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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Gracie, I am talking more about the headlines or misleading information being released to the public before a trial begins that could possibly hurt the defendant from getting a fair trial. And, it is never corrected.
It is just left out there. I don't want to keep bringing up the Young case in the Cooper thread so I won't.
JMO
 
Madeleine74 said:
You keep misrepresenting the facts about this when it's been shown what is correct.

The deal came up AFTER the trial was already under way, at some point either right before the jury was given the case to deliberate or maybe a week or so before that, perhaps during the defense's case. There was already a trial. WRAL got the details wrong about this, and I've posted that at least twice. ABC11 got the details correct, it's the same thing the judge said in the hearing. Plea deal was offered before the jury got the case to deliberate (not before the trial started). You stated you watched the hearing and heard what Cummings and the judge said. ABC11 accurately depicted what was said in that hearing.
Click to expand...

And, you keep insisting that Brad Cooper may not have even been aware of the deal, so which is it? Did he know, what was the deal, when exactly was it offered? It is more likely a plea is usually offered so as not to go to trial at all as it would after the court has heard the entire case..
Was the state so unsure of getting a conviction they waited until the jury was about to get the case before offering a plea....maybe, doesn't really matter. No deal was accepted.....
This one will be.......or Brad has more courage than I do......
 
I said I have questions about what Brad knew.

No Justice, it is not "more likely" a plea was offered before the case went to trial. Go back and listen to the judge and Cummings in the hearing. That hearing is available online. It was made very clear a plea was on the table before the jury got the case (i.e. to deliberate). And then go read the ABC11 article as well. They spelled it out correctly, in addition.
 
Madeleine74 said:
I said I have questions about what Brad knew.

No Justice, it is not "more likely" a plea was offered before the case went to trial. Go back and listen to the judge and Cummings in the hearing. That hearing is available online. It was made very clear a plea was on the table before the jury got the case (i.e. to deliberate). And then go read the ABC11 article as well. They spelled it out correctly, in addition.
Click to expand...

It's also very possible a plea was made before trial and the same deal repeated again sometime during the trial or before deliberations started. Most of us were surprised to learn a plea had even been offered at all, it was kept very quiet.
I also hope this helps eliminate me from being an insider.......:cool:
 
ETA: Why would the state go through the expense of a trial, one that lasted 6-7 weeks, endless testimony and countless witnesses, including the cost of hiring expert witnesses, and an defense bill alone
that was $340, 000.00 only to offer a plea at the end of it? :waitasec:
 
JusticeFever said:
ETA: Why would the state go through the expense of a trial, one that lasted 6-7 weeks, endless testimony and countless witnesses, including the cost of hiring expert witnesses, and an defense bill alone
that was $340, 000.00 only to offer a plea at the end of it? :waitasec:
Click to expand...


You'll have to ask the question of someone in the DA's office to get the "why"s answered or, alternatively, I suppose you could make an inquiry to one of Brad's defense lawyers from his first trial & see if they answer.
 
gracielee said:
Exactly, if he takes a plea now, it should be pretty obvious as to what happened that night. As for the Rentz family, I've often heard other families state the importance of the minor children at least being old enough to look out for themselves before the parent who murdered gets out of prison. I recall that being one of the reasons Eric Millers family agreed to Anne Miller Konce plea deal. Eric's little girl will be an adult before her mother gets out of prison.
Click to expand...
I attended a talk by the detective in charge of the Eric Miller murder case here in Raleigh NC. It was very interesting.Also if I remember correctly Anne Miller Konce had to stand up in court and say yes she did poison her husband. I wonder if Brad will have to say yes I did strangle my wife. If he says those words in court how many BC supporters will still believe he is innocent?
 
gracielee said:
Exactly, if he takes a plea now, it should be pretty obvious as to what happened that night. As for the Rentz family, I've often heard other families state the importance of the minor children at least being old enough to look out for themselves before the parent who murdered gets out of prison. I recall that being one of the reasons Eric Millers family agreed to Anne Miller Konce plea deal. Eric's little girl will be an adult before her mother gets out of prison.
Click to expand...

Because an innocent person is never convicted, right?
 
Grammy Jean said:
I attended a talk by the detective in charge of the Eric Miller murder case here in Raleigh NC. It was very interesting.Also if I remember correctly Anne Miller Konce had to stand up in court and say yes she did poison her husband. I wonder if Brad will have to say yes I did strangle my wife. If he says those words in court how many BC supporters will still believe he is innocent?
Click to expand...

I think she made a statement and apologized through her attorney, who did the speaking on her behalf. Whether her making a statement was a condition of the deal, I don't know.

There are quite a number of steps involved in the plea deal process. Reading this paper illuminated for me the checks and balances that take place, especially that everything has to be done in open court, there has to be a full record of it, the defendant pleading has to not only sign the paperwork, but there are questions s/he must answer in the plea form, they have to be determined to be making an intelligent and voluntary choice, they are advised that they are waiving certain constitutional rights by entering into a plea, the court has to be satisfied the defendant actually committed the crime charged in order to accept the plea, and other steps involved. Much more to it than I ever realized.
 
Grammy Jean said:
I attended a talk by the detective in charge of the Eric Miller murder case here in Raleigh NC. It was very interesting.Also if I remember correctly Anne Miller Konce had to stand up in court and say yes she did poison her husband. I wonder if Brad will have to say yes I did strangle my wife. If he says those words in court how many BC supporters will still believe he is innocent?
Click to expand...


Hi Grammy Jean..... :)
We need to get to the part if he accepts the deal or not before thinking about what he will say. I could be wrong, maybe he will go for a new trial. I know a lot of people didn't think his appeal would hold up enough to get his conviction overturned, either, but it did, so who knows?..
At this point, I think I am just going to wait and see what happens.
It sounds like Nancy's father thinks it is a sure thing that Brad will agree, but we haven't heard anything from the defense.
We know a deal has been offered, and that is all we know.
Anything else is pure speculation until the status hearing on the 22 nd..

But, to answer your question..if admitting to murder is part of the deal requirement, then it doesn't change much.....for me, anyway. This is a case I have studied, watched and found reasonable doubt with...

JMO
 
Madeleine74 said:
I think she made a statement and apologized through her attorney, who did the speaking on her behalf. Whether her making a statement was a condition of the deal, I don't know.

There are quite a number of steps involved in the plea deal process. Reading this paper illuminated for me the checks and balances that take place, especially that everything has to be done in open court, there has to be a full record of it, the defendant pleading has to not only sign the paperwork, but there are questions s/he must answer in the plea form, they have to be determined to be making an intelligent and voluntary choice, they are advised that they are waiving certain constitutional rights by entering into a plea, the court has to be satisfied the defendant actually committed the crime charged in order to accept the plea, and other steps involved. Much more to it than I ever realized.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting...... much more complicated than I imagined too. Alford Pleas, no contest pleas, I will read all of it. Thanks.
 
JusticeFever said:
Hi Gracie, I am talking more about the headlines or misleading information being released to the public before a trial begins that could possibly hurt the defendant from getting a fair trial. And, it is never corrected.
It is just left out there. I don't want to keep bringing up the Young case in the Cooper thread so I won't.
JMO
Click to expand...

I have to say, in all the cases I've followed both online & on the old Court TV, I've found the jurors to have sincerely put much effort into following the evidence testified to at trial. I can't recall a single case where the jurors who have spoken out after the verdict made any references to misleading headlines or rumors they heard prior to sitting on the jury. In fact that's why I was completely boggled by that *Jay guy*, witness in the cooper trial. The one who came here to WS to post the evening after his testimony. That was the most unprofessional thing I've ever experienced. In most cases I've found juries to take their jobs very seriously.
 
JusticeFever said:
Hi Gracie, I am talking more about the headlines or misleading information being released to the public before a trial begins that could possibly hurt the defendant from getting a fair trial. And, it is never corrected.
It is just left out there. I don't want to keep bringing up the Young case in the Cooper thread so I won't.
JMO
Click to expand...

I have to say, in all the cases I've followed both online & on the old Court TV, I've found the jurors to have sincerely put much effort into following the evidence testified to at trial. I can't recall a single case where the jurors who have spoken out after the verdict made any references to misleading headlines or rumors they heard prior to sitting on the jury. In fact that's why I was completely boggled by that *Jay guy*, witness in the cooper trial. The one who came here to WS to post the evening after his testimony. That was the most unprofessional thing I've ever experienced. In most cases I've found juries to take their jobs very seriously.
 
We may have, or at least I have. jumped the gun..According to this new article, there is nothing going on between the two sides at this point. Howard Cummings said at a hearing 6 weeks ago that an offer of 2nd degree murder was still on the table.

However, Cummings also said he does not know if the defense is considering it and the two sides haven't agreed to anything in terms of a plea deal.


http://www.globalnews.ca/news/1553847/plea-deal-still-on-table-for-brad-cooper/

Now, I am curious as to why Nancy's father thinks the status hearing on 9/22 would be a plea bargain deal.
Very conflicting information coming out.
 
gracielee said:
I have to say, in all the cases I've followed both online & on the old Court TV, I've found the jurors to have sincerely put much effort into following the evidence testified to at trial. I can't recall a single case where the jurors who have spoken out after the verdict made any references to misleading headlines or rumors they heard prior to sitting on the jury. In fact that's why I was completely boggled by that *Jay guy*, witness in the cooper trial. The one who came here to WS to post the evening after his testimony. That was the most unprofessional thing I've ever experienced. In most cases I've found juries to take their jobs very seriously.
Click to expand...

Gracie, I wasn't talking about the jurors, I never do...You will never find one post from me anywhere that I have said anything bad about a juror, (ok, well, maybe the Casey Anthony case) I have always respected their decisions and understand that they were the ones that were up personal and close to the evidence that we aren't . I may not agree with the Verdicts in the case of Jason Young and Brad Cooper, but find no fault with how they reached that decision.

However, I do remember that there was much bashing going on in other forums about the 8 jurors who voted NG in Young's first trial, especially against the foreperson...I don't think it happened here at WS as it would not be allowed.

This Jay person, I was not around for that, but I would like to hear about it. All I remember is I believe he was a computer person and then posted here. I admit I did not follow the computer evidence closely, I got lost after the spoofed phone-call......I know nothing about routers, etc.

JMO
 
If he is innocent then he shouldn't take the deal, IMO. He has the start of a "fresh" trial and if all the damning evidence about the google search being planted is true then he should have a shot of being aquitted.
 
OTOH, if he takes this "so-called" deal then that will speak volumes to me!
 
The only deal that we are aware of is the same deal that was previously offered, pleading out at 2nd degree and admitting guilt.

It is a difficult decision to make, on one hand, if you take the deal, you are guaranteed your freedom at a certain point.......
If you turn down the deal, and are found Guilty again, you lose everything.
I wouldn't want to be the one to be advising Brad, that's for sure.

I am just as curious as to why the state would offer a plea after getting a conviction, what does that say for their confidence in retrying their case?
 
JusticeFever said:
We may have, or at least I have. jumped the gun..According to this new article, there is nothing going on between the two sides at this point. Howard Cummings said at a hearing 6 weeks ago that an offer of 2nd degree murder was still on the table.

However, Cummings also said he does not know if the defense is considering it and the two sides haven't agreed to anything in terms of a plea deal.


http://www.globalnews.ca/news/1553847/plea-deal-still-on-table-for-brad-cooper/

Now, I am curious as to why Nancy's father thinks the status hearing on 9/22 would be a plea bargain deal.
Very conflicting information coming out.
Click to expand...

It may have been wishful thinking. It may have been that the prosecutors suggested that BC might take a deal.

BC seriously considering a plea agreement is suggestive that he is guilty. Reporting in the press that he is considering a plea deal suggests to the public that he is guilty. I think the press should have done more due diligence before jumping the gun and reporting it as they did.

But I agree with Landonsmom that he should not take a deal (or really even consider one) if he is innocent.
 
The article mentioned "sources." That's plural. To me it sounds like one or more individuals than just Mr. Rentz were talked to in this story. Who else served as a "source" is unknown. It's not like the Rentz family to initiate a news article. I suspect the Rentz family was likely contacted by a reporter, based on the reporter getting info from another source, and Mr. Rentz basically confirmed and added info about their pending trip to NC. I have no proof of that, of course, that's just how it came across to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 195 more.
Total: 3,673 (members: 196, guests: 3,477)

Online statistics

Members online
196
Guests online
3,477
Total visitors
3,673
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,308
Messages
17,967,112
Members
228,739
Latest member
eagerhuntress
Back
Top