DP Hearing Dec 5/08 [Archive] - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

jilly

11-01-2008, 06:39 PM

A hearing to be held Dec. 5 will determine whether the district attorney handling the case, Howard Cummings, will push for execution by lethal injection if Cooper is convicted.

Cummings said Friday that he will be gathering evidence ahead of next month's Rule 24 hearing on the death penalty question to determine if Cooper's alleged crime had any "aggravating" features, including actions that were "especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." He added: "We are not allowed to proceed capitally unless there are certain statutory factors beyond what is normally required to convict someone of first-degree murder."

Canada's position on Canadian citizens facing execution unclear.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=12201ca1-75ee-41dc-b876-dfb7063f01a9

My feeling is that NC will not seek the DP.

SleuthyGal

11-01-2008, 07:17 PM

I wonder if the way she was disposed and the (undressed) state of her body would be something considered as aggravating circumstances. Certainly the fact that she was strangled and thus her death would have taken up to 4 minutes would be considered not only cruel, but prolonged and painful and would be an aggravating factor.

It would be interesting to list out what we think are the aggravating factors, as well as list the mitigating factors.

Star12

11-01-2008, 07:55 PM

Aggravating Factors
e) Aggravating Circumstances. – Aggravating circumstances which may be considered shall be limited to the following:

(1) The capital felony was committed by a person lawfully incarcerated.

(2) The defendant had been previously convicted of another capital felony or had been previously adjudicated delinquent in a juvenile proceeding for committing an offense that would be a capital felony if committed by an adult.

(3) The defendant had been previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person or had been previously adjudicated delinquent in a juvenile proceeding for committing an offense that would be a Class A, B1, B2, C, D, or E felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person if the offense had been committed by an adult.

(4) The capital felony was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody.

(5) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was engaged, or was an aider or abettor, in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit, any homicide, robbery, rape or a sex offense, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy or the unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb.

(6) The capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain.

(7) The capital felony was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws.

(8) The capital felony was committed against a law‑enforcement officer, employee of the Department of Correction, jailer, fireman, judge or justice, former judge or justice, prosecutor or former prosecutor, juror or former juror, or witness or former witness against the defendant, while engaged in the performance of his official duties or because of the exercise of his official duty.

(9) The capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.

(10) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person by means of a weapon or device which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person.

(11) The murder for which the defendant stands convicted was part of a course of conduct in which the defendant engaged and which included the commission by the defendant of other crimes of violence against another person or persons.

SleuthyGal

11-01-2008, 07:57 PM

Thanks Star12!

So #6 and #12 are the possibilities here.

Star12

11-01-2008, 07:58 PM

Mitigating Factors
(f) Mitigating Circumstances. – Mitigating circumstances which may be considered shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity.

(2) The capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance.

(3) The victim was a voluntary participant in the defendant's homicidal conduct or consented to the homicidal act.

(4) The defendant was an accomplice in or accessory to the capital felony committed by another person and his participation was relatively minor.

(5) The defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person.

(6) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired.

(7) The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.

(8) The defendant aided in the apprehension of another capital felon or testified truthfully on behalf of the prosecution in another prosecution of a felony.

(9) Any other circumstance arising from the evidence which the jury deems to have mitigating value. (1977, c. 406, s. 2; 1979, c. 565, s. 1; c. 682, s. 9; 1981, c. 652, s. 1; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 7, s. 5; 1995, c. 509, s. 14; 2001‑81, s. 1; 2001‑346, s. 2.)

Star12

11-01-2008, 08:03 PM

Thanks Star12!

So #6 and #12 are the possibilities here.

12? No 12 here

Star12

11-01-2008, 08:08 PM

The above are from NCGS Sec. 15-2000 e and f

Star12

11-01-2008, 08:14 PM

§ 15A‑2000. Sentence of death or life imprisonment for capital felonies; further proceedings to determine sentence.

(a) Separate Proceedings on Issue of Penalty. –

(1) Except as provided in G.S. 15A‑2004, upon conviction or adjudication of guilt of a defendant of a capital felony in which the State has given notice of its intent to seek the death penalty, the court shall conduct a separate sentencing proceeding to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment. A capital felony is one which may be punishable by death.

(2) The proceeding shall be conducted by the trial judge before the trial jury as soon as practicable after the guilty verdict is returned. If prior to the time that the trial jury begins its deliberations on the issue of penalty, any juror dies, becomes incapacitated or disqualified, or is discharged for any reason, an alternate juror shall become a part of the jury and serve in all respects as those selected on the regular trial panel. An alternate juror shall become a part of the jury in the order in which he was selected. If the trial jury is unable to reconvene for a hearing on the issue of penalty after having determined the guilt of the accused, the trial judge shall impanel a new jury to determine the issue of the punishment. If the defendant pleads guilty, the sentencing proceeding shall be conducted before a jury impaneled for that purpose. A jury selected for the purpose of determining punishment in a capital case shall be selected in the same manner as juries are selected for the trial of capital cases.

(3) In the proceeding there shall not be any requirement to resubmit evidence presented during the guilt determination phase of the case, unless a new jury is impaneled, but all such evidence is competent for the jury's consideration in passing on punishment. Evidence may be presented as to any matter that the court deems relevant to sentence, and may include matters relating to any of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances enumerated in subsections (e) and (f) of this section. Any evidence which the court deems to have probative value may be received.

(4) The State and the defendant or his counsel shall be permitted to present argument for or against sentence of death. The defendant or defendant's counsel shall have the right to the last argument.

(b) Sentence Recommendation by the Jury. – Instructions determined by the trial judge to be warranted by the evidence shall be given by the court in its charge to the jury prior to its deliberation in determining sentence. The court shall give appropriate instructions in those cases in which evidence of the defendant's mental retardation requires the consideration by the jury of the provisions of G.S. 15A‑2005. In all cases in which the death penalty may be authorized, the judge shall include in his instructions to the jury that it must consider any aggravating circumstance or circumstances or mitigating circumstance or circumstances from the lists provided in subsections (e) and (f) which may be supported by the evidence, and shall furnish to the jury a written list of issues relating to such aggravating or mitigating circumstance or circumstances.

After hearing the evidence, argument of counsel, and instructions of the court, the jury shall deliberate and render a sentence recommendation to the court, based upon the following matters:

(1) Whether any sufficient aggravating circumstance or circumstances as enumerated in subsection (e) exist;

(2) Whether any sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances as enumerated in subsection (f), which outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found, exist; and

(3) Based on these considerations, whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or to imprisonment in the State's prison for life.

The sentence recommendation must be agreed upon by a unanimous vote of the 12 jurors. Upon delivery of the sentence recommendation by the foreman of the jury, the jury shall be individually polled to establish whether each juror concurs and agrees to the sentence recommendation returned.

If the jury cannot, within a reasonable time, unanimously agree to its sentence recommendation, the judge shall impose a sentence of life imprisonment; provided, however, that the judge shall in no instance impose the death penalty when the jury cannot agree unanimously to its sentence recommendation.

(c) Findings in Support of Sentence of Death. – When the jury recommends a sentence of death, the foreman of the jury shall sign a writing on behalf of the jury which writing shall show:

(1) The statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances which the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt; and

(2) That the statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by the jury are sufficiently substantial to call for the imposition of the death penalty; and,

(3) That the mitigating circumstance or circumstances are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found.

(d) Review of Judgment and Sentence. –

(1) The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to automatic review by the Supreme Court of North Carolina pursuant to procedures established by the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In its review, the Supreme Court shall consider the punishment imposed as well as any errors assigned on appeal.

(2) The sentence of death shall be overturned and a sentence of life imprisonment imposed in lieu thereof by the Supreme Court upon a finding that the record does not support the jury's findings of any aggravating circumstance or circumstances upon which the sentencing court based its sentence of death, or upon a finding that the sentence of death was imposed under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, or upon a finding that the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant. The Supreme Court may suspend consideration of death penalty cases until such time as the court determines it is prepared to make the comparisons required under the provisions of this section.

(3) If the sentence of death and the judgment of the trial court are reversed on appeal for error in the post‑verdict sentencing proceeding, the Supreme Court shall order that a new sentencing hearing be conducted in conformity with the procedures of this Article.

SleuthyGal

11-01-2008, 08:26 PM

:doh: I meant #6 and #9 for aggravating possibilities.

raisincharlie

11-01-2008, 08:35 PM

:doh: I meant #6 and #9 for aggravating possibilities.

Number 9 scares me, I keep wondering if it is true that Bella saw her Mum that morning as was posted on a blog. I truly hope not.

SeriouslySearching

11-01-2008, 08:38 PM

Number 9 scares me, I keep wondering if it is true that Bella saw her Mum that morning as was posted on a blog. I truly hope not.Can you clue me into Bella possibly seeing her?

jilly

11-01-2008, 08:38 PM

Thanks Star12!

So #6 and #12 are the possibilities here.

Why would you say #6?

Has there been any mention of a life insurance policy?

Skittles

11-01-2008, 08:48 PM

Nancy has a $75,000 policy through Brad's job at Cisco

SleuthyGal

11-01-2008, 08:52 PM

Money as a motive, being that they were fighting a lot over money and with Nancy gone Brad would save having to pay divorce/alimony.

raisincharlie

11-01-2008, 08:53 PM

Can you clue me into Bella possibly seeing her?

Someone posted it on one of the blogs - Artimus maybe, that they had heard that Bella had seen her Mum that morning. I don't remember the link sorry to say.

Star12

11-01-2008, 08:56 PM

Number 9 scares me, I keep wondering if it is true that Bella saw her Mum that morning as was posted on a blog. I truly hope not.

IIRC, that was DD's blog, and the info had either been surmised or came from BC, which think was the case. Because who else could have said so?

raisincharlie

11-01-2008, 08:58 PM

IIRC, that was DD's blog, and the info had either been surmised or came from BC, which think was the case. Because who else could have said so?

Bella

jilly

11-01-2008, 08:59 PM

jilly

11-01-2008, 09:01 PM

Nancy has a $75,000 policy through Brad's job at Cisco

Thanks Skittles.

SleuthyGal

11-01-2008, 09:03 PM

From DD's blog answering a couple of questions as to who was the last to see Nancy:

"Her husband and elder child saw her leaving for her run Saturday morning.
July 14, 2008 11:26 AM "

------------------

Now we know that is in contrast to what Brad testified to during his depo: he said he and Katie were upstairs, he did NOT see Nancy leave for her run, and Bella was still asleep.

raisincharlie

11-01-2008, 09:05 PM

An aggravating factor to me would be that two small children remmotherless, but that's just my opinion.

I wonder if Nancy's family has any input like in California.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Hearing like this - maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. Would the defense be able to argue? And if so, how can they argue say mitigation (duress) when there hasn't even been a trial.:confused:

Hi Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

If I understand the Rule 24 Hearing procedure - there is no argument, the prosecutor uses this to announce if they intend to seek the death penalty. This is followed up later by another hearing in which both sides are allowed to argue the merits/demerits before a judge.

SleuthyGal

11-01-2008, 09:06 PM

An aggravating factor to me would be that two small children remmotherless, but that's just my opinion.

I wonder if Nancy's family has any input like in California.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Hearing like this - maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. Would the defense be able to argue? And if so, how can they argue say mitigation (duress) when there hasn't even been a trial.:confused:

This is for the prosecution to decide whether they will go for the DP as part of their charges and this hearing is for them to discuss, legally. Nothing for the defense to do at this point. The defense doesn't get a say in whether charges are brought or not.

jilly

11-01-2008, 09:22 PM

Hi Ms. Jilly :blowkiss:

If I understand the Rule 24 Hearing procedure - there is no argument, the prosecutor uses this to announce if they intend to seek the death penalty. This is followed up later by another hearing in which both sides are allowed to argue the merits/demerits before a judge.

Backatcha RC!:blowkiss: Thanks to you and SG - I got it now!:)

SG - Thanks for your response on #6. I see your point but I don't know whether that would be considered in this case. It seems like it might have been intended for something like monetary gain as in life insurance/ inheritance etc. In this particular case it would be like saying he murdered his wife to avoid a potential divorce settlement.

raisincharlie

11-01-2008, 09:45 PM

Backatcha RC!:blowkiss: Thanks to you and SG - I got it now!:)

SG - Thanks for your response on #6. I see your point but I don't know whether that would be considered in this case. It seems like it might have been intended for something like monetary gain as in life insurance/ inheritance etc. In this particular case it would be like saying he murdered his wife to avoid a potential divorce settlement.

Jilly,

I see this as having potential. In Brad's deposition he claimed he could not financially accomodate the values presented in the agreement. Also all he did was whine about all the debt Nancy incurred. Would he not be gaining financially if Nancy was no longer on the planet ? She could not spend his money, he would not have to pay money determined by others to her to support his children - he could keep all his money right in his little pocket. Could this be considered a financial gain ? I think a case could be made for such.

AmarilloByAM

11-01-2008, 11:25 PM

Number 9 scares me, I keep wondering if it is true that Bella saw her Mum that morning as was posted on a blog. I truly hope not.

My stomach sank when I just ready Number 9. Thinking about those girls when they are old enough to understand how they lost their mother is almost too much.

raisincharlie

11-02-2008, 12:02 AM

My stomach sank when I just ready Number 9. Thinking about those girls when they are old enough to understand how they lost their mother is almost too much.

I keep thinking about that post about Bella, then I think about the Ex Parte for custody being granted with no input from LE and very little actual reality - sure makes me wonder.

sunflowers

11-02-2008, 12:19 AM

I keep thinking about that post about Bella, then I think about the Ex Parte for custody being granted with no input from LE and very little actual reality - sure makes me wonder.

yes. i wondered, too. and think it's likely. it's one of the few things that would make a judge so quickly completely grant temp custody to an extended family member out of the country without input from LE or any real facts about anything.

it just doesn't happen like that, so there's something here that we don't know about. something persuasive and convincing, and it's not from LE or from hearsay about suicide attempts etc

Star12

11-02-2008, 05:09 PM

http://www.canada.com/news/canada/story.html?id=925399

"Asked if Mr. Cooper's Canadian citizenship would be a factor in whether the prosecution pursues a capital case, Mr. Cummings said: "Not at this point, anyway -- it's not an issue for me."

Until last fall, any Canadian facing a death sentence in another country could have relied on the Canadian government's help in avoiding execution. But last October, the Conservative government -- in response to the case of an Alberta-born killer, Ronald Smith, on death row in Montana -- revealed that it would no longer seek clemency for Canadians facing execution in democratic countries, such as the United States."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This seems to answer the Canadian stance on the DP in the US.

jilly

11-02-2008, 06:42 PM

Star12

11-02-2008, 06:53 PM

Not for me Star. This article was in the Calgary Herald which I posted at the beginning of this thread. If you read the paragraphs after your quote, it doesn't seem clear at all.....at least to me.

Why, so you did, Jilly. Sorry. I only noticed it in the stickies threads.

However, the article also says:

"But during a September court hearing in Smith's lawsuit over the new policy the government's lawyer clarified Canada's official stance, saying the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country."

The ambiguity had arising about whether it would apply to only mass or multiple murderers and would be applied on a case to case basis, however the government's attorney said "the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country".

I thought that was pretty clear.

jilly

11-02-2008, 07:25 PM

Jilly,

I see this as having potential. In Brad's deposition he claimed he could not financially accomodate the values presented in the agreement. Also all he did was whine about all the debt Nancy incurred. Would he not be gaining financially if Nancy was no longer on the planet ? She could not spend his money, he would not have to pay money determined by others to her to support his children - he could keep all his money right in his little pocket. Could this be considered a financial gain ? I think a case could be made for such.

I see your point RC and maybe you're right.
Thing is.....I don't think he murdered for financial gain so to speak. The terms of the separation had not been settled. I think he simply went into a rage and boiled over. He had lost control of her.

raisincharlie

11-02-2008, 07:30 PM

I see your point RC and maybe you're right.
Thing is.....I don't think he murdered for financial gain so to speak. The terms of the separation had not been settled. I think he simply went into a rage and boiled over. He had lost control of her.

Hi Jilly :)

I'm thinking ADA Cummings can make a case for it using Brad's own words. All he has done is complain about money and Nancy spending it. Would serve him right if his own words come back to be a deciding factor in his punishment.

jilly

11-02-2008, 07:33 PM

Why, so you did, Jilly. Sorry. I only noticed it in the stickies threads.

However, the article also says:

"But during a September court hearing in Smith's lawsuit over the new policy the government's lawyer clarified Canada's official stance, saying the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country."

The ambiguity had arising about whether it would apply to only mass or multiple murderers and would be applied on a case to case basis, however the government's attorney said "the non-intervention policy would indeed apply in all cases in any democratic country".

I thought that was pretty clear.

Well now that you spell it out for me, it would seem so!:crazy: Still the article's title says that the Cooper case may test the clemency policy so....maybe they're just as confused as me!lol

per_curiam

11-02-2008, 07:39 PM

raisincharlie

11-02-2008, 07:45 PM

Once BC is sentenced, tried, found guilty, what happens with his home and the rest of his estate? Legally, who handles the selling of the home? Will that job go to attorneys or will his parents do it? All of his assets will probably go to paying attorneys, right? Would there be anything left over for his children? Sorry, I'm not a whiz in this department. I know that Google is my friend. You guys are faster than my bumbling trips to Google when it comes to legal. :snail:

I would think that if Brad has not already designated someone other than Nancy as an executor he could take the time to do that now or at least assign a Power of Attorney to handle his personal affairs. He has a public defender because he says he can't pay for representation, that tells me he isn't going to be able to hang onto the house and he may have to have someone put it on the market to sell even before he is tried if he can't make the payments. I would think Kurtz is advising him of such matters as it seems to me his chances of getting out on bail at this point are minimal until Dec 5, if the DA goes for the DP, he won't get bail.

per_curiam

11-02-2008, 07:54 PM

Thanks RC. That's along the lines of what I thought.

Now, to figure out why I can't get into my User Control Panel and other WS account things. That little box is talking to me as if I am not "privileged" to access my own account. I am at a loss. I can post, but not access my account info!

jilly

11-02-2008, 08:29 PM

Hi Jilly :)

I'm thinking ADA Cummings can make a case for it using Brad's own words. All he has done is complain about money and Nancy spending it. Would serve him right if his own words come back to be a deciding factor in his punishment.

RC :) I think you're right.

Unfortunately, this entire tragedy comes down to money no matter how you look at it.:(

SleuthyGal

11-02-2008, 08:34 PM

I wonder if Cisco has terminated his employment yet.

raisincharlie

11-02-2008, 08:48 PM

RC :) I think you're right.

Unfortunately, this entire tragedy comes down to money no matter how you look at it.:(

Extremely sick reason, but I agree with you, the biggest issue was money and a man who couldn't adapt.

ncsu95

11-02-2008, 08:52 PM

I wonder if Cisco has terminated his employment yet.

Well he didn't show up for work this week, so imagine they have.

SleuthyGal

11-02-2008, 09:05 PM

Very sad....he was a man who could have everything except decency and empathy and look where he is now.

SleuthyGal

11-02-2008, 09:06 PM

Well he didn't show up for work this week, so imagine they have.

If he was off of administrative leave that is. Don't know if he was or not. Either way he's gone.

ncsu95

11-02-2008, 09:52 PM

If he was off of administrative leave that is. Don't know if he was or not. Either way he's gone.

I thought he said in the deposition that he was back working again, just from home (and had been since some time in September).

Skittles

11-02-2008, 10:41 PM

I thought he said in the deposition that he was back working again, just from home (and had been since some time in September).

Yes, he had started working from home, and was talking with HR about returning to the office.

Maja

11-03-2008, 10:57 AM

I would think that if Brad has not already designated someone other than Nancy as an executor he could take the time to do that now or at least assign a Power of Attorney to handle his personal affairs. He has a public defender because he says he can't pay for representation, that tells me he isn't going to be able to hang onto the house and he may have to have someone put it on the market to sell even before he is tried if he can't make the payments. I would think Kurtz is advising him of such matters as it seems to me his chances of getting out on bail at this point are minimal until Dec 5, if the DA goes for the DP, he won't get bail.

Boy howdy, I wonder who the heck would want to live in that house? I recall years ago, I was in the Air Force stationed in Alaska in the base housing. A neighbor who had lived there for years who lived to my right disclosed to my neighbor on my right that some 2 years prior to them moving in the husband/father who lived there hung himself in the basement. I'm telling you there was a streak of flames behind the neighbor who now lived in the home was to the base commander's office demanding they be moved out ASAP. That evening they stayed in the base hotel and movers came that following Monday. I believe the final response was to discuss with the woman who disclosed the info, what her motive was and how long she planned to continue to chase away residents who were assigned those quarters. She said she had the right to inform and that she would want to know those details if she moved into a place.

Something pretty eerie for some (me included).

jmflu

11-03-2008, 12:22 PM

Boy howdy, I wonder who the heck would want to live in that house? I recall years ago, I was in the Air Force stationed in Alaska in the base housing. A neighbor who had lived there for years who lived to my right disclosed to my neighbor on my right that some 2 years prior to them moving in the husband/father who lived there hung himself in the basement. I'm telling you there was a streak of flames behind the neighbor who now lived in the home was to the base commander's office demanding they be moved out ASAP. That evening they stayed in the base hotel and movers came that following Monday. I believe the final response was to discuss with the woman who disclosed the info, what her motive was and how long she planned to continue to chase away residents who were assigned those quarters. She said she had the right to inform and that she would want to know those details if she moved into a place.

Something pretty eerie for some (me included).

Me, too! I thought realtors had to disclose this information, but that may be nul and void when it comes to the military? Also, who knows, maybe realtors only have to disclose in certain states.

Maja

11-05-2008, 10:34 AM

Me, too! I thought realtors had to disclose this information, but that may be nul and void when it comes to the military? Also, who knows, maybe realtors only have to disclose in certain states.

Just found this article on WRAL in reference to the sale of the Young home in Raleigh:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1567666/

Seems it's not mandatory for details, like a murder taking place in the home, to be disclosed to potential buyers. It's an ethical matter.

jmflu

11-05-2008, 10:44 AM

ncsu95

11-05-2008, 10:54 AM

Just found this article on WRAL in reference to the sale of the Young home in Raleigh:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1567666/

Seems it's not mandatory for details, like a murder taking place in the home, to be disclosed to potential buyers. It's an ethical matter.

Looks like it took 1 year for that house to sell, and it sold for only $370k.

http://services.wakegov.com/realestate/Account.asp?id=0156150&stype=addr&stnum=5108&stname=birchleaf&locidList=&spg=1

garner_nc

11-05-2008, 11:27 AM

My old boss lived in the house where Lieth Von Stein was murdered in 1988. Several movies have been made about the murder since it dealt with dungeon and dragons role playing.

He said he was told of the murder by the Realtor. I asked if he got a discount on the price because of that and he laughed and said "NO". He said all carpet and floors were replaced and walls repainted. He said unless you knew the history no one would have ever known.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieth_Von_Stein

jmflu

11-05-2008, 11:31 AM

Kudos to all those who can overlook a murder happening in a house (or reports of ghosts) and BUY IT ANYWAY!

Maja

11-05-2008, 12:44 PM

Kudos to all those who can overlook a murder happening in a house (or reports of ghosts) and BUY IT ANYWAY!

Ditto. I was even thinking of BC's mom staying in the house now all alone...I don't think I could. I just think there is real evil energy there with cry's for justice.

jmflu

11-05-2008, 02:23 PM

Ditto. I was even thinking of BC's mom staying in the house now all alone...I don't think I could. I just think there is real evil energy there with cry's for justice.

You know, I was just wondering earlier if she was still in town and living in the house, driving the Beamer... visiting her son every day in jail...

Star12

11-05-2008, 03:21 PM

You know, I was just wondering earlier if she was still in town and living in the house, driving the Beamer... visiting her son every day in jail...

Do believe the BMWs were included in the SW, and confiscated.

jmflu

11-05-2008, 03:23 PM

Do believe the BMWs were included in the SW, and confiscated.

So did she rent a car? Mom? Neighbors, do tell!

raisincharlie

11-05-2008, 03:30 PM

Do believe the BMWs were included in the SW, and confiscated.

Why do you think that both vehicles were taken Star ? I see the warrant includes them in the search but...:confused:

Star12

11-05-2008, 03:35 PM

Why do you think that both vehicles were taken Star ? I see the warrant includes them in the search but...:confused:

Did I read it wrong?

And it seems I have seen a recent photo of the Cooper house with a black SUV - I had been thinking that Ma C. had been planning to stay for a year, and had driven down.

raisincharlie

11-05-2008, 03:38 PM

Did I read it wrong?

And it seems I have seen a recent photo of the Cooper house with a black SUV - I had been thinking that Ma C. had been planning to stay for a year, and had driven down.

I dunno - Section I describes the property to be seized but the cars aren't listed there and they aren't listed in the inventory. Both cars are listed in Section V as vehicles to be searched however.

Star12

11-05-2008, 03:45 PM

Why do you think that both vehicles were taken Star ? I see the warrant includes them in the search but...:confused:

:iamashamed0005: :footinmouth:

whoops. nevermind...........

raisincharlie

11-05-2008, 04:04 PM

:iamashamed0005: :footinmouth:

whoops. nevermind...........

Was hoping you knew something we didn't Star :)

Star12

11-05-2008, 04:14 PM

Was hoping you knew something we didn't Star :)

:::sigh:::

Well, heck. They should have taken them. Don't understand why they didn't.

Guess it was just wishful thinking on my part.

CentralAlberta

11-19-2008, 08:08 PM

Does anyone know if the DP is not requested, can the DA ask that there be no extradition to Canada and have that as part of the sentence? I am thinking that was a big part of the passport picture.

SleuthyGal

11-19-2008, 08:24 PM

Since he was living here in NC and the crime occurred here, I don't think he will be extradited back to Canada.

CentralAlberta

11-19-2008, 09:00 PM

I sure hope you are right SG. I used to agree with the DP - you know eye for an eye - but since this case I have change my mind - I would like to see BC sit in an America jail for the rest of his life and think about all he lost the night he murdered Nancy. Plus, I think, if the girls EVER wanted to talk to him/get to know him, etc. they would have the chance.

SleuthyGal

12-05-2008, 07:52 AM

Star12

12-05-2008, 08:42 AM

Maja

12-05-2008, 09:44 AM

According to this article (http://cary.mync.com/site/cary/news|Community|Sports|Lifestyles/story/21037/cary-man-charged-wifes-murder-in-court) posted on myNC, the hearing is to start at 9:30am.

Three Questions For Fellow WSers:

1. Do you think the DA will seek the DP in this case? (yes/no)

2. Do you think the DP is appropriate in this case (yes/no)

2a. Why or Why not?

1. No

2. No

3. It seems people sit on death row for sometimes upwards of 20 years and by then the girls will be in their early twenties and will know the truth. To then have to deal with their father being injected with toxic poison in the United States (Canada does not do the DP) would just have to lay a gynormous burden on them.

Skittles

12-05-2008, 09:55 AM

No death penalty for Brad.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4081184/

Star12

12-05-2008, 10:00 AM

No death penalty for Brad.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4081184/

LWOP is just fine with me. It will give him a long time to think things over, and to learn just what it's like for others to have the control over him.

fran

12-05-2008, 10:12 AM

LWOP is just fine with me. It will give him a long time to think things over, and to learn just what it's like for others to have the control over him.

I'm with you Star, LWOP is just fine. May he have many years to contemplate how he ruined his life, while denying Nancy any life at all.......PROVIDING he's found guilty, of course.:behindbar

JMHO
fran

per_curiam

12-05-2008, 10:18 AM

LWOP. Very fitting. Brad's Ironman body will wither. His only purpose in life now is to exist in a cell.

Will he befriend a female prison worker and find a cozy closet?

ncmomof2boys

12-05-2008, 10:33 AM

Check out ol' Brad in this picture. He is looking rough!

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1321657.html

per_curiam

12-05-2008, 10:37 AM

NCMom, I would not have recognized Brad in that photo. He looks puffy. I guess the jail food isn't as nutritious as his green slime juice. Like I said, his Ironman body will wither. That will kill him (ego-wise), right there.

fran

12-05-2008, 10:37 AM

Check out ol' Brad in this picture. He is looking rough!

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1321657.html

Wow! You're right. He does look bad. Guess he's a little worried.

This is one fix he can't lie himself out of!:furious:

JMHO
fran

raisincharlie

12-05-2008, 10:39 AM

LWOP is just fine with me. It will give him a long time to think things over, and to learn just what it's like for others to have the control over him.

I'm good with it - provided while in prison the freak has ZERO access to any form of internet access.

SleuthyGal

12-05-2008, 11:07 AM

http://media.newsobserver.com/smedia/2008/12/05/10/147-COOPER.embedded.prod_affiliate.3.jpg

LWOP is just fine. He's lost that smirk since being arrested.

Bail set at $2M.

Topsail Girl

12-05-2008, 11:21 AM

Holy Hades he look horrible. Even worse if you enlarge the photo !!!!! Hey All

Maja

12-05-2008, 01:01 PM

The photo was taken at a tough angle...but goodness ole BC looks like he aged 10 years. Countenance is what it should have been all along. NC's innocent blood is crying out and here is a case where justice will be witnessed this side of eternity.

Oh the smirkless jailed one....

raisincharlie

12-05-2008, 01:03 PM

A better view in this video. He definitely has lost his swagger.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6539946

Has anyone seen a posting of the warrant that was released yesterday yet ? I'm not seeing it anywhere and I want to read about Agent 98's escapades of spying on his wife.

OJ is going down today...

Maja

12-05-2008, 03:10 PM

1019

1020

1021

1022

1023

raisincharlie

12-05-2008, 03:34 PM

He looks rather angry Maja - not a happy camper. Thanks :)

SleuthyGal

12-05-2008, 03:38 PM

None of the pics posted show this, but I noticed on the video that Debbie Sandlin was also attending, and was at the defense table. Isn't her part of the case finished for the time being?

SleuthyGal

12-05-2008, 03:40 PM

FYI, the big guy in the yellow shirt, sitting behind and slightly to the right of Mrs. Rentz is (or looks just like) Det. Daniels.

raisincharlie

12-05-2008, 03:49 PM

None of the pics posted show this, but I noticed on the video that Debbie Sandlin was also attending, and was at the defense table. Isn't her part of the case finished for the time being?

Maybe she's after that suit the jailed one was wearing - heck they took everything else.

LaLaw2000

12-06-2008, 08:01 AM

We all pretty much had this guy pegged by July 16th. My bet was that Nancy was strangled or suffocated. I started posting and then turned to the Caylee case, and then kept skimming over the threads here.

Yes, LWOP for this Ironman will do just fine. I predict a full and complete nervous breakdown because he will not be allowed to 'control' anyone in the prison!

Brad was the judge, jury, and executioner for Nancy and took the babies Mother away from them permanently. He needs to suffer daily for the rest of his life!

momto3kids

12-06-2008, 09:54 AM

I was happy to see the Rentz's were present for a less than 10 minute hearing. A little surprised, ONLY because it is such a long trip for them to take. This speaks volume to me that BC will see them each time he enters a courtroom and they aren't leaving or going to let him forget who's family he has put thru hell.

Maja

12-06-2008, 11:18 AM

Maja

12-06-2008, 11:21 AM

FYI, the big guy in the yellow shirt, sitting behind and slightly to the right of Mrs. Rentz is (or looks just like) Det. Daniels.

Believe this is a better shot.

NC_butterfly

12-06-2008, 03:56 PM

Believe this is a better shot.

Help! When I click on the link to the picture, it tells me I do not have permission to access this page. Does anyone know why it would give me this error?

Thanks!