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

From the N & O:

Brad Cooper may choose plea deal over new trial in wife's death

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/09/08/4134517_brad-cooper-has-plea-offers-to.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1

I think it is important to note that, at least according to the articles I've read, this information is coming from the Rentz's. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have commented. Now I assume that the prosecution has been in contact with the Rentz's, hence the reason why they believe that there is a plea deal expected. According to the N&O, "His former in-laws have alerted media outlets that they plan to come to Raleigh from Canada with hopes of closure in a case that keeps the two Cooper girls, now 8 and 10, in a state of limbo."

As to whether BC is seriously considering the deal, we'll probably need to wait until the 22nd. Because of the limited information, I think it is too soon to determine whether the deal on the table is an Alford plea or not.

oenophile said:

I think it is important to note that, at least according to the articles I've read, this information is coming from the Rentz's. Neither the prosecution nor the defense have commented. Now I assume that the prosecution has been in contact with the Rentz's, hence the reason why they believe that there is a plea deal expected. According to the N&O, "His former in-laws have alerted media outlets that they plan to come to Raleigh from Canada with hopes of closure in a case that keeps the two Cooper girls, now 8 and 10, in a state of limbo."

As to whether BC is seriously considering the deal, we'll probably need to wait until the 22nd. Because of the limited information, I think it is too soon to determine whether the deal on the table is an Alford plea or not.

Click to expand...

The only plea mentioned is one for 2nd degree murder...I doubt Cooper will be offered an
Alford plea.
Even though his conviction has been overturned, the court did find him guilty the first time around.
I think the difference with Raven Abaroa getting an Alford plea was that the Jury hung the 1st trial, which also makes me wonder if Jason Young was ever offered a plea between trials 1 and 2........
JMO

I've been away for a long while, can someone refresh me as to the Frye evidence please?

gracielee said:

I've been away for a long while, can someone refresh me as to the Frye evidence please?

Click to expand...

As I understand it, Chris Frye of Cisco discovered evidence of a router, matching the MAC address of one of the routers Brad had borrowed, connected to Brad's computer the Friday evening before the murder. The evidence was apparently through a Windows System log. This evidence was delivered to the prosecution late in the trial, after the prosecution had already presented their case in chief. The judge disallowed the testimony due to discovery violations.

That is only my understanding of what was claimed. As I never heard the proffer nor read the transcript, I have no idea how accurate this is.

If the evidence is accurate, it would certainly be open to be introduced in the second trial.

oenophile said:

As I understand it, Chris Frye of Cisco discovered evidence of a router, matching the MAC address of one of the routers Brad had borrowed, connected to Brad's computer the Friday evening before the murder. The evidence was apparently through a Windows System log. This evidence was delivered to the prosecution late in the trial, after the prosecution had already presented their case in chief. The judge disallowed the testimony due to discovery violations.

That is only my understanding of what was claimed. As I never heard the proffer nor read the transcript, I have no idea how accurate this is.

If the evidence is accurate, it would certainly be open to be introduced in the second trial.

Click to expand...

As someone who has believed Brad Cooper to be guilty, that evidence sounds pretty damning. Added to all the rest of the evidence against him, I can see why he's perhaps looking for a plea. Thanks for your explanation.

gracielee said:

As someone who has believed Brad Cooper to be guilty, that evidence sounds pretty damning. Added to all the rest of the evidence against him, I can see why he's perhaps looking for a plea. Thanks for your explanation.

Click to expand...

I agree that the evidence, as stated, sounds damning. My challenge with it is that I don't think it has been vetted yet. First, we haven't actually heard the evidence, as of the moment it is simply hearsay. Hence, my description could be wrong. Second, it hadn't been examined by a defense expert when it was introduced, so we don't know if the digital data actually says what Frye said it says.

But you are correct, if the evidence is accurate as stated, this would be reason to take a plea.

Re: The Frye evidence - This is going back to the alleged spoofed call - this is to be evidence that a specific router was hooked up to spoof the 6:40AM phone call from the Cooper land line to Brad's cell phone.

Even if they could provide evidence of this (I *highly* doubt they have it), it still does not account for the fact that the type of call they allege was automated in this fashion has a maximum potential of 23 seconds. The call in question is 32 seconds long.

Don't you think that if they had any evidence whatsoever of a faked phone call, they would have highlighted it at trial? Of course they would have.

Did you know that Detective Young signed all the routers out of evidence from the Cooper home for 4 weeks and there is NO discovery on it. There is no explanation provided for what they did with them. Young testified that he simply signed them out because the FBI guys wanted them. Daniels testified that he had no knowledge of this - Young was tasked with all the computer related stuff. The FBI stated that they never looked at any routers and were never asked to look at any routers so someone is lying. Nobody knows anything... hmmm. Is it possible they looked at them and found even more exculpatory evidence that there was NO spoofed call at the alleged time? I think certainly it is very possible.

The entire thing was fabricated completely out of thin air. They searched and searched and there is not a log file, a record, nothing that proves a call was generated. They went to great lengths to suggest ways it "could be" done because they know the case falls apart if Nancy really did call Brad that morning. Of course she did. It is consistent with everything else that happened that morning. Bella saw her. Officer Hayes saw her and so did 15 other people.

They have nothing. No evidence. The reason there IS a plea deal is because they have nothing and they know it and they do not want to go to trial and face the humiliation of having the world see how corrupt the entire investigation and trial was.

If there is any truth to the plea acceptance (I am skeptical), it would only be because Brad experienced a very unfair trial once and there is nothing preventing it from happening again. It does not mean the state has some damning new evidence.

I disagree. If BC cops a plea it seals his guilt IMO. He's got nothing to lose going to trial again. He's entitled to a public defender, it will cost him nothing but his time, and he's got plenty of that. He's already been sentenced to the highest punishment. A second trial is a win/win for BC, *unless* he knows the evidence against him. Everything, every keystroke, leaves a footprint somewhere. And BC knows the skill set of his former co-workers. He's guilty, he's been proven guilty once, and his only shot at getting out of prison is copping a plea.

Agree with Gracie .

Brad has been given another shot at being completely exonerated legally, walking away free forever, and he has the advantage of knowing already that he can bring in multiple computer experts and those witnesses will be allowed to testify on his behalf. Brad also has whatever reports were produced from the 2 computer forensic defense witnesses who did the initial examination of his hard drive for his defense, but then were never called in the first trial to present their finding -- Rusty Gilmore and another guy (whose name I don't recall).

On the other hand, Brad also knows that a witness, CFrye from Cisco, found something in a log file -- an entry in his computer's Windows Sys Event log that allegedly points to a specific router attached directly to the laptop and being configured at the time Brad claims to have been asleep, a router that was not in the home the next day. He knows that witness will testify if there's another trial and that the jury will have another piece of digital evidence to weigh.

Brad knows all the evidence against him. He has all the stuff from the first trial and all the transcripts.

gracielee said:

I disagree. If BC cops a plea it seals his guilt IMO. He's got nothing to lose going to trial again. He's entitled to a public defender, it will cost him nothing but his time, and he's got plenty of that. He's already been sentenced to the highest punishment. A second trial is a win/win for BC, *unless* he knows the evidence against him. Everything, every keystroke, leaves a footprint somewhere. And BC knows the skill set of his former co-workers. He's guilty, he's been proven guilty once, and his only shot at getting out of prison is copping a plea.

Click to expand...

Nothing to lose? 7 years versus the rest of your life is plenty to lose. The google search is damning evidence. If the defense can't show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was planted, then he would likely be found guilty again. Even if it was planted, proving it was planted is not an easy task. Again, I don't like 2nd degree because it is either NG or murder 1 for this case....2nd degree doesn't fit the crime. But I understand why he would accept it.

ncsu95 said:

Nothing to lose? 7 years versus the rest of your life is plenty to lose. The google search is damning evidence. If the defense can't show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was planted, then he would likely be found guilty again. Even if it was planted, proving it was planted is not an easy task. Again, I don't like 2nd degree because it is either NG or murder 1 for this case....2nd degree doesn't fit the crime. But I understand why he would accept it.

Click to expand...

He also has plenty to lose taking a plea. At that point he is a guilty man, and he will never gain access to his kids, will probably be destitute for a long time, and will have the shadow of the guilty plea hanging over him for life. Which is why I say that I wouldn't take a plea if I was innocent. I still find it shocking that he could be guilty based on the evidence, but a guilty plea would make me believe he is guilty, even if he didn't do it.

Instead of wondering if Brad accepts the deal, shouldn't the bigger question be, why is the state offering one?
Why would they allow someone they were able to convict of first degree murder before, a chance to walk after serving a certain amount of time, whatever that time may be.
And, what about Nancy's family? Why do they feel they would get closure from a plea deal, knowing someday Brad will be free and able to contact his children? There are going to be legal channels he may have access to , or the girls may grow up and decide they want to see him on their own...
I must be missing something , because on one side, if he accepts the plea, he must be guilty, but what does this say for the state's confidence in not wanting to try him again? :waitasec:

And the even bigger question is, did Brad's attorneys tell Brad there was a plea deal on the table at the point back in the first trial, after the Google search but before the trial was given to jurors? Attorneys are legally obligated to present any possible plea even if they consider it ridiculous. Did Brad know back then or did he just recently find out?

IF Brad takes the plea and it's guilty of second degree murder, then he is admitting to the killing. That's a confession by the defendant, not coerced or obtained illegally. Brad can take a plea or say fuhgetaboutit and keep going and have a trial. He has experts who will testify on his behalf and there's no way any judge is going to block that given the ruling by the circuit court from his appeal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...al-in-slaying-of-edmonton-born-wife-1.2760923

The district attorney in the case told CBC News on Tuesday that the possibility of a plea deal was raised recently in court with with Cooper’s lawyer.

oenophile said:

He also has plenty to lose taking a plea. At that point he is a guilty man, and he will never gain access to his kids, will probably be destitute for a long time, and will have the shadow of the guilty plea hanging over him for life. Which is why I say that I wouldn't take a plea if I was innocent. I still find it shocking that he could be guilty based on the evidence, but a guilty plea would make me believe he is guilty, even if he didn't do it.

Click to expand...

But , the difference could be a jailed felon rather than an ex-felon who could start to put his life back together with the help of his family and friends.
The difference is being locked up forever. You have to look at it like this if people want it to be all or nothing. If a deal makes the state happy that they got partial justice for the victim, and the defense sees it as a victory for their client, I see it as a win-win for everyone, on both sides, everyone here included, who have argued this case for years.
NC's parents seem to have come to terms that this is what is going to happen. I will be shocked if it doesn't go down this way...This plea has been in the making for a long time, it has only recently become public. imo.

Madeleine74 said:

And the even bigger question is, did Brad's attorneys tell Brad there was a plea deal on the table at the point back in the first trial, after the Google search but before the trial was given to jurors? Attorneys are legally obligated to present any possible plea even if they consider it ridiculous. Did Brad know back then or did he just recently find out?

IF Brad takes the plea and it's guilty of second degree murder, then he is admitting to the killing. That's a confession by the defendant, not coerced or obtained illegally. Brad can take a plea or say fuhgetaboutit and keep going and have a trial. He has experts who will testify on his behalf and there's no way any judge is going to block that given the ruling by the circuit court from his appeal.

Click to expand...

I am not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination, even my own, but I think if a plea had been offered to a defendant at any time, the defense would be obligated to share that information with their client.

Brad can admit, under the circumstances, that he is guilty, but it won't change the opinion of those who stand by him, I guess. It will be more of a mandatory formality that is required than anything else.

Besides, we don't know what it is like to have spent all that time in prison, and if this is his way out, then thats just part of it.

Hez said:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...al-in-slaying-of-edmonton-born-wife-1.2760923

The district attorney in the case told CBC News on Tuesday that the possibility of a plea deal was raised recently in court with with Cooper’s lawyer.

Click to expand...

Thank you, this article says that the DA in the case has confirmed that there is a possibility of a plea deal........this makes it more legit now.

This was shown on video in the last hearing. Cummings stood up and told the judge that the plea deal that was available to Brad in 2011, before the case was given to the jury to deliberate, was still on the table and available for him. The judge reiterated this to make sure it was clear and he understood this correctly. That video is available on WRAL.

Brad's attorneys would have been obligated to tell him in 2011, but I don't know if he (Brad) was informed such a deal was possible or not. If not, that could spell trouble for any defense attorney on Brad's team who refused to tell Brad.

Madeleine74 said:

This was shown on video in the last hearing. Cummings stood up and told the judge that the plea deal that was available to Brad in 2011, before the case was given to the jury to deliberate, was still on the table and available for him. The judge reiterated this to make sure it was clear and he understood this correctly. That video is available on WRAL.

Brad's attorneys would have been obligated to tell him in 2011, but I don't know if he (Brad) was informed such a deal was possible or not. If not, that could spell trouble for any defense attorney on Brad's team who refused to tell Brad.

Click to expand...

I know, we were here when it happened and the video was posted here. Why would Brad's attorneys try to keep any plea deal a secret from Brad at any time, I am not understanding you.