Brad Cooper: Appeal info

dgfred said:

Yikes oenophile. You have either police corruption or a friend of hers sneaking into his office to plant the search?

Click to expand...

Because police corruption never happens?

Let me add, if the rest of the evidence wasn't overwhelmingly indicative of Brad's innocence, I would be much more skeptical of the tampering theory. But there is just too much exculpatory evidence. Add to that how little the google search fits with a realistic hypothesis, I cannot in good conscious ignore a reasonable tampering theory that is backed by evidence.

Another question, to turn the tables a bit. How is it that the people that believe Brad is guilty are able to so easily ignore:

1. Many witnesses saying they saw Nancy running that morning, with no alternate runner ever coming forward;
2. Bella claiming she saw her mother that morning, including what she was wearing;
3. Tire tracks leading to the body that were not the Coopers;
4. A footprint near the body not matching Brad;
5. Witnesses saying that Nancy was planning to go running in the morning;
6. Her missing pair of shoes;
7. The autopsy with almost no food contents, with caffeine, and with an alcohol content consistent with only decomposition;
8. Eyewitness testimony of a strange van in the area, followed by eyewitness testimony of a van turning around and approaching a jogger?

And I won't even add the phone call.

oenophile said:

Another question, to turn the tables a bit. How is it that the people that believe Brad is guilty are able to so easily ignore:

1. Many witnesses saying they saw Nancy running that morning, with no alternate runner ever coming forward;
2. Bella claiming she saw her mother that morning, including what she was wearing;
3. Tire tracks leading to the body that were not the Coopers;
4. A footprint near the body not matching Brad;
5. Witnesses saying that Nancy was planning to go running in the morning;
6. Her missing pair of shoes;
7. The autopsy with almost no food contents, with caffeine, and with an alcohol content consistent with only decomposition;
8. Eyewitness testimony of a strange van in the area, followed by eyewitness testimony of a van turning around and approaching a jogger?

And I won't even add the phone call.

Click to expand...

OK, I will give it a go.
1. None of the witnesses were sure who they saw.
2. What she was wearing? Depends when she was killed to me.
3. Nothing big to me. Smart enough to try to cover any tracks anyway IMO.
4. How did it not match Brad? Were there other footprints in the area?
5. Planning with who? What happened to those plans?
6. I have some problems with the shoes... but I have to look back to be sure.
7. What does the autopsy show to you? I don't understand your meaning.
8. Who's testimony? Did they stay and watch what happened? Or just leave?

I don't think she ran by herself. I do not ignore these things but instead prioritize them by reliability.

In addition... I haven't seen a realistic hypothesis for the google search. Much less evidence of tampering.

Do you think the defense will try that route... I don't.

oenophile said:

How do you explain Chief Basemore's statement immediately after the murder that it was not random?

Click to expand...

This is one of the oft-repeated and selectively parsed statements attributed. I posted the exact verbatim comments made by Bazemore from the press conferences. I'm not going to repost those again.

JA set the police in one direction from the beginning. And interestingly enough, she was indeed the main one in contact with the police during the investigation (remember the neighbors saying that JA wanted them to go through her???)

I think this post demonstrates what I mean by torch and pitchfork.

Click to expand...

Except the "direction" set by JA was the simple truth: NC hadn't been seen, hadn't phoned either of the 2 friends she had made plans with for that day, and, by the time of the call to the non-emergency police number, the elapsed time approximately 7 hrs.

Thus the case was a potential "missing" person.

And what bolsters that is that JA called area hospitals first (before contacting any non-emergency police phone #) to find out if NC had maybe been injured while out, since she was told NC had gone running with a friend around 7am. Friends called around over a period of a few hours to see if anyone had seen her. 4 of the friends, including JA, went to Lifetime Fitness to see if NC was there (a misdirection courtesy of Brad, as it turned out).

You can claim whatever you want, but the truth, as backed by the testimony of several, isn't going to change: the investigation proceeded as a missing person case, with organized searches for that missing person, until such time as a body was found and identified and manner of death was a homicide.

oenophile said:

How do you explain Chief Basemore's statement immediately after the murder that it was not random?

Click to expand...

This is one of the oft-repeated and selectively parsed statements attributed. I posted the exact verbatim comments made by Bazemore from the press conferences. I'm not going to repost those again.

JA set the police in one direction from the beginning. And interestingly enough, she was indeed the main one in contact with the police during the investigation (remember the neighbors saying that JA wanted them to go through her???)

I think this post demonstrates what I mean by torch and pitchfork.

Click to expand...

Yes, the "direction" set by JA was simple: NC hadn't been seen, hadn't phoned either of the 2 friends she had made plans with for that day, wasn't answering her phone and, by the time of the call to the non-emergency police number, the elapsed time since she supposedly "went running" was approximately 7 hrs.

Thus the case was a potential "missing" person.

And what bolsters that is that JA called area hospitals first (before contacting any non-emergency police phone #) to find out if NC had maybe been injured while out, since she was told NC had gone running with a friend around 7am. Friends called around over a period of a few hours to see if anyone had seen her. 4 of the friends, including JA, went to Lifetime Fitness to see if NC was there (a misdirection courtesy of Brad, as it turned out).

We know now, of course, that based on the M.E's estimate, NC was certainly dead by 11am at the latest. Further we also learned she never went to Lifetime fitness, never used her cell phone again after 11pm the night before, and wasn't running with CC or out having coffee.

You can claim whatever you want, but the truth, as backed by the testimony of several, isn't going to change: the investigation proceeded as a missing person case, with organized searches for that missing person, until such time as a body was found and identified and manner of death was a homicide.

Madeleine74 said:

This is one of the oft-repeated and selectively parsed statements attributed. I posted the exact verbatim comments made by Bazemore from the press conferences. I'm not going to repost those again.

Click to expand...

You don't need to repost them, they are clear. Basemore said it. And there is NO REASON for her to say that based on the evidence collected at the time.

Madeleine74 said:

Yes, the "direction" set by JA was simple: NC hadn't been seen, hadn't phoned either of the 2 friends she had made plans with for that day, wasn't answering her phone and, by the time of the call to the non-emergency police number, the elapsed time since she supposedly "went running" was approximately 7 hrs.

Thus the case was a potential "missing" person.

Click to expand...

You conveniently left out the part where she suggests that Brad may have done something to her because they were in the middle of a divorce.

Madeleine74 said:

And what bolsters that is that JA called area hospitals first (before contacting any non-emergency police phone #) to find out if NC had maybe been injured while out, since she was told NC had gone running with a friend around 7am.

Click to expand...

This is partly incorrect. There is no corroboration that she was told that she went running with a friend. She was told that she MAY have been with CC.

Madeleine74 said:

Friends called around over a period of a few hours to see if anyone had seen her. 4 of the friends, including JA, went to Lifetime Fitness to see if NC was there (a misdirection courtesy of Brad, as it turned out)..

Click to expand...

Only a misdirection to the torch and pitchfork crowd.

Madeleine74 said:

We know now, of course, that based on the M.E's estimate, NC was certainly dead by 11am at the latest. Further we also learned she never went to Lifetime fitness, never used her cell phone again after 11pm the night before, and wasn't running with CC or out having coffee.

Click to expand...

And none of that suggests Brad was guilty. She did have a caffeinated beverage though, based on the autopsy, most likely at home before going out.

Madeleine74 said:

You can claim whatever you want, but the truth, as backed by the testimony of several, isn't going to change: the investigation proceeded as a missing person case, with organized searches for that missing person, until such time as a body was found and identified and manner of death was a homicide.

Click to expand...

I agree that the case proceeded as a missing person, however Brad was always a suspect from the beginning, as was clear from the testimony. It was not "random".

There was another murder in Cary this morning that the CPD has stated is not random. This is a great opportunity for anyone who'd like to take a field trip and follow the detectives to see if they plant any evidence.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9432221

http://www.wral.com/cary-police-investigate-homicide/13395503/

WRAL had the "not random" statement in their noon news, but it's not part of the online report.

dgfred said:

OK, I will give it a go.
1. None of the witnesses were sure who they saw.
2. What she was wearing? Depends when she was killed to me.
3. Nothing big to me. Smart enough to try to cover any tracks anyway IMO.
4. How did it not match Brad? Were there other footprints in the area?
5. Planning with who? What happened to those plans?
6. I have some problems with the shoes... but I have to look back to be sure.
7. What does the autopsy show to you? I don't understand your meaning.
8. Who's testimony? Did they stay and watch what happened? Or just leave?

I don't think she ran by herself. I do not ignore these things but instead prioritize them by reliability.

Click to expand...

1. One was, but nonetheless, that is circumstantial evidence that she was alive.
2. Yes, Bella told one of the neighbors that she was wearing a white shirt and black shorts, I believe. In the morning. Contradicts the BDI theory. It was not admitted into evidence.
3. So Brad covered the tire tracks from his car, then created false tire tracks from someone else's car that lead directly to the body in order to throw off the police??? Wow, criminal mastermind!
4. No there weren't, and it didn't match his shoes or size.
5. She told several people that she was planning to run in the morning, because she was training for a marathon (and interestingly enough, someone told the police that when first interviewed and when his memory was fresh, then recanted after talking with his wife...because it didn't fit with the torch and pitchfork narrative)
7. I said above, the autopsy showed only a piece of undigested onion in the stomach, and brown liquid that was caffeinated. She was observed eating quite a bit and drinking quite a bit at the party, none of it caffeinated. The body had an alcohol level consistent with decomposition only, if she had died with alcohol in her blood, the level would have been higher when she was found. All of this indicates that she was killed after she a) digested her food; b) processed the alcohol; and c) drank coffee or something similar. This is consistent with being killed in the morning during her run, and inconsistent with being killed when she got back from the party the night before. These are facts. They are not eyewitness testimony. They are not digital evidence. They are scientific analysis of the body, and as such, should have tremendous weight in the evidence.
8. The person that saw the suspicious van at night was in his house, and he called the police. I don't recall his name. The second one was driving, and saw it out his window. (personally, I think the first one has more credibility than the second)

You conveniently left out the part where she suggests that Brad may have done something to her because they were in the middle of a divorce.

Click to expand...

And you conveniently changed the actual wording and left out the part where she said she "hoped he didn't do anything to her because they were in the middle of a divorce and things had been tense."

The claim that NC must have had a caffeinated beverage in the morning has no proof behind it. No coffee cup in the sink, no cup on the counter, no coffee grounds in the machine. Yet there was testimony that she drank a diet coke at lunch the day before, seen by 2 witnesses, and the M.E. testified that caffeine can stay in a system for over 24 hrs. Yet that is always ignored/dismissed.

Until there's proof that a person is not gone of their own accord what would anyone be a suspect for/of? Until you find a body or something pointing to a death, there's nothing to suspect. You may suspect a person left because they're angry or had a fight or for some other reason, but that's not a crime.

Skittles said:

There was another murder in Cary this morning that the CPD has stated is not random. This is a great opportunity for anyone who'd like to take a field trip and follow the detectives to see if they plant any evidence.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9432221

http://www.wral.com/cary-police-investigate-homicide/13395503/

WRAL had the "not random" statement in their noon news, but it's not part of the online report.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with the police saying it was not random if and when they have sufficient evidence to state that it is not random. The problem with the Cooper case is that they did not have sufficient evidence to make such a statement, and it caused the police to focus on one suspect and ignore potentially viable alternate theories.

Madeleine74 said:

And you conveniently changed the actual wording and left out the part where she said she "hoped he didn't do anything to her because they were in the middle of a divorce and things had been tense."

Click to expand...

And her precise statement suggests that Brad may have done something. My post stands correct.

Madeleine74 said:

The claim that NC must have had a caffeinated beverage in the morning has no proof behind it. No coffee cup in the sink, no cup on the counter, no coffee grounds in the machine. Yet there was testimony that she drank a diet coke at lunch the day before, seen by 2 witnesses, and the M.E. testified that caffeine can stay in a system for over 24 hrs. Yet that is always ignored/dismissed.

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the cup and coffee would be cleaned over the course of those two days, either before she was thought to be missing or after. And the diet coke was a stretch at best.

oenophile said:

I'm fine with the police saying it was not random if and when they have sufficient evidence to state that it is not random. The problem with the Cooper case is that they did not have sufficient evidence to make such a statement, and it caused the police to focus on one suspect and ignore potentially viable alternate theories.

Click to expand...

BBM. And how do you know they did not have sufficient evidence? Let's review what was said: "So far nothing we have seen indicates this is anything but an isolated incident" and "We have no indication this is a random crime."

Madeleine74 said:

Until there's proof that a person is not gone of their own accord what would anyone be a suspect for/of? Until you find a body or something pointing to a death, there's nothing to suspect. You may suspect a person left because they're angry or had a fight or for some other reason, but that's not a crime.

Click to expand...

And yet all her friends were already suspecting Brad had done something to Nancy. Seems to contradict this statement.

Madeleine74 said:

BBM. And how do you know they did not have sufficient evidence to say, "So far nothing we have seen indicates this is anything but an isolated incident" and "We have no indication this is a random crime"?

Click to expand...

Because we saw the evidence at the trial. And based on the evidence at the trial, there was an indication that this could have been a random crime.

oenophile said:

And yet all her friends were already suspecting Brad had done something to Nancy. Seems to contradict this statement.

Click to expand...

Done what? Made her mad? Caused her to want to disappear for awhile? Injured her? What exactly were "all her friends" suspecting and what source are you using?

oenophile said:

Because we saw the evidence at the trial. And based on the evidence at the trial, there was an indication that this could have been a random crime.

Click to expand...

Based on the evidence at the trial this was an isolated incident, no one else was attacked, no one spotted anyone being attacked, no one saw a woman in distress, no one heard screams, cries for help or anything like that. One van seen turning around on Kildare Farm Rd and going in the same direction as a female jogger doesn't cut it.

Madeleine74 said:

Done what? Made her mad? Caused her to want to disappear for awhile? Injured her? What exactly were "all her friends" suspecting and what source are you using?

Click to expand...

I'm using the affidavits from the custody hearing and the trial testimony. Nancy's friends, led by JA and HP, suspected that Brad had harmed her in some way the day that she disappeared.

By the way, if you are one of those friends, please feel free to tell me that the testimony and the affidavits are incorrect based on first hand knowledge.

There was also clear evidence on his PC that he googled the exact area he dumped her body. I'll go with that factual evidence.

Madeleine74 said:

Based on the evidence at the trial this was an isolated incident, no one else was attacked, no one spotted anyone being attacked, no one saw a woman in distress, no one heard screams, cries for help or anything like that. One van seen turning around on Kildare Farm Rd and going in the same direction as a female jogger doesn't cut it.

Click to expand...

Basemore said ""we do not believe it was a random act of violence". She had no basis for this.

Lots of people saw a jogger that morning, and they reported it. Random attacks of joggers happen (just ask Gary Condit). The roads of Cary are not ones where you would necessary see or hear an abduction that early on a Saturday morning. The most reasonable two possibilities are random crime and husband did it. There wasn't any concrete evidence to suggest Brad did it, and there was enough evidence to indicate that she was killed after going jogging. As to whether this was an isolated incident or not, there was no clear conclusive evidence either way.

Basemore also said "we do not believe that it is not safe for our community to jog and go out in the community and do things they enjoy". If they had not ruled out a random attack, then she would not be justified in making this statement.

Just admit it, the Cary PD ruled out a random attack from the start, and they focused all their efforts on Brad.