Brad Cooper Pleads Guilty to 2nd Degree Murder of Nancy Cooper

[JusticeFever]

10/17/14 And, because this never happens in North Carolina.....

www.wral.com/durham-man-found-innocent-of-1975-granville-county-murder/14088875/

 

[JusticeFever]

Brad's plea was coerced. They used his children to extort it. He couldn't risk another unfair trial with the same Judge who had a public humiliation at the hands of the appellate court. That court and the state Supreme Court should be concerned about the volume of cases needing retrial in because of judicial "mistakes." Which is why I think the decision was made to review the Jason Young case.

This is definitely a case needing review by the Innocence Commission.

JMO

I can't find fault with someone taking a plea..why gamble on a sure thing?
The Jason Young case should be interesting, with all these plea dealings going on. Will Young get a plea, will he take it?
Stay tuned. :wink:

 

[ncsu95]

The defense has the general advantage upon retrial. IMO. They now know what to expect and are better prepared to counter the State's arguments. BC already won an appeal. Why would he think he would in all likelihood be convicted? IMPO, the ball was in his court (no pun intended), and he pled guilty.

That didn't work for Jason Young after the first mistrial. Of course, the CoA threw the conviction out as well. But obviously the defense didn't have the upperhand in that retrial.

 

[MyBelle]

I can't find fault with someone taking a plea..why gamble on a sure thing?
The Jason Young case should be interesting, with all these plea dealings going on. Will Young get a plea, will he take it?
Stay tuned. :wink:

Jason Young's trials were both farcical. I was in total disbelief at the Judge's obvious bias throughout the trial. It's laughable that a re-trial is ordered and yet it goes to the same Judge who screwed-up. Neither of these cases has resulted in justice. Nancy's killer is still out there and so is Michelle's.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

10/17/14 And, because this never happens in North Carolina.....

www.wral.com/durham-man-found-innocent-of-1975-granville-county-murder/14088875/

Incredibly horrible. Thanks for the link.

 

[JusticeFever]

OT/ There is news in the Jason Young case, I will post it on that thread in a second........
Okay, posted~!

 

[JusticeFever]

The defense has the general advantage upon retrial. IMO. They now know what to expect and are better prepared to counter the State's arguments. BC already won an appeal. Why would he think he would in all likelihood be convicted? IMPO, the ball was in his court (no pun intended), and he pled guilty.

Brad never had the ball, the state had the ball. The state decided not to go ahead with a new trial and offered Brad a deal to keep from trying him again. This was a man they thought they had locked up for life, so why didn't they go a second round if they were so sure they could get a conviction again.
See, it works both ways....and,btw, the state usually has the advantage in a retrial, not the defense.
After speaking to the previous jurors, they can find out what and where they went wrong.

jmo

 

[calgary123]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/i...gan+disappear+long+before/10322741/story.html

 

[oenophile]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/i...gan+disappear+long+before/10322741/story.html

Detailed but deeply biased article. Clearly the desire is not for closure.

 

[calgary123]

Detailed but deeply biased article. Clearly the desire is not for closure.

Keep in mind that here, there is not any controversy about whether Brad did it. This should be understood as an article talking about what is "fact" from the point of view that he's in jail and has also confessed that he did do it. This is not an article intending to comment on the judicial system of North Carolina. Its not biased just because it doesn't spend time talking about whether the legal system worked. In almost every murder case there are some people who think the wrong person was convicted.

This article was actually all about closure, and how things move on from there as now her sister helps other abused spouses. The case is over, for all time Brad has said he did it, and despite that, he'll be out in a few years and roaming the streets somewhere in Canada.

 

[Just the Fax]

Detailed but deeply biased article. Clearly the desire is not for closure.

Biased? Really?
Last I heard, Brad Cooper admitted - under oath to God- he in fact, murdered Nancy.

Sounds like closure to me..............

 

[oenophile]

Yes, incredibly biased article, accuses Brad of things that did not happen according to the evidence, factually incorrect in many cases, and serves nothing but to inflame rather than gain closure.

And point of fact, there is controversy over whether Brad did it. Innocent people plead guilty all the time. That is an undeniable but often ignored fact. And yes, he did so under oath (as to whether there is a god, that is another conversation), so legally he is absolutely guilty of this crime. But that does not mean that he, in fact, murdered Nancy. It either means that he murdered her or he committed perjury. THAT is fact.

People here often confuse fact with what they believe to be true.

I'll also note that the article takes its time to trash people on this board who believed that Brad may be innocent, and it uses the old "conspiracy" label in order to do so. Clearly, this article was written from the torch and pitchfork crowd point of view. No bias there. :notgood:

 

[Madeleine74]

I'll also note that the article takes its time to trash people on this board who believed that Brad may be innocent

Where was Websleuths mentioned, and what trashing was done?

 

[oenophile]

"The chatboards buzzed with those who allege conspiracy, and say he took the plea simply for a shorter sentence. "

There is no more active chatboard on this than WS, and the "allege conspiracy" comment could have been pulled straight from one of your posts. We are not alleging conspiracy, we are alleging a rush to judgement and injustice. The "conspiracy" charge is one leveled by you and others against those who challenged the states version of events. It is dishonest, inaccurate, and amounts to trashing those who disagree with you by making false and loaded accusations which are then repeated in the media.

 

[calgary123]

And point of fact, there is controversy over whether Brad did it.

What I meant in my post was, there is no such controversy in Alberta. While there are parallels with the US system, we don't have elected judges or "DAs". There is no deep-seated mistrust of authority. We don't live with the perceived reality that some in NC and other parts of the US seem to. We don't have an equivalent of the 2nd amendment and we don't care to have one-- our political system was not based on the militaristic overthrow of another regime but rather a slow, negotiated and peaceful end to foreign rule. We tend to trust authority, perhaps to our own eventual detriment.

That's not to say we think our system is perfect, because such a system doesn't exist. There might be a person here or there in Alberta who thinks Brad didn't do it, but for the large part most people don't even know this story. In the extended circle of people I know from Medicine Hat who know Brad, I know of one person he knew from high school that thinks he didn't do it. Obviously not a scientific poll or anything, but there is just no controversy here, it is generally accepted for those who follow it, that he did it.

 

[oenophile]

What I meant in my post was, there is no such controversy in Alberta. While there are parallels with the US system, we don't have elected judges or "DAs". There is no deep-seated mistrust of authority. We don't live with the perceived reality that some in NC and other parts of the US seem to. We don't have an equivalent of the 2nd amendment and we don't care to have one-- our political system was not based on the militaristic overthrow of another regime but rather a slow, negotiated and peaceful end to foreign rule. We tend to trust authority, perhaps to our own eventual detriment.

That's not to say we think our system is perfect, because such a system doesn't exist. There might be a person here or there in Alberta who thinks Brad didn't do it, but for the large part most people don't even know this story. In the extended circle of people I know from Medicine Hat who know Brad, I know of one person he knew from high school that thinks he didn't do it. Obviously not a scientific poll or anything, but there is just no controversy here, it is generally accepted for those who follow it, that he did it.

I can understand that. Although in the U.S. Justice System, I would argue that the public at large does not have a mistrust of authority, especially certain demographics. This is what makes others of us so mistrustful, because there is a cheerleader mentality when it comes to crime and punishment in the U.S.. Just look at the death penalty, lots of people are adamantly in favor of the death penalty, and they rally behind it when someone is about to be executed. Yet the U.S. is virtually alone in the Western world in terms of capital punishment. Another example is juries. Generally, jurors (despite instructions) tend to trust the state more than the defense. There is an emotional, underlying belief that the state would not bring someone to trial if they didn't have evidence that he were guilty, and that the defense will do anything to block that evidence. This directly undermines the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption. Jurors must overcome this in order to find someone not-guilty.

The other thing that the adversarial system creates is a measurement system not based on justice but based on convictions and case resolution. It becomes much less important to ensure that the right person is put in jail, but rather the incentive is to put the most likely person in jail regardless of guilt or innocence. From the outset, there was a belief that Brad was the most likely person, and that is reasonable. But there were also a lot of red flags that all was not right with the investigation, and it started the day that her body was found when other possibilities were irresponsibly ruled out. Had the justice system been looking to find justice rather than close the case and get a conviction, the investigation may have taken an entirely different path.

Thus I can understand why in Canada, with a system that is less adversarial and more justice-driven, a conviction in the U.S. is assumed to be valid and therefore no controversy. Each system has its benefits and each its flaws. I don't think either are perfect. But given the perspective that you presented, which I hadn't really considered, I can understand why it is not controversial.

Just gotta ditch that whole Monarchy thing

 

[otto]

Keep in mind that here, there is not any controversy about whether Brad did it. This should be understood as an article talking about what is "fact" from the point of view that he's in jail and has also confessed that he did do it. This is not an article intending to comment on the judicial system of North Carolina. Its not biased just because it doesn't spend time talking about whether the legal system worked. In almost every murder case there are some people who think the wrong person was convicted.

This article was actually all about closure, and how things move on from there as now her sister helps other abused spouses. The case is over, for all time Brad has said he did it, and despite that, he'll be out in a few years and roaming the streets somewhere in Canada.

I don't really buy into Nancy having been abused. She knew perfectly well that after moving to NC she would be financially dependant on Brad, so the fact that she was financially dependant on him says nothing about whether she was abused. Both of them overspent to the extent that they were facing financial troubles. Still, Nancy continued to vacation, pay for pedicures for toddlers, and live the lifestyle she wanted. She complained that $300 pocket money per week was not enough. She badmouthed Brad to anyone that would listen. It was Nancy, in fact, who was first to stray from the marriage. She belittled him at the party they attended before she vanished. I could go on, but won't. I don't see Nancy, the social butterfly, as a victim of abuse.

 

[otto]

I can understand that. Although in the U.S. Justice System, I would argue that the public at large does not have a mistrust of authority, especially certain demographics. This is what makes others of us so mistrustful, because there is a cheerleader mentality when it comes to crime and punishment in the U.S.. Just look at the death penalty, lots of people are adamantly in favor of the death penalty, and they rally behind it when someone is about to be executed. Yet the U.S. is virtually alone in the Western world in terms of capital punishment. Another example is juries. Generally, jurors (despite instructions) tend to trust the state more than the defense. There is an emotional, underlying belief that the state would not bring someone to trial if they didn't have evidence that he were guilty, and that the defense will do anything to block that evidence. This directly undermines the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption. Jurors must overcome this in order to find someone not-guilty.

The other thing that the adversarial system creates is a measurement system not based on justice but based on convictions and case resolution. It becomes much less important to ensure that the right person is put in jail, but rather the incentive is to put the most likely person in jail regardless of guilt or innocence. From the outset, there was a belief that Brad was the most likely person, and that is reasonable. But there were also a lot of red flags that all was not right with the investigation, and it started the day that her body was found when other possibilities were irresponsibly ruled out. Had the justice system been looking to find justice rather than close the case and get a conviction, the investigation may have taken an entirely different path.

Thus I can understand why in Canada, with a system that is less adversarial and more justice-driven, a conviction in the U.S. is assumed to be valid and therefore no controversy. Each system has its benefits and each its flaws. I don't think either are perfect. But given the perspective that you presented, which I hadn't really considered, I can understand why it is not controversial.

Just gotta ditch that whole Monarchy thing

I suspect that anyone from Canada that followed the first two weeks of the trial would have been asking one question: what's the point in finding an unbiased jury if the first thing they hear - for two weeks - is biased opinion and neighbourhood gossip. That is not allowed in a Canadian courtroom. That in itself cast doubt over the entire process. The duck story was absurd, as there was clearly no real effort to locate the ducks. Then we have the ever changing colour of the dress. The wiping of cell phones was right out of a comedy act. The entire investigation, arrest, and prosecution seemed to be driven by hysterical housewives that bed-hop when they're bored. I don't think it can be said that, because Canadians typically trust their own justice system, they will not be shocked by the antics in a foreign courtroom.

 

[otto]

There's an important word miss from the below statement. The word "married" should be somewhere between "prominent" and "businessman". That's businessman was divorced in 2001. In the context of portraying Nancy as a victim of abuse, it probably doesn't go over too well if people also know that she had a role in destroying a marriage, or that she viewed married men as fair game when she was both married and single.

"Nancy had been seriously involved with a prominent Calgary businessman when she met Brad, but Brad changed things. ... [Nancy and Brad] met working for IBM in Calgary in 1999 ..."

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/i...gan+disappear+long+before/10322741/story.html

 

[calgary123]

There's an important word miss from the below statement. The word "married" should be somewhere between "prominent" and "businessman". That's businessman was divorced in 2001. In the context of portraying Nancy as a victim of abuse, it probably doesn't go over too well if people also know that she had a role in destroying a marriage, or that she viewed married men as fair game when she was both married and single.

This is an example of someone taking an article and then adding facts which aren't there. WBW was separated from his wife long before the divorce judgment was finalized. Nancy had no role in contributing to the end of their marriage. He wasn't the celebrity then he is now, and frankly they didn't have an exclusive relationship even when it was going on, from what I understand. The article itself is false to suggest Nancy had to choose between WBW and Brad. WBW was not offering any relationship of any long term benefit to anyone at that time, though as at least a millionaire 100 times over at that point, he had lots of interest. The most you could really say is, she had a coffee date with WBW on a Saturday morning, after spending a Friday evening out at the bars with Brad and having a sleep-over.