some type of reasonable explanation for them. If these issues with vista and IE are so well known, why wouldn't the people that should know this best offer an explanation. Instead, all we got was "I don't have an explanation as to what happened with those file, but I don't think there was tampering". That was enough for the jury, but not enough for a lot of people following this trial.

 

[cody100]

I too wonder why the prosecution team did not offer reasonable explanation for the timestamps. Personally, I believe the prosecution "experts" truly were not experienced enough to render a detailed explanation so they said they did not think it was tampering. After all, the expert witness is allowed to render an opinion based on their knowledge and experience. It never says how much knowledge and experience are required. IMO, I believe also that the prosecution was afraid of something on the computer that might cause the timestamp to be questioned strongly. I have never seen a prosecution fight so hard to keep testimony out of a case.

 

[macd]

I appreciate macd's efforts with regards to the timestamps. I simply don't understand why the "FBI" or prosecution team didn't offer some type of reasonable explanation for them. If these issues with vista and IE are so well known, why wouldn't the people that should know this best offer an explanation. Instead, all we got was "I don't have an explanation as to what happened with those file, but I don't think there was tampering". That was enough for the jury, but not enough for a lot of people following this trial.

I agree. It was not enough for me, which is why I'm (sadly) still researching it.
Neither side offered well formed conclusions on the data.
State expert: Don't know.
State: Window's is buggy.
Defense expert: Makes me want to dig more.
Defense: Tampering.
It makes me a little scared for our country's (or at least county's) judicial system. The lawyers, judges, juries, and even experts do not seem well equipped to deal with digital evidence, at least from this techie's point of view.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. I watched the DNA presentation from the OJ trial where they spent 2 weeks over-presenting the science of DNA to a non-scientist jury. It was a disaster. I'm glad that the lawyers in this case did not put on a 2 week class on software and operating systems, but I think they should have given a little more background.

I do think the defense was able to put their best theory and evidence forward. Kurtz did a good job getting the evidence in through JW and in his closing arguments. Even better for him, he was not subject to cross examination. I think had GM taken the stand with his half-formed opinions, we would have been embarrassed on cross exam.

 

[cody100]

I also have no doubt that the general population in NC question more strongly LE, prosecution, and even judges now than they did before the Duke Lacrosse case and use of cameras in the courtroom. Have they turned on LE? I don't think the majority have, but people, justifiably so, legitimately and understandably question what happens in a case, from A to Z. This site is living proof that people are extremely interested and concerned about our law enforcement and judicial system. Otherwise, we would be out shopping, playing games with our kids, or just watching television or movies-------anything but debating and exchanging ideas from courtroom cases. IMO, this pressure from the public requires LE, judicial system, and all experts surrounding a case to be extremely accountable for every action, test, or set of notes made in a case.

 

[macd]

Would the local feelings be the same if they weren't so close to Raleigh and the Duke situation? Did that turn everyone in NC against LE? Just wondering. I can see where the CPD probably spent too much time with Brad being a dipstick. Frankly, I think it should have been about a 3 week trial. One week spent by pros on Brad's means and motive. 3-4 days on the technical evidence. A week or so on the defense.

I followed the Duke case closely and I thought it was obvious that the DA and detectives engaged in misconduct, while other parties willfully turned a blind eye. I found it obvious that all of the lacrosse players were 100% innocent.
I followed this case closely, and I thought it was obvious that, while somewhat bumbling, the DA and detectives were honest and the evidence genuine and damning.
For both cases, everyone I know in meat-space was only vaguely aware the cases were going on. They only saw the one-minute sound-bites each day from the local news. Other than on the Internet, I have not met anyone who feels strongly one way or the other for either case. And I look for people to talk with me about this stuff.