Discussion in 'Nancy Cooper' started by macd, Jun 2, 2011.
This letter was sent to various local news outlets today.
Thanks. The juror that I talked to did believe Chappelle when he said that the computer wasn't tampered with. I didn't say that in the other thread, but she basically went by what he said. She was surprised to learn he was a Durham police detective.
Link to WRAL article.
Thanks Macd. I would love to hear more but I can understand their hesitation.
Thanks for bringing that over and starting this thread. That letter is very, very interesting. I don't envy the job the jurors were given. They have my respect and thanks.
This is the line I find most interesting.
I am interested to hear what other circumstantial evidence they found most compelling.
It looks like the jury members' self imposed quarantine is over. I hope (and expect) we'll hear more from some of them over the next couple of weeks.
I respect his position and understand his reticence.
We have to remember there are people out there who are not of sound mind, and who believe the whole justice system (including any jury members) are hellbent on throwing innocent people into prison, just because they feel like it.
Some people threatened to 'out' the jury after the verdict, some talked openly of wanting to do screen captures off of the media feed, when the jury was seen leaving the courthouse, and plaster those pics on the Internet. Some are now trying to prove juror misconduct because this particular juror happened to be at a hockey game the same night as the victim's parents.
The vitriol spewed towards this jury through social media sites has been sickening, and it continues to this day. Fortunately none of that nonsense is allowed on WS.
I hope the jury members will all be safe from the 'crazies' out there. I also hope they'll feel comfortable, as time goes on, sharing what this process was like for them and what evidence made the most impact.
My neighbor does not want to be on dateline...the main reason is her concern for her safety given the large number of people that did not agree with the verdict.
I personally wouldn't do a TV interview either unless my identity was completely masked (face and voice and no name used).
Of course the selfish part of me wants to hear from them and hear about the case from their (unique) perspective, but I do understand their concerns, and those concerns are valid.
Is there really a large number of people? The Internet can create a weird, artificial, and self-selected demographic. Most people I talk to in meat-space, the few who claim to have followed the case, still think BC bought bleach at 4am. I hate to think that any jury member would feel threatened by the few outliers on GOLO or Twitter.
It reminded me of the Natalee Holloway case. All of a sudden media sites were taken over by Holloway "haters". The majority of them had no knowledge of the case and I tend to think a small amount of people posted under multiple names to try and make it look like a large number. The Cooper case did not get anywhere near the media attention of Natalee Holloway or Casey Anthony, but a lot of those negative posts came from all over the nation. :waitasec:
In the couple of other forums I participate in (non trial type sites), the overwhelming thought was not-guilty in the threads following the trial.
"I spoke with Anne Blythe today, primarily about social media and how we were required to address this issue during our time on the jury (Feb 28 May 5). She heard a preview of this message. Ill also send her a document we were required to sign as members of the jury that relates to her inquiry."
What does this mean? Were they instructed to stay off FB and MySpace and Twitter? That's my understanding of social media..
People don't realize the defense team specifically went for jurors who did NOT have tech backgrounds or computer experience. They wanted a jury that would be utterly confused by computer evidence because they knew they were going to try and dance around the Google search and they wanted the jury to buy their song & dance of evidence tampering.
They asked about tech background & experience as part of their voir dire & got potential jurors kicked off who did have computer experience, though there was one techie guy who did get on the jury in the end. They did that by design, as a strategy. They were hoping a non-tech jury would believe a conspiracy had taken place.
:waitasec: ... why would your neighbor consider she may even be on Dateline? Thought it was a friend of your neighbour ... (at her evening poolside) ... that was the juror?
As for the large number of people that don't agree with the verdict - in the true universal sample - that NG group is in fact, a minority. Of course, in some (non trial type) forums, you get a lot of prisoners, or ex-cons, who will vehemently decry the verdict. Of course they would.
Wouldn't pay too much attention to those types, IMOO ... Just sayin ...
Thanks for sharing that letter! It's most reassuring to get word back and thereby have a glimpse as to the integrity of the jury. Knowing their verdict was based on the compelling evidence as presented quells any false rumors - that of course are bound to fly ...
That he has decided to maintain his silence speaks volumes, IMO. I'm equally sure the entire jury of 16, as he wrote, discussed this with one another and pledged full respect in not disturbing nor denting their obligations.
A great read! Thank you, again ...
No, it's a woman I know that lives in in my neighborhood (hence, my neighbor...and by "know", means I knew her name and would say hi when I saw her) that was on the jury.
For those of us who follow crime/trials for years, I don't recall ever seeing jury members incognito on programs such as Dateline. That jurors should feel at risk or threatened is just horrible IMO. Brad Cooper was guilty, as found. It sounds like this jury did it's duty with diligence, unlike perhaps the O.J. jury. I personally find it reprehensible that renegade groups such as golo incite violence and hatred towards those doing their duty as good citizens. MOO. Brad cooper killed his wife, he knows he's guilty. Jurors, please, feel good about your decision, it was right and proper.
Unlike Golo and other random board comments from casual observers, WS has a good track record for attracting intelligent posters that have followed more than a few trials.
Remember the poll here?
126 votes and 57% said guilty as charged
Not overwhelming like your other sites, but clearly guilty nonetheless.
I would have expected this site to have a much higher percentage than 57%. This is very different from most forums. The people that participate on here generally follow lots of trials and are overwhelmingly on here in support of the victims. Not saying that is wrong, but is what it is. The fact that only 57% voted guilty on here says a whole lot.
I don't think they should talk about their verdict and I don't think the media should be hounding them. It only exposes them to the crazies of the world. They've sacrificed enough in their lives and done their civic duty ... now leave them in peace.
Separate names with a comma.