Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Tweets

An aside: WRAL is tweeting about the trial. Go to Twitter and search for #coopertrial. I'm glad, since I can catch up a little that way. Some people who tweet about it are puzzled about why some of us care (or they are annoyed that the wral feed is clogged up). Others have decided Brad is guilty, but so far the people who say the Prosecution hasn't offered any proof yet are outnumbering them.

Lights On Again

I watched a bit of the Cooper trial on wral.com this morning and saw the video tape an investigator took at the Cooper house. The front yard was clean and well-kempt. The back yard had very little grass, was cluttered and messy. Was it even a safe place for two little girls to play? Regardless of the verdict, that contrast between what was on the street and what was out of sight seems like a good metaphor for the lives Nancy and Brad lived.

I saw Nancy's mother, Donna, testify for the Prosecution yesterday. Nancy had let her family know that the marriage was an unhappy one and the last time Donna saw her, she cried and said she just wanted to go home to Canada. She couldn't, because Brad cut off her access to money and had possession of her passport and the children's. Ultimately, we have Nancy's word about the money and the passports. She told friends as well as family the same things and that speaks to its truth but still, it's her word. How will a jury weigh that? I wonder if bank records will be entered to support the assertions?

Donna cried some on the stand but was able to speak clearly and portrayed her family as taking Brad in as one of their own when he first came into their lives. She looked directly at him from the stand. And she told about hugging him after Nancy's body was found. He was stiff, not responsive, and didn't look at her. She looked up under the brim of his cap, into his eyes, and knew in her heart that he had killed her daughter. That was the last thing the jury heard at the end of the day yesterday. No mattert how heartbreaking and powerful a statement like that is, it is not evidence. How will the jury handle that?

I didn't hear the cross examination but it must have been very brief this morning. Court goes into session at 9:30 and by 10:15 or so, police witnesses were back on the stand.

The pacing of the trial is something I think about. So far the prosecution has gone from the almost professional, clinical testimony of police and investigative officers to very emotional testimony from Nancy's friends, back to police, then to Nancy's mother, now back to police. It could be that some witnesses have time constraints and have to be put on the stand when they are free, but I think that the pacing is deliberate.

If Officer A saw an item in the Coopers' house that might be evidence, Crime Scene Investigator B would pick it up, package and label it, pass it on to Officer C who would log it in. If the item is sent for lab tests, it is logged out, logged in at the lab, logged out again...and the report comes later. No one can testify to something he or she does not have firsthand knowledge of, so A, B and C all are called--and maybe someone else besides--to establish who handled the item, how and when. The purpose is to make sure that the thing tested is the thing that Officer A first saw in place.

 Today we learn that Brad Cooper showed investigators a shovel in a creekbed and took them to it. Does this mean anything? Don't know yet. There were cleaning supplies in a bathroom in the house. Does this mean anything? Don't know yet. The dress Nancy wore the night before she died was found to be soiled and that seems to mean it had fecal matter on it, but we don't officially know that. Whatever soiled the dress, does it mean anything? Don't know yet.

The tediousness of getting details into testimony and then revealing what they mean--at least in light of the Prosecution's case--could lull jurors to sleep, or annoy them. Perhaps mixing the vivid and emotional testimony from friends and family is designed to keep them riled up and alert.

Something that could not have been planned: yesterday, before Donna testified, jurors were shown photographs of Nancy's body in the condition in which it was found and one of the jurors was sickened by them. I hope that poor juror was able to sleep last night.

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Blackout

The Cooper Trial so far: for the last couple of days, we have had a broadcast blackout because there are undercover officers testifying and their identities are protected. Amanda Lamb is tweeting at #coopertrial. The TV channels can report, and so can the N&O, so I am keeping up as best I can. I like to watch the actual testimony, to hear and see what the jury hears and sees, so I'm restless. I suppose it is good for everything else in my life that I'm limited a bit! But I have managed to do most of my tax returns while the trial has been on wral.com and my multitasking skills are good.

Before the blackout, the man who found Nancy Cooper's body while walking his dog, his wife, officers who were first-responders, and several friends and neighbors of the Coopers testified. The Prosecution chose to begin with finding the body followed by the some professional matter-of-factness, and then move to the emotional and personal.

The direct examinations were lengthy and painted a picture of the marriage that was coming apart. Nancy and Brad were on the verge of divorce. She had almost left Cary with the children several months before she died, planning to go home to Canada. The neighbors had even planned a going away party, titled "The Saddest Party Ever." But she stayed. Various people who knew Nancy well said that she had started carrying her passport, and the children's, and other documents in her car. Brad found them, it is said, and took possession of them. Money was an issue, and perhaps a reason for him to declare that his wife and children could not leave. Or perhaps he did not want to be so far from his daughters and perhaps he wanted to try one more time to make a life with Nancy. The Defense put those options forward in his opening statement.

Nancy went missing on a Saturday morning. Brad told people that she went jogging and didn't come home. The night before, they were both at a neighborhood party. Other party guests testified that Nancy arrived early with the girls. Brad came later. They argued. He took the girls home to bed and she stayed several hours longer. It seems that Nancy was not shy about telling friends her marriage was miserable and that there were times when she hated Brad. Of course, many people will confide in friends when under such stress. She was upset enough, or open enough, or thoughtless enough, or had had enough wine, to tell a stranger at the party, too. That stranger took it so seriously, she remarked to her husband that something bad was going to happen in the Coopers' house.

When Nancy's friends figured out that she was missing, early that Saturday afternoon, one of them called the police. There were tears among them as they gathered in front of the Coopers' house. On the stand, they were not shy to say that their first thoughts--individually and together--were that if something had happened to Nancy, Brad did it. They told the police of their fears and all about the troubled marriage, too.

The Defense has already posited that the Cary police made their minds up early and never investigated any theories other than "Brad did it." In my opinion, that seems to be true. That may be the right conclusion, but was it arrived at in the right way? The police and the Prosecution must be held to a high level of behavior, of judgement, and must be above reproach.

According to Amanda Lamb's tweets this afternoon, the Defense challenged the undercover officer who is testifying about his thoroughness. The officer said that he had investigated every lead. He talked to 16 people who reported seeing someone who could have been Nancy out jogging; none of them could be certain.

A police detective testified that he believed Brad killed Nancy after midnight, when she returned home from the party and dumped her body where it was found, more than 3 miles from their house. Her body was nude, except the a sports bra pulled out of place. To me, if Brad did kill her, leaving her exposed that way--perhaps even undressing her and putting the bra on her--is horrible to contemplate.

This is not by any means a complete summary of the week's testimony, and I am hopeful that the undercover officers will be done soon, so the blackout will be over. Let me end by telling you what makes me very uncomfortable although it is also a common thing. Nancy's friends and the police found Brad's reactions to be lacking, and they judged him for that. I do not believe that there is a "proper" or "correct" way to act when confronted with tragedy and I do not believe that these judgements are in any way evidence. I wish judges did not permit them to be voiced. Think this would disqualify me from jury duty?

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Reasonable Doubts

Murder fascinates me. I am not alone, or true crime writers wouldn't make best seller lists so often. Miss Marple and Sherlock Holmes wouldn't have the hold on popular imagination that they have had for decades. It isn't necessary to explain my fascination, except perhaps to myself. I can trace it back to a murder that happened in Chapel Hill when I was 12. (See my blog, http://frankandlucille.blogspot.com/ to read about it.) But there is more to it, too.

I live for stories. I tell them, write them, listen to them, read them. For me, it is storytelling that makes us human. A murder investigation, trial and verdict have all the elements of great storytelling.

I remember the good old days when CourtTV provided live and full coverage of the OJ trial and the Mendendez brothers. Since those were in California, I could get home from work and still watch the afternoon sessions as they happened. I saw the glove that didn't fit, I saw the brothers break down while describing their cruel father. And the CTV evening programing was a recap of the day for the poor souls who had lives. It was great drama, and it led me to understand that our legal process teaches us to understand our society and human nature, to empathize with victims, survivors, and sometimes even the murderer. In my opinion, that last part--seeing the humanity in someone who has done something horrible--is what puts this kind of story-telling on a par with the greatest classics in literature.

Domestic cases are the ones that capture my imagination, draw me in and hook me. Yesterday, a local murder trial began. Brad Cooper is accused of murdering his wife, Nancy. It took more than 7 days to seat a jury of 12 plus 4 alternates, because the case has received so much publicity here. Brad and Nancy have 2 little girls. When Nancy went missing, and after her body was found, news media were full of photos of a good looking young woman with a great smile and her sweet daughters, sometimes with and sometimes without the husband and daddy now on trial. It's hard to say which are more poignant.

Nancy had good friends who loved her, and who were quick to tag Brad as her killer. They talked about troubles in the Coopers' marriage. They knew that Brad had been unfaithful. They spoke of abusive, controlling behavior on Brad's part. They started a charity in Nancy's name, to benefit women who are victims of abuse. The Court awarded custody of the little girls to the Rentz family, Nancy's family. I am sure that the general opinion among the public (and I include myself here) leans toward believing Brad is guilty. That's the easy point to get to, the easy story to tell.

But this morning, Howard Kurtz, Brad's attorney, delivered a 2 hour opening statement that must surely open people's minds for reasonable doubt. Mr. Kurtz did not just stand up and say "this is a tragedy, but my client is innocent, and the State can't prove otherwise." He went through the police work and the way the prosecution built its case point-by-point. He told the jury what they would hear, and why it was wrong or faulty. He did not shy away from making Nancy's friends look bad, or from tarnishing Nancy's halo. He managed to raise doubts before a word of testimoney or a shred of evidence is introduced. He absolutely raised the bar the prosecution has to get over before the trial propre begins. He reminded me that the easy story isn't always the true story.

So at this point, I have no opinion. I am wide open. (Not that my opinion matters to anyone except me.) I am just glad to see that the burden is squarely on the prosecution, where it belongs, and I look forward to the next chapter.