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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
OT / Breaking News at WRAL............... Mike Peterson has just rejected a PLEA DEAL says his attorney, David Rudolf.

Link below............Wow, just wow on this one..........
 
I can't find a M. Peterson thread that is open, I found one that was locked, could someone help me post it where this should be? Thank you.
 
Madeleine74 said:
Trying to think of any case locally in which allocution was required other than just pleading "guilty" to the charges. Anyone know? I've only followed a few cases locally and just in the past 5 years.

I know I would not say I was guilty to a murder I didn't commit. That conviction stays with you forever once you accept it and declare yourself guilty.

The way the article is written this is not an Alford plea. This is the real (I did it, I am guilty) deal.
Click to expand...

Yes, Madeleine -- no way on earth the DA/ADA would let him plead with an Alford plea (let us hope). Somehow R. Abaroa got an Alford plea along with manslaughter <gag>; made me want to scream. Anyway he's doing his time and will be in the lockup until early 2018, or possibly less. Grrrrr.

Here's a bit about Alford:

Generally, an Alford plea is when a defendant maintains his innocence but admits that the state has sufficient evidence to convict him and agrees to be treated as guilty. It’s called an Alford plea after North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). The defendant in that case was charged with first-degree murder. The evidence against him was strong: witnesses stated that “that shortly before the killing Alford took his gun from his house, stated his intention to kill the victim, and returned home with the declaration that he had carried out the killing.” The defendant had a lawyer, who explained his rights to him and advised him to plead guilty. Alford maintained his innocence, but in light of the evidence, agreed to plead guilty to second-degree murder in order to avoid the death penalty and secure a 30-year sentence.
Click to expand...

from: http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=1198

Of course, there was no allocution here...
 
calgary123 said:
This is quite a quote from Nancy's father Garry in the article: "We're pleased to have closure for the girls and for our family," Rentz said, referring to the Coopers' two young daughters, who have been in the Rentzes' custody since 2008."

The value of closure for the children is more important to them than seeing Brad serve (what I think) would be a more appropriate period of time in prison (because I believe its first degree or nothing based on the state's case). It shows the Rentzes have a very civil life-view, one including a sense of forgiveness and not focused on punishment. They have behaved in a very exemplary way throughout this process in how they handled everything... the initial moves for custody, being firm in their convictions but never lashing out, pulling together as a family, and making it more about the children than their own loss.
Click to expand...

Totally agree, calgary -- And to that I will add that I think the Rentz's probably feel that to Nancy, a continuation of a good and happy life for her girls would be the most important part of all of this -- not having to go back into the courtroom for a a re-trial. End it all now.

I feel sure she gave her last breaths thinking about her precious daughters.
 
JusticeFever said:
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:
Click to expand...

Hi, JF!
icon7.png

I think part of the reason the State has offered a plea is the expense side of putting on a new trial --in several different measures, not just money. High-tech witnesses, subpoenas for all witnesses and all of that again, perhaps, and that the Wake Co. Courts are on a very tight budget as to dollars, material, assistants and other personnel in general, and scheduling. That's a mighty dry list, for sure, but budgeting for that trial would prolly be more than the first one, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just my o.
 
JusticeFever said:
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
Click to expand...

I had to google to find his name, Jay Ward. He was posting on WS's late at night, the same day he testified at trial. He came out and said who he was. I can't recall what he had to say anymore, but I remember being totally shocked that a witness would come out the same day he testified, on a forum like this, and discuss his testimony.
 
gracielee said:
I had to google to find his name, Jay Ward. He was posting on WS's late at night, the same day he testified at trial. He came out and said who he was. I can't recall what he had to say anymore, but I remember being totally shocked that a witness would come out the same day he testified, on a forum like this, and discuss his testimony.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Gracie.......I googled him too and the appeal is actually based on his only being able to give limited testimony.
But, I agree, I don't know how any witness, state or defense, could post on any forum during an ongoing trial. Do you think the posts are still here, do you remember his user name?
I would love to read what he said Also, could he testify again if there is a new trial?
Thanks.
 
borndem said:
Hi, JF!
icon7.png

I think part of the reason the State has offered a plea is the expense side of putting on a new trial --in several different measures, not just money. High-tech witnesses, subpoenas for all witnesses and all of that again, perhaps, and that the Wake Co. Courts are on a very tight budget as to dollars, material, assistants and other personnel in general, and scheduling. That's a mighty dry list, for sure, but budgeting for that trial would prolly be more than the first one, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just my o.
Click to expand...

Hi Bordem :) .......agree, this had to be a very expensive trial , it went on for about 6 weeks....
But, unlike the Young and Abaroa trials that were hung the first time, the state got their conviction the first time around with Cooper...They got Young in the second trial and of course, we know Raven pled out to a deal.
Raven actually had 2 plea deals, one for 2nd degree at the end of the first trial which he rejected and then during motions for a retrial was offered the Alford plea which he accepted....
Raven more than likely will reunite with little ****** since his Mom is raising him.. :scared:

By accepting an alford plea, is one still considered a felon? I need to re-read the link you posted covering the details.
Thanks for doing that.
 
JusticeFever said:
Thanks, Gracie.......I googled him too and the appeal is actually based on his only being able to give limited testimony.
But, I agree, I don't know how any witness, state or defense, could post on any forum during an ongoing trial. Do you think the posts are still here, do you remember his user name?
I would love to read what he said Also, could he testify again if there is a new trial?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
I have no idea if his posts are still here. One thing I do remember him writing was that he told the PT team that he was not a forensic expert.
 
Grammy Jean said:
I have no idea if his posts are still here. One thing I do remember him writing was that he told the PT team that he was not a forensic expert.
Click to expand...

I remember that. He also said he agreed with the judge determining he was not a forensic expert. Not that any of his opinions mattered legally, but it was still interesting at the time. Somehow I doubt he will be utilized in a 2nd trial, if there is a 2nd trial. The fact that he came to WS to talk about his opinions of his own capabilities and the state has those original postings from back then, would be a possible point of impeachment. He also shared in one of his posts that he told the defense team early on he was not a forensic expert; when he was called to the stand they knew he wasn't. That too is mentioned in his post about his informing the defense about his lack of forensic experience. Kind of an unexpected admission, one that surprised a lot of us.
 
And, yet it is because of limiting Jay Ward's testimony that Brad Cooper won his appeal and had his conviction overturned...
So, either Ward's "expert" testimony was important to this case or it wasn't, because why else would it matter so much about what he said? :waitasec:
 
borndem said:
Hi, JF!
icon7.png

I think part of the reason the State has offered a plea is the expense side of putting on a new trial --in several different measures, not just money. High-tech witnesses, subpoenas for all witnesses and all of that again, perhaps, and that the Wake Co. Courts are on a very tight budget as to dollars, material, assistants and other personnel in general, and scheduling. That's a mighty dry list, for sure, but budgeting for that trial would prolly be more than the first one, which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Just my o.
Click to expand...

Your O is right by me. More interesting to me and the supposedly 'evidence' not permitted... why would an innocent even consider it?

:jail:
 
JusticeFever said:
And, yet it is because of limiting Jay Ward's testimony that Brad Cooper won his appeal and had his conviction overturned...
So, either Ward's "expert" testimony was important to this case or it wasn't, because why else would it matter so much about what he said? :waitasec:
Click to expand...

IMO not important... but because his defense was 'limited'. I think BC may feel like he found a lucky penny.
 
dgfred said:
Your O is right by me. More interesting to me and the supposedly 'evidence' not permitted... why would an innocent even consider it?

:jail:
Click to expand...


At first the cries went out that BC needed and deserved a new trial, with a different judge and a different jury, where he could present all his digital evidence. And he finally got that. Guaranteed he can have the trial everyone says they want him to have, the one where he can present all the digital evidence to supposedly prove tampering or framing. It's put up or shut up time.

But now it's come out there's this plea deal offered (still), and if BC takes it, the rationalization for him doing so has predictably shifted to make him still an innocent man, willing to claim guilt for a murder and sacrifice himself and spend up to a decade more in state prison, as an innocent man of course, just to be assured he'll be able to get out someday (you know, since he apparently cannot ever get a fair trial, so why even try, there's no point, it's all unfair) and/or the state's case is so weak that they will do anything to dispose of this case and Brad is willing to plead guilty because... well because. For the rationalizers, there is no possible way BC could or would plead guilty because he's actually guilty of murder and he's getting a great deal and he knows it.

(And again, Oenophile, this post is not about you and does not refer to you or any opinions you've expressed).
 
dgfred said:
IMO not important... but because his defense was 'limited'. I think BC may feel like he found a lucky penny.
Click to expand...

No offense, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. In Brad Cooper's appeal, it clearly states that the reason he won his appeal is due to Jay Ward being limited in his testimony. Now we also know that Jay Ward admitted to not being a expert, isn't it also true he could have requested a certificate from the state at some time, before the trial, verifying that he was qualified?
And, what is his status for the next trial, should there be one?

JMO
 
dgfred said:
Your O is right by me. More interesting to me and the supposedly 'evidence' not permitted... why would an innocent even consider it?

:jail:
Click to expand...

I can think of a good reason...guaranteed freedom..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 198 more.
Total: 3,482 (members: 199, guests: 3,283)

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
3,283
Total visitors
3,482
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,749
Messages
17,958,390
Members
228,602
Latest member
jrak
Back
Top