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

[calgary123]

I don't really buy into Nancy having been abused.

Having spoken at length and several times with a former girlfriend of Brad's on the topic, and learning much more than is even filed in Affdidavits about a prior relationship, I have no doubt the stories of him abusing Nancy are true. The stories about how he became with Nancy are just an extension of he was with others.

 

[Madeleine74]

"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.

Curious about the use of the word “conspiracy" in this case, especially since you previously asserted that no such thing was alleged by those who question Brad's guilt nor was the word used by those who think Brad is or might be innocent and now that you've further asserted WS has to be the source for that writer, I did a google search to see what might come up. What I found in just one search is not only is the word "conspiracy" used, but the word "framing" or "framed" is also very often used in this case by those who think Brad is not guilty. Here are 3 examples discovered in one quick search:


1. William Anderson Blog. http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/2011/06/framing-of-bradley-cooper.html “I doubt that framing Cooper was a difficult decision. And, if there is a conspiracy to lie, destroy or alter evidence, and to railroad an innocent man into prison, what better people to do it than the men and women who wear the blue costume.”

2. Justiceforbradcooper blog: part of entry by someone named John: http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpre...imony-and-its-impact-on-the-brad-cooper-case/ “Too inconsequetial [sic] to be the object of a grand, coordinated conspiracy. But the fact that a conspiracy existed is obvious. Is it possible that Nancy’s murder was just the tool used to bring about Brad’s destruction? “

3. Justiceforbradcooper blog: part of entry by someone named Jack: http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/brad-coopers-plea-deal/ “As a fellow Canadian, I can explain a societal issue that in all likelihood is completely foreign to you (as it was to me) and that is the concept of conspiracy.”


As for "chatboards" WS is not the only game in town, by far. There are many out there. In addition there are social media sites and lots of comments after every article published on WRAL or ABC or the local newspaper site. WRAL is the most active and is certainly better known.

 

[Madeleine74]

I applaud Jill Dean for channeling her grief into continued forward momentum to affect change that can benefit many. It is a great way to use one's energy, to help uplift others and provide assistance and a positive environment. I didn't realize the work she was doing, but I think it's great. That family is lovely, gracious, and kind, the epitome of class, IMO.

As for the article itself, unfortunately it does have some inaccuracies, which is why media articles are not considered factual records in court. I doubt I've ever seen an article that didn't have at least one error. There were several in this article. Someone who only used media articles or blog post as the basis of knowledge could easily be mislead on some facts in this or any case.

 

[otto]

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.

The businessman and his wife separated in June 1999, so if Nancy was seriously involved with that businessman until she met Brad in 1999, then Nancy was involved with a married man that was still in his marriage.

Should we doubt the words of a family member? If Nancy was not seriously involved with that businessman, was that something that Nancy made up and her family is misinformed? If the family is making this up, is anything else in the article factual?

 

[otto]

Having spoken at length and several times with a former girlfriend of Brad's on the topic, and learning much more than is even filed in Affdidavits about a prior relationship, I have no doubt the stories of him abusing Nancy are true. The stories about how he became with Nancy are just an extension of he was with others.

What sort of abuse did Nancy experience?

 

[oenophile]

Curious about the use of the word “conspiracy" in this case, especially since you previously asserted that no such thing was alleged by those who question Brad's guilt nor was the word used by those who think Brad is or might be innocent and now that you've further asserted WS has to be the source for that writer, I did a google search to see what might come up. What I found in just one search is not only is the word "conspiracy" used, but the word "framing" or "framed" is also very often used in this case by those who think Brad is not guilty. Here are 3 examples discovered in one quick search:

While it is commendable that you did the search, several errors in your analysis. First, "framing" and "conspiracy" are two vastly different topics. Second, I never asserted that WS has to be the source for that writer, only that they repeated something that was mentioned here several times (while you are searching, it would be noteworthy to search for "conspiracy" on this forum, I think you would be surprised whose avatar pops up most frequently). Finally, I never said that there was never an accusation of conspiracy, however there are a group of people here who have consistently said that the trial and the whole process was flawed that never claimed conspiracy. To cherry-pick the term, particularly outside of WS, only goes to prove the point.

As for "chatboards" WS is not the only game in town, by far. There are many out there. In addition there are social media sites and lots of comments after every article published on WRAL or ABC or the local newspaper site. WRAL is the most active and is certainly better known.

WS is much more well known than WRAL. Not sure what basis you have to claim otherwise.

 

[oenophile]

I applaud Jill Dean for channeling her grief into continued forward momentum to affect change that can benefit many. It is a great way to use one's energy, to help uplift others and provide assistance and a positive environment. I didn't realize the work she was doing, but I think it's great. That family is lovely, gracious, and kind, the epitome of class, IMO.

You know, I don't blame the family for how they deal with the grief. And frankly, I don't blame them if they erroneously believe that this was spousal abuse. The victim's family are not expected to be impartial. They blamed Brad from the beginning, guilty or not, and I can understand that. They are victims as well.

However, from a public perspective, that doesn't give the media the right to compound this with biased reporting. The media does not answer to the victim's family, they answer to the public, and they have a responsibility to be unbiased in their reporting. Something that the media failed on, at a level that is offensive, continuously.

As for the article itself, unfortunately it does have some inaccuracies, which is why media articles are not considered factual records in court. I doubt I've ever seen an article that didn't have at least one error. There were several in this article. Someone who only used media articles or blog post as the basis of knowledge could easily be mislead on some facts in this or any case.

We agree on something.

 

[Madeleine74]

We agree on something.

Doubt it will extend much beyond.

Afterall, I believe:

- Brad Cooper is actually guilty of the murder.
- No one else planted or changed the Google map search on Brad's work laptop.
- Brad Cooper did not have to take the plea, but chose to do so upon learning of the opportunity, and was not forced, coerced or threatened in any way to accept a plea deal.
- Brad Cooper, instead of accepting any plea, could have done exactly what Michael Peterson is now opting to do -- force the state to a new trial. At that point the state's choices would have been: go to a 2nd trial or drop all charges and let Brad go free.
- Brad Cooper would have been able to bring in multiple digital evidence experts, if he had them, to try and impeach the state's evidence, and especially so with the rulings of the appellate court.
- Brad Cooper could have had a "fair" 2nd trial, regardless of which judge was at the helm, and with a jury that his defense team helped select (just like his first team helped select and ultimately approved his first set of jurors).

 

[Madeleine74]

WS is much more well known than WRAL. Not sure what basis you have to claim otherwise.

WRAL is the best known of all the news sites and has the most traffic/comments about this case, over other news sites. I differentiated the different kinds of sites in my comment but you made an assumption, which was incorrect.

I didn't "cherry pick" anything. I did one quick search (outside of WS and not including WS) to see what came up around that specific word since you had an issue with the reporter using that word. As a result of one quick search I saw some supporters of Brad or "doubters of Brad's guilt" proposing a "conspiracy" occurred in this case.

A conspiracy, according to dictionary.reference.com:

- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan or plot formulated in secret by two or more persons.

- an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

 

[oenophile]

Doubt it will extend much beyond.

Afterall, I believe:

- Brad Cooper is actually guilty of the murder.
- No one else planted or changed the Google map search on Brad's work laptop.
- Brad Cooper did not have to take the plea, but chose to do so upon learning of the opportunity, and was not forced, coerced or threatened in any way to accept a plea deal.
- Brad Cooper, instead of accepting any plea, could have done exactly what Michael Peterson is now opting to do -- force the state to a new trial. At that point the state's choices would have been: go to a 2nd trial or drop all charges and let Brad go free.
- Brad Cooper would have been able to bring in multiple digital evidence experts, if he had them, to try and impeach the state's evidence, and especially so with the rulings of the appellate court.
- Brad Cooper could have had a "fair" 2nd trial, regardless of which judge was at the helm, and with a jury that his defense team helped select (just like his first team helped select and ultimately approved his first set of jurors).

I agree with points 3-5. On point six, I do not in any way believe that he would have had a fair trial with Gessner at the helm. Not in a million years. Another judge, possibly.

Edited to add: one addendum on point three, he was threatened with another trial where the outcome would have been life in prison. That is a fact. So I guess on that small point I am in disagreement as it is factually incorrect to say that he was not threatened, regardless of your belief.

 

[oenophile]

A conspiracy, according to dictionary.reference.com:

- an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan or plot formulated in secret by two or more persons.

- an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

EXACTLY. And I'm saying, and have said repeatedly, that it did not require a conspiracy to believe that Brad could have been framed. All it would have taken is one overzealous person adding a couple of files to a computer. Conspiracy suggests that multiple people were coordinating a fabrication of evidence, which I don't believe was the case.

There are lots of people that believe that Brad may be innocent who do not believe any conspiracy took place.

 

[Madeleine74]

"Threatened with another trial?"

LOL

He/his defense team fought for another trial and won the right to have a new trial. That was considered a huge win by his team, his supporters, and everyone who wanted him to be able to present his evidence and digital evidence witnesses on the stand. He would have absolutely been able to do just that.

There were 3 outcomes that could occur in a 2nd trial:

1. Outright aquittal, walk away free forever
2. Conviction, LWOP
3. Hung jury (would take only 1 juror voting not guilty to hang a jury) and the state would likely not have the $$ to prosecute for a 3rd time.

And... he chose door #4. Plead guilty, admit guilt, spend another 6 or so years in state prison.

Cummings comment in that article was to the point and accurate. He's guilty / it's over.

 

[oenophile]

"Threatened with another trial?"

LOL

He/his defense team fought for another trial and won the right to have a new trial.

He WON the right to a new trial because the DA was DISHONEST, the Judge was BIASED, and the trial was unjust.

He was certainly threatened with another trial. THAT IS A FACT, not my opinion nor my belief. It is a fact.

Cummings comment in that article was to the point and accurate. He's guilty / it's over.

Wow, you seriously believe that? Cummings was disgusting in the way that he approached this trial. As to his comments, just look at this quote from the article:

“And they often tend to be volatile, and be public in their criticism of their spouses,” Cummings says. “That part of it is sort of classic psychological domestic abuse.”

What a bunch of nonsense. It was NANCY who was public in the criticism of her spouse, NOT BRAD!!!! NANCY!!!! According to this statement, NANCY was the one that was doling out the psychological domestic abuse.

This was never about domestic abuse. This was about a witch-hunt that started with Nancy's friends, was picked up by the Cary PD, and was finished by the DA.

 

[JusticeFever]

Question: Does anyone think Michael Peterson is any less guilty because he refused to take a plea?

 

[seattlechiquita]

Hard to believe the discussion over an admitted convicted killer is still going on. Seriously.

 

[otto]

Hard to believe the discussion over an admitted convicted killer is still going on. Seriously.

There are several aspects of this case that are simply not as clear cut as one would like. Even something as simple as "Nancy was abused" is a claim based on nothing. If anything, Brad appeared to be the abused party in the marriage. Brad was trying to reign in the spending so they could keep their house, and we all know that Nancy doing everything she could to interfere. We simply don't know what Nancy was doing and who she was doing it with because police went to a lot of trouble to destroy cell phone data. Brad refused two plea deals, only to accept the third after it was abundantly clear that a fair trial for him was more of a myth than a reality. There were an awful lot of problems in the trial with the evidence, secret witnesses, excluded witnesses, judicial rulings, gossip, and a bit of neighborly hysteria.

 

[JusticeFever]

Hard to believe the discussion over an admitted convicted killer is still going on. Seriously.

Some cases warrant discussion long after a verdict or a plea deal. I do agree with you for the most part, but I would
have a better feeling about the plea hearing, had it not gone down as almost staged..and the ADA had not used that hearing to misrepresent well known facts of the case.
It bothers me that BC balked at admitting aspects of the crime though, if he committed the murder why would he object to admitting to any details? :waitasec:

 

[ncsu95]

He WON the right to a new trial because the DA was DISHONEST, the Judge was BIASED, and the trial was unjust.

He was certainly threatened with another trial. THAT IS A FACT, not my opinion nor my belief. It is a fact.



Wow, you seriously believe that? Cummings was disgusting in the way that he approached this trial. As to his comments, just look at this quote from the article:



What a bunch of nonsense. It was NANCY who was public in the criticism of her spouse, NOT BRAD!!!! NANCY!!!! According to this statement, NANCY was the one that was doling out the psychological domestic abuse.

This was never about domestic abuse. This was about a witch-hunt that started with Nancy's friends, was picked up by the Cary PD, and was finished by the DA.

Exactly. I'm truly amazed that most of the people on this forum aren't outraged by the actions of the judge and prosecutors. I asked a couple of times a few pages ago if they would advocate prosecutors lying or hiding evidence if it would secure a conviction and got nothing but crickets chirping. So I suspect they wouldn't admit it, but really don't have an issue with the deception from the prosecutors and basically manipulating a judge to hide testimony that could have potentially exonerated him. Of course, thank God that the COA smacked them down pretty definitively in their ruling. But they got a conviction and then a plea deal, so no worries. All is right in the world.

 

[JusticeFever]

Exactly. I'm truly amazed that most of the people on this forum aren't outraged by the actions of the judge and prosecutors. I asked a couple of times a few pages ago if they would advocate prosecutors lying or hiding evidence if it would secure a conviction and got nothing but crickets chirping. So I suspect they wouldn't admit it, but really don't have an issue with the deception from the prosecutors and basically manipulating a judge to hide testimony that could have potentially exonerated him. Of course, thank God that the COA smacked them down pretty definitively in their ruling. But they got a conviction and then a plea deal, so no worries. All is right in the world.

If I thought BC was guilty, I would be a lot more concerned with the state offering a plea deal, then I would be at Brad's accepting it.
We have heard different excuses from the state as to why they chose not to proceed.. but....we haven't heard why Brad
chose to accept.....

 

[dgfred]

Exactly. I'm truly amazed that most of the people on this forum aren't outraged by the actions of the judge and prosecutors. I asked a couple of times a few pages ago if they would advocate prosecutors lying or hiding evidence if it would secure a conviction and got nothing but crickets chirping. So I suspect they wouldn't admit it, but really don't have an issue with the deception from the prosecutors and basically manipulating a judge to hide testimony that could have potentially exonerated him. Of course, thank God that the COA smacked them down pretty definitively in their ruling. But they got a conviction and then a plea deal, so no worries. All is right in the world.

Crickets maybe because most don't agree with your assessment. IMO the prosecutor did not lie... and did not hide evidence. So I am pleased the cost of another trial is avoided and the accused admitted his guilt.

Manipulating a judge = No
Deception from prosecutors = No

No more crickets.