April 8th wknd of Sleuthing

[cody100]

They appear to be white canvas with a very wide navy border.
I have never seen anything close to that style.
Very unique.

I couldn't tell from the pics. Can't say I have seen those before either.

 

[borndem]

from PolkSaladAnnie
<snip so as not to quote the whole thing...>
Reading the immense wealth of insight, info and … intuition over these last 20 pages has left me with zero doubt as to BC’s guilt. Thank you all; when one zooms out the overall picture is so clear. Too clear – and I’m sure if HK really zoomed out, it may be as obvious to him/the def team. Of course, MOO. Nonetheless - a truly great thread, this is! .......
<snip so as not to quote the whole thing...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi PSAnnie - so good to hear from you again. Glad you and your ideas are with us!! :seeya:

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

I have to think there is more on the shoes.
The FBI has experts and a database for about every shoe ever made.
No way they just dismiss this very compelling evidence.

It took the FBI 13 months, but they identified a particular Hush puppy shoe style Jason Young wore when he killed his wife. Guess what? Those shoes also mysteriously went poof too.

Here's a link to cushe m's - hope this works - don't know if anyone thinks they look similar?:

http://www.shoepeddlers.com/index.p...=20656&zenid=50c26d073f5d0ca2a82063596872b2e4

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

Hi PSAnnie - so good to hear from you again. Glad you and your ideas are with us!! :seeya:

Awww. Tku borndem. Am coming to end of a 10-day break; took days to catch up reading - and will be back to the trenches by midweek. Always reading here; love this site.

Dem shoes, dem shoes ... dem .. deck shoes ....!

Now I really want to know what they are and where they are!

:seeya:

 

[borndem]

How could it be a short sale - I thought testimony the other day said the owed $190 on the mortgage?

I thought murders always had to be disclosed in a realty contract?

As to the short sale -- BC in his depo, IIRC, said he thought the mtg balance was @ $222K and they had the HELOC at $79K -- it may be that they were able to decline it somewhat, but probably not much. Also, IIRC, it was on the market, as were so many others, for quite a while.
I have no idea about disclosure of murder, other that it is not settled yet, so I don't think it could probably be mentioned. JMO - IDK. Someone may have better doc than what I have said above...if so, please correct!

 

[borndem]

He testified in the depo that he owed 222 and also 77k in equity loan on it . Unless he made that up
, but they could check so I wouldn't think he would/ should lie about that.

That's about what I recall, as well, CA.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Banks do require certain balances, most want direct deposits a minimum of twice monthly, there are fees to maintain an account etc. Banks are not the friendly local business they once were. Possibly a credit union would have worked but that would have likely been through Cisco. IMO

Her family members have already testified they were willing to give her money but she did not have a bank account. Bank balances would not have been an issue and there are plenty of low balance no minimum transaction accounts available at least at 2 of the 3 banks located within minutes of her home.

 

[Just the Fax]

Here's a link to cushe m's - hope this works - don't know if anyone thinks they look similar?:

http://www.shoepeddlers.com/index.p...=20656&zenid=50c26d073f5d0ca2a82063596872b2e4

What caught my eye about his was the very wide navy color on 1/2 the shoe.
The FBI should be able to zero in ....

"The database contains more than 11,000 different shoe designs from more than 370 different footwear manufacturers from around the world".

 

[LyndyLoo]

I have read here some who are accusing Pros. of wasting time, and showing all sorts of evidence, then having nothing being shown as evidenciary..questioning why do that, accusing it as a Smoke and Mirror Tactic...All I can say, What it does show is that the did a thorough investigation, no stone unturned. Smoke and Mirrors, NOPE..Since Defense as suggested Incompetent, even corrupt handling of things..I do think it behooves the Pros. to show was they looked at and what they found...No more no less...

Def. always have 2 main tactics..other than Rush to Judgement..and that is Lack of investigations, and possibly hiding/ or ignoring exculpatory evidence. Prosecutions are damed if they bring everything in or if they dont..IF they dont then its the blame game of NOT Investigating thoroughly...I think the judge has made it clear to Def. since accusations of Incompetent and corruptness, then Pros is ALLOWED to show they are NOT and WHY..

Just thought I would out that thought processes...As for that Nancy Cell phone fiasco...It happened. Det. Young goofed up out of lack of experience. It was NOT done for nefarious reasons..and IFanyone believed it was done on purpose..I dont believe that for one minute..I do think they wished they had the total data from that phone..IMO

 

[Just the Fax]

You are right LL, Kurtz is just using chapter 1 and 2 of defense lawyering 101.
Very predictable tactic, especially when there is nothing truly exculpatory he can point to. Just wait till he puts on his case. Talk about smoke and mirrors :stretch:

 

[Madeleine74]

On July 12 there was one person missing. The police asked for the missing person's items of clothes, her shoes, anything that would help find her. Brad Cooper was not missing. To ask him for his shoes before they even knew there was a video of him from Harris Teeter wearing 2 different pairs of shoes, before they even knew Nancy was dead, tossed into a drainage ditch 3 miles away, would have looked ridiculous and certainly seen to be a rush to judgment. They had no idea Nancy would not turn up alive and well and in hiding. By the time a body was found Cooper had lawyered up. No reason to ask him for anything because by that point they needed a search warrant to take anything of his from the house. It is laughable to think they could just ask him for his shoes on July 12 when they had no reason to think about his shoes or anything else he was wearing.

 

[borndem]

Det. Young was asked "Were those shoes EVER found." Answer: "No, sir." They searched the house and looked at all shoes. They were not there.

That's what I recall, too. And it was, IIRC, on re-direct that he was asked.

 

[Madeleine74]

If cops don't ask a spouse for their own shoes the moment a person goes missing then they are inept. If they ask for the shoes they are rushing to judgement. If they look for shoes later with a search warrant they are incompetent. There is no winning or an exact right time for anything the cops do. Always looked at like everything they do is either bumbling or corrupt, or both at the same time.

 

[cody100]

I have read here some who are accusing Pros. of wasting time, and showing all sorts of evidence, then having nothing being shown as evidenciary..questioning why do that, accusing it as a Smoke and Mirror Tactic...All I can say, What it does show is that the did a thorough investigation, no stone unturned. Smoke and Mirrors, NOPE..Since Defense as suggested Incompetent, even corrupt handling of things..I do think it behooves the Pros. to show was they looked at and what they found...No more no less...

Def. always have 2 main tactics..other than Rush to Judgement..and that is Lack of investigations, and possibly hiding/ or ignoring exculpatory evidence. Prosecutions are damed if they bring everything in or if they dont..IF they dont then its the blame game of NOT Investigating thoroughly...I think the judge has made it clear to Def. since accusations of Incompetent and corruptness, then Pros is ALLOWED to show they are NOT and WHY..

Just thought I would out that thought processes...As for that Nancy Cell phone fiasco...It happened. Det. Young goofed up out of lack of experience. It was NOT done for nefarious reasons..and IFanyone believed it was done on purpose..I dont believe that for one minute..I do think they wished they had the total data from that phone..IMO

Courtrooms are like a stage with the opposing teams presenting their case, defending their cause, and ultimately trying to win the case. In the process, both sides sometimes present material they wish they hadn't, and don't present something they wish they had. If I were the prosecution, I would pull out the remaining items quickly and hopefully have a smoking gun to end their presenation of evidence. If I were the defense, I would present my evidence in concise tidbits of information so that the jury can digest it. I do think the prosecution has bounced all over the place with their witnesses. In regard to Det Young, this guy should not ever have been working on her cell phone. And, from what I understand, he would have gotten the warning message a number of times before it wiped the phone clean. I hope he did not do that on purpose, but much doubt towards LE agencies now prevails. And again, it is the jury that will make the final decision. Only Det. Young can say whether he intended to do that on purpose, and he would never admit it.

 

[Just the Fax]

The Wallsburg Ct SW was served 7-16. (Brad stopped talking)
Anybody recall when the HT video was seized by CPD?

 

[cody100]

On July 12 there was one person missing. The police asked for the missing person's items of clothes, her shoes, anything that would help find her. Brad Cooper was not missing. To ask him for his shoes before they even knew there was a video of him from Harris Teeter wearing 2 different pairs of shoes, before they even knew Nancy was dead, tossed into a drainage ditch 3 miles away, would have looked ridiculous and certainly seen to be a rush to judgment. They had no idea Nancy would not turn up alive and well and in hiding. By the time a body was found Cooper had lawyered up. No reason to ask him for anything because by that point they needed a search warrant to take anything of his from the house. It is laughable to think they could just ask him for his shoes on July 12 when they had no reason to think about his shoes or anything else he was wearing.

I don''t think anyone would suggest that they would ask him for shoes on July 12th. And, yes, BC lawyered up as any smart person would have done.

 

[PolkSaladAnnie]

If cops don't ask a spouse for their own shoes the moment a person goes missing then they are inept. If they ask for the shoes they are rushing to judgement. If they look for shoes later with a search warrant they are incompetent. There is no winning or an exact right time for anything the cops do. Always looked at like everything they do is either bumbling or corrupt, or both at the same time.

:clap: :clap:

 

[borndem]

Once it turned into a murder investigation, why didn't they ask him which shoes he was wearing at HT?

They can't claim there are missing shoes if they never even asked for them. He cooperated fully with police. It could have cleared things up. At least we would know which shoes he claimed to be wearing and the those shoes could have been analyzed by forensics. But to just take a random pair of shoes that he clearly wore for searches and send them for testing is just pure incompetence.

IDK, but I thought, when I heard the testimony about those shoes, that they had them analyzed to show that the particular mica was not on those shoes -- mainly to have soil from a known place in Cary show that the particular type of mica was not in the search area around the lake -- IOW, it was not just everywhere in Cary. Dunno. Just my impression.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Since they catalogued what was found - and the shoes were not catalogued stands to reason they were not there. And he couldn't ASK BC for anything after he lawyered up. I believe that was his testimony also.

He certainly asked BC lots of other things so that really doesn't add up.

It was a poor piece of investigative work whichever side of the guilt innocence coin you chose to believe.

 

[cody100]

If cops don't ask a spouse for their own shoes the moment a person goes missing then they are inept. If they ask for the shoes they are rushing to judgement. If they look for shoes later with a search warrant they are incompetent. There is no winning or an exact right time for anything the cops do. Always looked at like everything they do is either bumbling or corrupt, or both at the same time.

I think the other inept things CPD did opened the door for the shoes comments. No one would expect them to ask for the shoes until they saw the HT video. I have no idea when they saw that.