Websleuths
Go Back   Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community > Crimes and Trials > Trials > Nancy Cooper

Notices

Nancy Cooper Found murdered after being reported missing while on a morning jog


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 06-06-2011, 03:36 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,630
It totally made sense when you realize the rules of the court. Had they introduced that testimony from Chris Fry, THEN the defense could have gotten in the Masucci testimony. There were pluses and minuses to each (getting the Fry info in vs. leaving it out). The state decided they didn't need the Chris Fry testimony about that log file *so bad* to then allow the defense to be able to put Masucci on the stand in front of the jury. And that was the rule per the judge. If the state wanted Chris Fry with that late-breaking log file info from Cisco, then they had to accept Masucci.

And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.

Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.

The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #102  
Old 06-06-2011, 03:47 PM
otto otto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
It totally made sense when you realize the rules of the court. Had they introduced that testimony from Chris Fry, THEN the defense could have gotten in the Masucci testimony. There were pluses and minuses to each (getting the Fry info in vs. leaving it out). The state decided they didn't need the Chris Fry testimony about that log file *so bad* to then allow the defense to be able to put Masucci on the stand in front of the jury. And that was the rule per the judge. If the state wanted Chris Fry with that late-breaking log file info from Cisco, then they had to accept Masucci.

And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.

Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.

The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.
It did pay off, but don't you think it would have been ... in a way ... more fair for the jury to have heard rebuttal testimony about the computer? It may have resulted in a not guilty verdict, and it looks as though the prosecution was aware of this possibility.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:
  #103  
Old 06-06-2011, 03:53 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,630
Masucci said he wasn't finished with his report. I don't know how fair it would have been to put on an expert witness whose report was only half done. Plus, his report was based on Jay Ward's info and not on any independent examination he made.

It would have been interesting to see all the evidence presented in the case, yes, but I say that as a spectator. What we spectators believe is fair (or unfair) doesn't have any bearing on what constitutes a valid legal decision to include or exclude a witness. Whole different set of rules, which is why lay people aren't lawyers. Imagine standing up in front of a judge and saying, "But your honor...that's not faiiiiirrrrr!" And when the judge asks you to cite precedent and case law for your argument, all you can do is give your best pouty face, stomp your foot, and whine again, "NOT fairrrrrr!"
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #104  
Old 06-06-2011, 03:57 PM
otto otto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
Masucci said he wasn't finished with his report. I don't know how fair it would have been to put on an expert witness whose report was only half done. Plus, his report was based on Jay Ward's info and not on any independent examination he made.

It would have been interesting to see all the evidence presented in the case, yes, but I say that as a spectator. What we spectators believe is fair (or unfair) doesn't have any bearing on what constitutes a valid legal decision to include or exclude a witness. Whole different set of rules, which is why lay people aren't lawyers. Imagine standing up in front of a judge and saying, "But your honor...that's not faiiiiirrrrr!" And when the judge asks you to cite precedent and case law for your argument, all you can do is give your best pouty face, stomp your foot, and whine again, "NOT fairrrrrr!"
It's that little bit of fairness that may have been overlooked that could result in a complete retrial through appeal (far more costly to the courts than providing additional funds for a witness). I guess we'll see how it plays out. One strike against the defense is that they wanted to introduce a witness that was not on the witness list, but understandably this happened after the witness they thought would be approved was discredited ... and I don't think a facebook page should really be used to discredit a witness, but it was.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:
  #105  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:10 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,630
Quote:
One strike against the defense is that they wanted to introduce a witness that was not on the witness list, but understandably this happened after the witness they thought would be approved was discredited
To me this was a major faux paus by the defense, and the biggest mistake they made in this case. Remember J Ward posted on WS right after he testified. In his posting he said he told the defense right from the get go that he was NOT a computer forensic expert. He told them he was a network expert. Yet the defense decided to go with him anyway, knowing full well it was a gamble. And they lost the gamble! J Ward said he agreed with Gessner's ruling to exclude him as a computer forensic expert.

You can't fault the state for the defense trying to get this guy in as a computer forensic expert and then losing that gamble. THEY KNEW from the beginning he was not qualified in that capacity.

The question I would be asking my defense attorney if I was the defendant was, "WHY did you go with this guy when you KNEW he wasn't qualified? WTH! Was there no one else you could possibly find who would be qualified as a forensic expert and find that person before the trial started?"

Quote:
could result in a complete retrial through appeal
The reason I don't think this particular issue will win on appeal is because the error was made by the defense (as detailed above). The judge's ruling was based on law and precedent. Defense gambled big time, knowing their guy (Ward) was not really a forensic expert. Had they looked for a real forensic expert back at the beginning, when Ward told them he wasn't qualified as an expert, they would have been much better situated. You have to ask, why didn't they? Trying to slide in a witness you just found, who hasn't even finished a report, is not such a good strategy.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #106  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:46 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
It totally made sense when you realize the rules of the court. Had they introduced that testimony from Chris Fry, THEN the defense could have gotten in the Masucci testimony. There were pluses and minuses to each (getting the Fry info in vs. leaving it out). The state decided they didn't need the Chris Fry testimony about that log file *so bad* to then allow the defense to be able to put Masucci on the stand in front of the jury. And that was the rule per the judge. If the state wanted Chris Fry with that late-breaking log file info from Cisco, then they had to accept Masucci.

And they decided not to put Fry's testimony about the log file in. We, the viewing audience, heard about it, but the jury did not.

Calculated risk, but turns out they didn't need Chris Fry's testimony about that log file. BC's friend from Cisco, Greg Miglucci, showed the IM chat log in which BC said he had taken a 3825 router home and the state felt that was good enough.

The jury convicted, so that tells you the risk to leave out the log file paid off.

I certainly don't remember that ruling. The defense pre-emptively argued that CFs testimony should allow GM, but the judge refused to base a ruling on what might happen, even though the prosecution said it was going to happen. When did Gessner say that GM could testify if CF testified?
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-06-2011, 05:18 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,630
The judge mentioned to the prosecution about 'opening the door' with the Chris Fry inclusion. That was his warning of what that would mean. It was during a hearing outside the presence of the jury, I don't remember the specific day, but around the time the defense tried to bring in Masucci. The judge would have allowed Masucci in had the state brought Fry and the log file in, and the state was left to ponder that decision and decide whether to take the risk or not.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #108  
Old 06-06-2011, 11:16 PM
Tink56's Avatar
Tink56 Tink56 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madeleine74 View Post
The judge mentioned to the prosecution about 'opening the door' with the Chris Fry inclusion. That was his warning of what that would mean. It was during a hearing outside the presence of the jury, I don't remember the specific day, but around the time the defense tried to bring in Masucci. The judge would have allowed Masucci in had the state brought Fry and the log file in, and the state was left to ponder that decision and decide whether to take the risk or not.
If either the defense or the prosecution had agreed to "opening the door," the decision could have elongated a trial that was well past its prime.

ALso, I think most lawyers agree that without adequate time to prepare for a witness, they would rather stick with those from whom they can anticipate the content and tenor of the testimony. rather than opening "new doors" at a late stage of the trial.

MOO....Interesting discussion.
__________________
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Tink56 For This Useful Post:
  #109  
Old 06-13-2011, 03:42 AM
otto otto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tink56 View Post
If either the defense or the prosecution had agreed to "opening the door," the decision could have elongated a trial that was well past its prime.

ALso, I think most lawyers agree that without adequate time to prepare for a witness, they would rather stick with those from whom they can anticipate the content and tenor of the testimony. rather than opening "new doors" at a late stage of the trial.

MOO....Interesting discussion.
The prosecution should not have wasted the jury's time with two weeks of neighborhood gossip. That would have left time for actual evidence. The prosecution appears to have been able to anticipate the defense rebuttal witness sufficiently to gamble that they didn't want the testimony admitted.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:
  #110  
Old 06-13-2011, 04:02 PM
dgfred's Avatar
dgfred dgfred is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: N.C., USA
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by otto View Post
It's that little bit of fairness that may have been overlooked that could result in a complete retrial through appeal (far more costly to the courts than providing additional funds for a witness). I guess we'll see how it plays out. One strike against the defense is that they wanted to introduce a witness that was not on the witness list, but understandably this happened after the witness they thought would be approved was discredited ... and I don't think a facebook page should really be used to discredit a witness, but it was.
But otto, if a facebook page has some 'off-base' thoughts/stuff on there and other 'crazy' things don't you think it should be brought out if that person is testifying in a murder trial for one side or the other?

Like AK's 'Foxy Knoxy' on her facebook... it is only natural to question it.
__________________
The Seeker / Sports Freak /
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to dgfred For This Useful Post:
  #111  
Old 06-15-2011, 02:49 AM
otto otto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgfred View Post
But otto, if a facebook page has some 'off-base' thoughts/stuff on there and other 'crazy' things don't you think it should be brought out if that person is testifying in a murder trial for one side or the other?

Like AK's 'Foxy Knoxy' on her facebook... it is only natural to question it.
As far as I understand, he had some waist up shots without a shirt, and had written about his fascination with conspiracy theories. He was testifying as an expert and his facebook content goes to credibiity. I view the prosecution as being a bit desperate to use Facebook to discredit him and would have preferred to see them attack his credentials. They did somewhat attack his credentials by emphasizing that he had something like 6 jobs in 10 years - but it seemed like he was a consultant rather than an employee, which suggests to me that 6 jobs in 10 years is not unusual. I thought it was a low blow, but I have it on good authority that prosecutors everywhere would raise the question of credibility based on the kind of facebook page that JW had.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:
  #112  
Old 06-15-2011, 12:00 PM
Tink56's Avatar
Tink56 Tink56 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by otto View Post
As far as I understand, he had some waist up shots without a shirt, and had written about his fascination with conspiracy theories. He was testifying as an expert and his facebook content goes to credibiity. I view the prosecution as being a bit desperate to use Facebook to discredit him and would have preferred to see them attack his credentials. They did somewhat attack his credentials by emphasizing that he had something like 6 jobs in 10 years - but it seemed like he was a consultant rather than an employee, which suggests to me that 6 jobs in 10 years is not unusual. I thought it was a low blow, but I have it on good authority that prosecutors everywhere would raise the question of credibility based on the kind of facebook page that JW had.
If the defense could have found someone with a "clean" facebook and would have [b]said what they wanted him to say,[b] the defense would have used that person. Bottom line, whether the defense pleads poverty or there was no one whose facebook page was "unobjectionable", this was probably the "best" witness who would agree with their theory. It wasn't the prosecution's issue, it was the defense's.

And, it says to me that the theory wasn't sound or likely.
__________________
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Tink56 For This Useful Post:
  #113  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:07 PM
macd macd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 350
Love Lies, the book based on this case comes out next week.
Two local book signings and Q&A with the author.
Barnes and Noble on Sunday and Quail Ridge on Thursday.
Anyone going? What questions would you ask Amanda?
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:
  #114  
Old 04-07-2012, 08:50 PM
cochrngj cochrngj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Reston, VA, USA
Posts: 9
The latest appeal

From WRAL.COM 4/5/2012:
Raleigh, N.C. — An attorney for a Cary man convicted last year of killing his wife has asked the state Court of Appeals for an extension to appeal his conviction.

Brad Cooper was found guilty May 5 of first-degree murder in the July 12, 2008, death of Nancy Cooper, whose body was found in an undeveloped subdivision several miles from their home.

Ann Peterson, an appellate attorney for Cooper, says in a motion filed Tuesday that the transcripts from the nearly two-month long trial were originally due on July 12, 2011, but that there several delays and she did not receive the 8,800-page file until Feb. 10.

Peterson wants 30 days past the April 11 deadline to appeal because she needs more time to read and review the transcripts.

One possible ground for appeal is likely to center on evidence that jurors didn't get to hear.

Cooper's defense team claimed that someone tampered with a computer in which investigators found evidence of a Google Maps search of the site where Nancy Cooper’s body was found that was conducted the day before she went missing.

The judge, however, did not allow the testimony, saying the expert witness wasn't qualified. He also disallowed a second witness, because the prosecution argued that timing didn't allow them to prepare for adequate cross-examination.

Cooper, 38, is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole at Central Prison in Raleigh.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to cochrngj For This Useful Post:
  #115  
Old 04-09-2012, 04:58 PM
macd macd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 350
The extension was allowed.
http://appellate.nccourts.org/docket...&submit=Search
Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:
  #116  
Old 05-25-2012, 07:45 PM
otto otto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,247
A little off topic, but not entirely ... Brett Wilson, the guy that Nancy Cooper was seeing before she married Brad, and who she was connecting with when the marriage fell apart, was awarded the Order of Canada.

http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=14175
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:
  #117  
Old 11-06-2012, 05:17 PM
jmflu's Avatar
jmflu jmflu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cary, NC
Posts: 1,404
And today he has appealed.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jmflu For This Useful Post:
  #118  
Old 11-06-2012, 05:54 PM
Just the Fax's Avatar
Just the Fax Just the Fax is offline
Justice For The Fisher's
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,852
http://www.kurtzandblum.com/criminal...-defense-brief

Appellate Brief in State v. Brad Cooper
Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Just the Fax For This Useful Post:
  #119  
Old 11-06-2012, 06:43 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,630
18 months to get to the point of filing. Although a significant portion of that time is waiting for the court reporters to finish the trial transcript. Tick Tock.
__________________
My kingdom for a Roget's. Thy will, thee grace, ye what hath thou unleashed?
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #120  
Old 11-07-2012, 04:11 PM
ncsu95 ncsu95 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,398
Based on the issues brought up in the appeal, I think it is highly likely that Brad gets a new trial.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ncsu95 For This Useful Post:
  #121  
Old 11-07-2012, 08:38 PM
macd macd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 350
I predict the appeal will be denied.

There are four points made in the brief:

1) PRECLUDING THE TESTIMONY OF GIOVANNI MASUCCI

At the time of the ruling Giovanni had not even finished his report. I see no way his testimony could have been allowed.

2) RULING THAT JAY WARD WAS NOT QUALIFIED

The defense was given wide latitude to ask forensic questions under the guise of network expertise.

3a) DEFENSE MOTION FOR PRETRIAL DISCOVERY

I don't know the details behind this.

3b) MOTION AT TRIAL PRODUCTION OF THE DATA CREATED

While Gessner ruled the prosecution did not have to provide the MFT, they did provide it. It even would up on the defense's buffet of evidence table.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to macd For This Useful Post:
  #122  
Old 11-07-2012, 09:14 PM
Madeleine74's Avatar
Madeleine74 Madeleine74 is online now
From The Dept of Redundancy Dept
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,630
On appeal point #2, I find it interesting that Jay Ward himself said he agrees with Gessner's ruling that he was not a forensic expert. Here's a refresher on what Jay Ward posted on WS about that, right after he testified in April 2011:
"Actually, I agreed with the Judge's ruling not to allow me to testify to forensic practices. As I freely admitted on the stand, while I do have some experience in analyzing forensic data, I would never hold myself out as a forensic expert. I also told the defense this, up front.

What I disagreed with, was the DA taking obvious advantage of the Judge's ignorance in technology to claim that so much of what would normally be within my normal purview as analysis as being "forensics". This is simply laughable, but I do understand that the DA also has a job to do and I do not begrudge him. As a matter of fact, I went up to him during the break and told him that I understood he was doing his job and that I held no ill feelings towards him. I extended the same courtesy to Special Agent Johnson from the FBI, and found him to be warm, cordial and genuine."
__________________
My kingdom for a Roget's. Thy will, thee grace, ye what hath thou unleashed?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Madeleine74 For This Useful Post:
  #123  
Old 11-10-2012, 11:22 AM
otto otto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncsu95 View Post
Based on the issues brought up in the appeal, I think it is highly likely that Brad gets a new trial.
In reading through the appeal document, it seems like he has solid grounds for appeal on the basis that his constitutional rights were violated. Any thoughts on whether they were actually violated?

As I was reading the appeal document, it struck me as so unusual that a man, whose wife was found murdered, would immediately lose custody of his children. I've never heard of that before, and wondered if Brad was treated differently because he was not a US citizen. For example, when Michelle Young was murdered, no one even considered taking custody of his daughter because everyone knew that a child would not be taken from a parent without good cause. The exact opposite occurred with Brad. I would like to see this practice tested with other cases; a NC case where the murder of a spouse results in the the immediate transfer of custody to the in-laws.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:
  #124  
Old 11-11-2012, 12:02 AM
otto otto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 19,247
I've been reading Amanda Lamb's book about the case. It's interesting to see how she tells the story as opposed to how the appeal reads.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to otto For This Useful Post:
  #125  
Old 11-11-2012, 03:02 PM
macd macd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by otto View Post
In reading through the appeal document, it seems like he has solid grounds for appeal on the basis that his constitutional rights were violated. Any thoughts on whether they were actually violated?
IMHO, the defense was expert witness shopping. The original two expert witnesses on their list were never called to the stand. Some have said this was because they didn't like the conclusions they drew.

The theory of the bogus timestamps was originally Kurtz's. Not a computer expert, but a lawyer. He then had to find an expert who was willing to testify to his theory.

They found Jay Ward, who was willing, but not an expert in Window's timestamps. They found Giovanni, but too late. And, Giovanni never finished his report and never analyzed the drive himself.

The constitution does not guarantee defendants the right to have unlimited time and attempts to find someone who will get on the stand and say whatever the defense lawyer tells him to.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brad Cooper SeriouslySearching Nancy Cooper 211 04-13-2014 11:09 PM
State v Brad Cooper 4-8-2011 cityslick Nancy Cooper 592 04-09-2011 08:30 PM
Brad Cooper April 1st Weekend Cheyenne130 Nancy Cooper 676 04-04-2011 10:34 AM
Brad Cooper Indicted #2 CW Nancy Cooper 20 12-10-2009 03:08 PM
Brad Cooper Indicted courtney Nancy Cooper 738 10-31-2008 08:42 PM


© Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 New To Site? Need Help?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:13 AM.

Advertisements

Pre-Order Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony today!