For serious.

It could be that all of us non-lawyer TWW trial newbies are appalled at how fucked up the system is, or it really could have been a fucked up trial. Any lawyers on here that kept up with this? Is it really as fucked up as us non-lawyers are thinking that it is?

5/6/2011 2:07:30 PM

5/6/2011 2:08:33 PM

That beef ovens chick is a lawyer.

5/6/2011 2:10:10 PM

now does a beef oven have a beef curtain?

5/6/2011 2:10:58 PM

Whomever made that confession needs to step up

5/6/2011 2:46:08 PM

they may be but aren't able to tell us right now

5/6/2011 2:47:04 PM

Quote :

"It could be that all of us non-lawyer TWW trial newbies are appalled at how fucked up the system is, or it really could have been a fucked up trial. Any lawyers on here that kept up with this? Is it really as fucked up as us non-lawyers are thinking that it is?"

The system is fucked up. But this trial was beyond fucked up.

5/6/2011 3:17:07 PM

Have you ever heard of juries being able to send notes like "speed it up" or anything like that?

5/6/2011 3:25:21 PM

I don't want to act like I'm the authority on litigation or anything, but it definitely is not normal to get notes like that. And how are you supposed to interpret that note, against the prosecution or against the defense? The note comes out after 6 weeks of prosecution witnesses, and the defense has just started this case. They only get 6 days of witnesses, and the prosecution puts on more. But the note would have been added as an official court exhibit, and would be there for appeals purposes, although, it's unlikely anything would come out of that portion.

The real issues are going to be the judge not allowing computer experts to testify, allowing in all the hearsay over defense objections, keeping out things like Bella's statement that she had seen her Mommy that morning, and not allowing cross examination of detectives on the contents of their interviews.

5/6/2011 3:30:35 PM

Elwood did you post something on amazon?

http://www.amazon.com/Could-be-very-biased/forum/Fx3JGICOOQPXHR1/TxIG9D5TS13W2U/1/ref=cm_cd_dp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=0425241483&store=books

they deleted it!

5/6/2011 3:39:13 PM

Yeah, I was just curious, for all I know the notes could be real common. It would've been different if they just asked to make better use of the allotted time each day and didn't say they wanted their lives back.

And one more question, do you know if it is normal to spend so much time trying to discredit expert witnesses in front of the jury? I would've thought questions would be kept related to the case in front of the jury and all attempts to discredit would be when the jury was out.

5/6/2011 3:43:07 PM

Well, if you're talking about discrediting Jay Ward, that was done outside the presence of the jury the first day, and the only discrediting done in front of the jury was the facebook page mess.

However, usually it is all done in front of the jury for the experts, because the discrediting should affect the weight put on their testimony by the jurors. But in this case, the intent was to not allow Ward to be qualified as an expert, without the jurors getting the idea that he really WAS an expert, so that's probably why the DAs requested it be done outside of the jurors.

5/6/2011 3:45:17 PM

I didn't mean him in particular but I guess it all makes sense, really just comes down to how willing you are to be rude to witnesses. Big difference in the defenses computer guys being questioned by Boz and when the defense went after the prosecutions cell phone guy.

5/6/2011 3:51:22 PM

^4

HAHA yeah just "Shittastic"

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM. Reason : 4]

5/6/2011 4:17:01 PM

I know this is asking a lot of tdub, but I don't think I have the competency to relay fully all that went wrong in this case, and the major, key points in the trial.

I want to explain to my Dad all the slip-ups that made this case so awful, but I don't think I have a collective or chronological way of presenting it.

Anyone want to attempt a bare-bones outline of what went wrong here?

5/6/2011 4:22:25 PM

Quote :

""Evidence Brad Cooper is not guilty: All friends say BC is non-violent All friends say NC was not afraid of BC No history of violence BC was doing work for Cisco between 6AM and 8AM, as records show (with gaps consistent with his runs to the grocery store) BC spent much of the rest of the morning cleaning, washing clothes, etc. BC made a run to grocery store twice between 6AM and 7AM, receiving a call from the home phone at 6:40AM while en route the second time Police claimed BC fabricated that call, but there was no evidence to it Cisco router police believe was used produces a call of shorter duration than the 6:40AM call Witnesses claim they saw NC running at 7:10AM No DNA evidence No fiber evidence (rugs, trunk lining, etc.) No evidence of a struggle in home No wounds on BC Google map on computer was there because it was within BC's zip code, not because he zoomed in on that area. The dump site tiles were at a very high altitude, not "curb level". Further, the map was dated. It just had dirt roads. Further, evidence showed those images were not accessed for more than 41 seconds. Facts put her time of death sometime in the early morning hours, consistent with 7AM jog: NC's stomach was empty, suggesting she was not killed just after mid-night Alcohol content suggested her body digested and removed alcohol from her system she was drinking at the party Caffeine in here system consistent with a morning cup of coffee CPD does not know why BC might have killed his wife, offering two contradicting theories: CPD claims BC strangled NC our of uncontrolled rage ("pent up anger") CPD claims he planned to kill NC in advance and google search images on his computer support that Both theories cannot be right and, given the above, neither are correct Evidence CPD is inept: Detectives erased NC's mobile phones accidentally (even after the phones warned them that they would be erased) Detectives erased at last one SIM card in one phone Lead detective (Daniels) said the did not know that AT&T would retain phone records and IM messages for a period of time (laws put in place specifically for law enforcement) Detectives did not interview any witnesses that claimed to have seen NC for months Detectives followed no other leads, except those that supported the BDI theory"""

from page 132 quoted from another page.

5/6/2011 4:25:38 PM

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9563005/

Jury members say they all agreed not to talk about the case for a while. Also talk about how "it was a difficult few days" during deliberation. Just don't get how it was difficult, if they really thought he was guilty why have any remorse?

5/6/2011 6:02:46 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, in court, it's not about justice--it's about winning. "

Why do you hate America???

5/6/2011 6:15:53 PM

Frame Job!!!!!! Interview with Howard Kurtz

http://www.wral.com/news/local/noteworthy/video/9563382/#/vid9563382

Note is comments about the Jury


FYI it's 20 mins long

Also comments about Social Media as it relates to the case. and somewhat bags the media to its face.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 6:49 PM. Reason : d]


[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 7:07 PM. Reason : s]

5/6/2011 6:47:52 PM

Kurtz validated a few of my posts

A) pretty much said jury based it on the google map

B) it's a different trial if you watched it rather than watching the news coverage

C) John Pearson killer her. Pretty much called him out.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 7:28 PM. Reason : D]

5/6/2011 7:27:34 PM

^^

Quote :

"It was said that several jury members were crying as the verdict was read. Why? 1) they thought not guilty but were swayed in deliberations? 2)they got emotionally wrapped up on NC side (which would show they based verdict on the emotions of it). 3)^same but bc side which makes me think ^^ was the case. Also, when has a judge ever done that while reading the verdict."

5/6/2011 7:30:44 PM

so what was the actual google map evidence?

i was expecting "yeah I looked at google maps, but I wasn't picking a place to put the body"
rather than "I was framed"

5/6/2011 7:52:13 PM

TECHNOBABBLE? IN MY COURTROOM?

MAYBE I CANT UNDERSTAND IT, BUT I'LL ALLOW IT.

5/6/2011 7:58:21 PM

Quote :

"i was expecting "yeah I looked at google maps, but I wasn't picking a place to put the body" rather than "I was framed""

This is what I was thinking as well. "I was framed" just sounds so cliche. It's exactly what you'd expect to hear from anybody who was just found guilty, computer evidence or not.

Explaining how retardedly easy it is to get something in your cache that you didn't know about would be a much better tactic to take, IMO. Making people understand how background caching of an extremely complicated site like Google Maps works would be better than just expecting them to believe somebody else went to the trouble of planting a small amount of evidence on his computer that might not have been found anyway.

5/6/2011 8:05:51 PM

Now I realize I may be spitting in the wind here, but please just hear me out instead of running me over with y'alls bandwagon. Just keep an open mind and play along.

ANYONE could have tampered with that computer, INCLUDING the actual murderer. It should also be said that if Brad Cooper killed her, he could have tampered with it to make it look like he was framed. He had to know he was going to be the prime suspect from day one. Think back to the testimony of David Fetterolf...

Quote :

"Fetterolf said that, when he first saw Brad Cooper that day, his head was down, his shoulders were slumped and he was sniffling. But as they searched and after they found the shovel, Fetterolf said, his demeanor changed and their conversation turned from his appreciation for Fetterolf's help to how the two had the same model of cellphone. Brad Cooper asked him to show him how to check the phone's call log."

IIRC BC handed his phone to DF and asked him to show him how to see the time info for calls. That isn't a little suspicuous to any of you? Is a samsung blackjack difficult to use? Did Brad just get the phone that day? Or was he making sure someone else saw that there was actual call data on his phone before deleting the entire contact list and call log- which also was never explained?????



Now I understand how upset you all are, and that is understandable, after all, a woman was murdered and the only two people who know how, why, and by whom are the person who did it and the dead woman herself... But instead of trying to point out how there was reasonable doubt, and how they shouldn't have convicted him, think about it. [edited because it is not our responsibility to crucify the jury, but can be read below]

___ edit ___

I want to add, that if he killed her, I bet his mama knew it all along, without him having to tell her. Either way, that knowledge will go to the grave with her.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 8:35 PM. Reason : they ALWAYS know]

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 8:47 PM. Reason : you guys]

5/6/2011 8:31:49 PM

Quote :

"The jury may have come to the guilty verdict because they just couldn't be sure he didn't do it and the only two options were to convict and hope more evidence came out before/during a retrial OR acquit him and potentially let a man get away with murder."

Then the jury fucked up. It's not their job to "be sure he didn't do it". It's their job to (a) return a guilty verdict if they're sure he did it; or (b) return not guilty in all other cases.

5/6/2011 8:42:34 PM

Quote :

"The jury may have come to the guilty verdict because they just couldn't be sure he didn't do it and the only two options were to convict and hope more evidence came out before/during a retrial OR acquit him and potentially let a man get away with murder."

Not their job.

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

5/6/2011 8:44:12 PM

I knew I shouldnt have said anything about the jury, yall forget that and think about the rest.

5/6/2011 8:45:42 PM

The rest doesn't matter. Something being suspicious isn't illegal.

You have to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how the system is supposed to work.

PROVE

Not assume.

Not think.

PROVE

5/6/2011 8:48:32 PM

Quote :

"Now I realize I may be spitting in the wind here, but please just hear me out instead of running me over with y'alls bandwagon. Just keep an open mind and play along."

People aren't disagreeing with you because of some sort of bandwagon effect. They're disagreeing with you because they understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty and you've shown, several times now, that you're simply not capable of understanding it.

5/6/2011 8:49:40 PM

The jury in this case is the fat guy that dropped the mustard jar.

5/6/2011 8:50:19 PM

You are Brad Coopering me. I don't care what the jury did, I want to know did he form an elaborate plot to kill his wife and get away with it. I may investigate Pearson later.

5/6/2011 8:53:16 PM

Quote :

"I want to know did he form an elaborate plot to kill his wife and get away with it."

I can say with 100% certainty that he did not.

5/6/2011 8:55:20 PM

^ is that the same 100% certainty that the jury had when they were convinced of brad's guilt?

5/6/2011 8:58:21 PM

Quote :

"They're disagreeing with you because they understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty and you've shown, several times now, that you're simply not capable of understanding it."

I was touting the failures of the justice system in the scope of this case way back on page 28. There is a greater concern here than what a judge and jury thinks, I am sure the angry mob will have their satisfaction. What I want to know is who killed Nancy Cooper?

5/6/2011 8:58:40 PM

^^^^ Personally, I don't think there was any deliberate tampering. I think it's a complete failure of CPD to properly control and handle evidence.

I'm not sure what asking about the call log is supposed to prove. Just because he's a smart guy doesn't mean he knows everything about every phone.

Quote :

"What I want to know is who killed Nancy Cooper?"

That's the million dollar question, ain't it?

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 9:02 PM. Reason : ]

5/6/2011 8:59:40 PM

The thing I can not get past (take the phone call/google maps out of the equation) is that the physical evidence completely contradicted their theory of she was killed the night before.

No Food on stomach
No alcohol in system

etc.

How the hell do you argue with physical evidence like that?

5/6/2011 9:02:08 PM

Quote :

"How the hell do you argue with physical evidence like that?"

You don't. you just ignore it.

5/6/2011 9:04:13 PM

i went running today, like i always do.

but today i was a little more freaked out and kept looking behind me and made sure i ran in more public places.......


sigh.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 9:05 PM. Reason : i know its minor compared to other things...]

5/6/2011 9:04:42 PM

She tossed her cookies while strangling her.


Thus the clorox/cleaning.

5/6/2011 9:04:42 PM

Quote :

"How the hell do you argue with physical evidence like that?"

A lawyer will find a way to make an argument, that's what makes them lawyers right? But seriously, I would argue a different theory, maybe something like he killed her after she digested the food and metabolized the alcohol.

5/6/2011 9:06:01 PM

i'm really confused how there is no reasonable doubt when the state never even established a theory that made any kind of sense

5/6/2011 9:06:06 PM

^^^^ you dont have to worry about running. Just don't come home from a party drunk



[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ^]

5/6/2011 9:06:37 PM

^^thats why everyone is in such an uproar.

ive talked to a lot of my friends who aren't connected with tww that agree with that.

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 9:07 PM. Reason : ^say what?]

5/6/2011 9:07:05 PM

Quote :

"you dont have to worry about running. Just don't come home from a party drunk marry a murderer. "

5/6/2011 9:13:08 PM

I feel that given the collective strength and intelligence (lulz) of TWW we can work on what evidence there is and probably flesh out some data on a certian potential suspect as well, but the majority of you need to drop the torches and pitchforks and get on board.

First I would prefer to start with the primary suspect but given the way "Brad did it" theories are received here we can move on to JP. Who can run a background check on Pearson for us? Once we find associated phone numbers for him I am sure we can find someone who can get us usage details.

5/6/2011 9:15:36 PM

They never solved that murder near the Farmers Market. Could be the same offender.

5/6/2011 9:17:06 PM

The only bandwagon here is the bandwagon of justice. You need to get on board.

5/6/2011 9:18:23 PM

^^You mean the pregnant girl behind the c store on Gorman?

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 9:19 PM. Reason : caratz]

5/6/2011 9:18:36 PM

Quote :

"First I would prefer to start with the primary suspect but given the way "Brad did it" theories are received here"

Maybe you missed it, but there was a whole big trial where the going theory was "Brad did it" and it lacked any sort of actual, concrete proof. If there were proof that he had done it, one would think it would've come up.

That's why "Brad did it" theories are received poorly.

5/6/2011 9:28:34 PM