13 thoughts on “Flowchart: Nancy Cooper murder investigation and trial

  1. Great job on this flow chart (as per usual). What strikes me about the case are the “stop signs”. Dead ends that spelled disaster for Brad. One thing that is curious to me is that the jurors (according to the foreman) convicted based on the Google map search. They fully believed that Brad Cooper did this despite defence saying it was as a result of mishandling of the computer (unfortunately they were unable to demonstrate to the jury clearly that the map search was planted because of the biased ruling of Judge Gessner prohibiting testimony of computer experts). This then was an acknowledgement that Brad was somehow too dumb to get rid of the map search had he done it, even though he was on his computer just after Nancy died (state theory). In the same breath the jury has to acknowledge that he is very much an expert at spoofing a phone call from his home while at Harris Teeter. So expert that he somehow was able to make that call last longer than any other known method. As in the Jason Young case, jurors are somehow convinced by the prosecution that the accused can have very diverse personal characteristics: Brad is smart and dumb, Jason is immature yet calculating. I am truly bothered by the behaviour of juries in these instances because they can only convict on the “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof, yet they do convict anyway. I think just by the nature of what the state expects one to believe about each of these wrongfully convicted men, there is plenty of reasonable doubt to be noticed. In other words if I were a juror I would reasonable conclude “I doubt that anyone could be that clever and that dumb too” and “I doubt that anyone can be so immature and so calculating too”.


  2. I am also bothered by the fact that none of the jury members have gone public, which leads me to wonder what went on in that jury room. And the comments that were made by the jury foreman Andy Gilbert when asked outside his home of what made them come to this quilty verdict. 1) Mothers’ Day coming up and the weekend . 2) When he saw the Rentz family at the hockey game and then had to face them everyday and wanted them to have closure. 3) And then there is the 42 second google search…… Also he said they all made a pat that what went on in that room would stay in that room and none of them would bring it up again… Just makes me wonder What did go in that Jury Room?????


  3. Seems like you might know what went on in the jury room. How did you find out the initial jury vote was 10NG, 1 Undecided, 1 G? Never saw or heard that before.


    • One of the jurors shared that information with a person several weeks after the trial and gave him permission to share it publicly as long as they could remain anonymous. It was posted on Websleuths. Of course there’s no way to verify it, but I trust the source.


  4. I looked up on websleuths what the juror said. they said something different than what you said. This is a copying and pasting.

    – Initial “straw vote” when they first started deliberations were 2 guilty, 2 not-guilty, 8 undecided.

    – 2nd vote at the end of Wednesday was 10 guilty, 2 not guilty


  5. I just finished watching the Williford trial and it was amazing to watch Judge Gessner with a complete different attitude compared to the Cooper trial. He was nice, charming and smiling throughout. Why? that trial was a slam dunk. I guess he wears different hats depending on how intimidating he has to be to help his State bodies.


Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s