Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[oenophile]

"Casey Francis and I are both possessed of considerable technical skill sets. However, given the complexity of the evaluation required, we embarked on a quest to find the best and brightest expert possible. We consulted with true titans of the computer security field in an attempt to identify such an individual. After describing the anomalies that we ourselves had found and after pinpointing the type of anti-forensics detection we required, we were given the name Jay Ward without reservation. Jay's credentials were impeccable and his expertise unassailable. He could not have been recommended more highly.

And so it was that Casey and I arranged to meet with Jay. After a lengthy explanation of our own findings and after we detailed the type of evaluation that would be required of him, Jay readily accepted the challenge. "

====================================================
WOW, you were right macd.

http://www.kurtzandblum.com/blog/cooper-case

That is very different than saying the detailed timestamp claim originated with Kurtz. There is no doubt that the tampering claim originated with Kurtz, but to suggest that the defense simply searched for someone to testify about the defense theory is inaccurate.

 

[Just the Fax]

That is very different than saying the detailed timestamp claim originated with Kurtz. There is no doubt that the tampering claim originated with Kurtz, but to suggest that the defense simply searched for someone to testify about the defense theory is inaccurate.

So the credit goes to Jay Ward :rockon:

 

[oenophile]

So the credit goes to Jay Ward :rockon:

Quite possibly, yes. Although not sure it matters.

 

[Just the Fax]

Quite possibly, yes. Although not sure it matters.

Sorry for the obnoxious 'smile'....I meant to delete.
I agree, Kurtz or Ward, it doesn't matter.
The truth will prevail.

 

[oenophile]

The truth will prevail.

I am hoping it does!

 

[otto]

Kurtz's blog on his website. He details how he and an assistant "discovered" the timestamp "issues" and then went searching for an "expert" to testify to it.

I pretty sure the timestamps would reflect the changed time.

Isn't that what a lawyer should do? Shouldn't he look for irregularities in the prosecution case and expose them the best way possible?

What am I missing? Is it a criticism of the lawyer that he identified irregularities in the prosecution case and then contacted an expert that could speak to the subject?

 

[otto]

I am predisposed to thinking he's guilty as sin. I never watched the trial and only heard a few things here and there. I watched a Dateline special tonight. It made me convinced of his guilt. However, the guy has a chance at getting off. The evidence against him that was reported on the show is incredibly thin.

But, it cracks me up, all these men and women in very troubled relationships who just coincidentally turn up missing or dead. And each one of their significant others tries so hard to convince us that their mate just happened to be killed by someone else with no relation to the disintegrating relationship.

Sure thing, right? Nah, I wasn't born yesterday.

Based on the testimony from the neighbors, it sounded like swinging, or hooking up with the neighbors spouse, was rather common. Weren't almost all of the women that testified in "troubled relationships"?

 

[oenophile]

I am predisposed to thinking he's guilty as sin. I never watched the trial and only heard a few things here and there. I watched a Dateline special tonight. It made me convinced of his guilt. However, the guy has a chance at getting off. The evidence against him that was reported on the show is incredibly thin.

But, it cracks me up, all these men and women in very troubled relationships who just coincidentally turn up missing or dead. And each one of their significant others tries so hard to convince us that their mate just happened to be killed by someone else with no relation to the disintegrating relationship.

Sure thing, right? Nah, I wasn't born yesterday.

The problem is that there are actually random crimes. And sometimes these random crimes happen to people that are in troubled relationships.

I had a good friend and colleague who was in a normal relationship. She was selected by a random person to be raped, murdered, and dumped in a river. They didn't find her body until months later. Luckily, the person stole her car and was caught by an attentive cop (in NC no less), but I can only imagine what would have happened had he not been caught. Would her fiancee have been blamed?

Police and DA's assume the husband did it until it is proven otherwise. But it isn't always the husband. In this case, EVERYONE jumped to the conclusion that the husband did it (just look at the early comments on this board). I believe this caused the police to ignore the real killer(s).

 

[Just the Fax]

Though extremely rare in Cary, of course random murders occur. Then again, check the MO for the very rare case of an adult woman abducted off the street by a random person. One would expect to find evidence of rape....not in this case.

Sure the spouse is always a person of interest early on, just because of the very high statistical likelihood. CPD sharpened their focus on Cooper because of his numerous lies and deception. He had motive and opportunity and obviously had something to hide.

 

[oenophile]

Though extremely rare in Cary, of course random murders occur. Then again, check the MO for the very rare case of an adult woman abducted off the street by a random person. One would expect to find evidence of rape....not in this case.

"Extremely rare in Cary" is precisely why I believe the CPD tried to pin the murder on Brad from the outset. Cary PD had motive to make sure that their city maintained its reputation as safe, even though it is right next door to Raleigh and not far from Durham. As for rape, there was no conclusive evidence due to the state of decomposition.

 

[Madeleine74]

If you watch any olf the types of`true crime investigative shows, you quickly learn that the standard protocol in homicide cases is to look at the life of the victim, gathering info from their family and closest friends to understand who they were and what was going on in the last weeks of their life. Investigations focus on the inner circle (spouse/kids/family) first and work out from there. In this case you have 2 little kids, so they're out. You have a husband in a known messy separation/pending dissolution situation with increasing areas of conflict.

The crime could have been committed by the husband so that doesn't exclude him. The situation in the relationship was contentious and there were known tensions as recently as the night before. Husband can't be excluded as someone to be looked at. Rest of family live in Canada and none of them were in the U.S. So they're excluded.

You have random sightings of a runner but no ID from anyone who knew her who could make a definitive identification. No reports of anyone being attacked, no sightings of anyone being hassled, no screams, nothing. Victim found in an area she was not known to run and husband said she would never run.

Victim was found dumped nearby (3 mi) from her home. No sign of burglary. Not wearing anything but rolled under jog bra. She wasn't killed where she was found.

There are footprints (that are muddy, distorted, and filled with water). There are tire tracks, also distorted and filled with water. However, neither of these things can be dated. They could have been there before the murder as this is a construction site. No proof of when they were made. Assumption by many is they were made by the murderer but where's the evidence of the timing? Day of the murder was dry, no rain for day(s) prior and no rain until 2 days after body was dumped.

Homicide investigators would be laughed at and shunned by every other agency out there if they didn't investigate the spouse of a homicide victim. It's standard.

So what would lead investigators away from someone closest to the victim in terms of domicile and relationship? What would allow them to exclude such a person from a list of possibilities? Exclusion is part of the process in trying to figure out the "who." DNA works the same way. When there's DNA in a case it's used to exclude as much as include. There wasn't any as part of this case.

 

[oenophile]

If you watch any olf the types of`true crime investigative shows, you quickly learn that the standard protocol in homicide cases is to look at the life of the victim, gathering info from their family and closest friends to understand who they were and what was going on in the last weeks of their life. Investigations focus on the inner circle (spouse/kids/family) first and work out from there. In this case you have 2 little kids, so they're out. You have a husband in a known messy separation/pending dissolution situation with increasing areas of conflict.

The crime could have been committed by the husband so that doesn't exclude him. The situation in the relationship was contentious and there were known tensions as recently as the night before. Husband can't be excluded as someone to be looked at. Rest of family live in Canada and none of them were in the U.S. So they're excluded.

You have random sightings of a runner but no ID from anyone who knew her who could make a definitive identification. No reports of anyone being attacked, no sightings of anyone being hassled, no screams, nothing. Victim found in an area she was not known to run and husband said she would never run.

Victim was found dumped nearby (3 mi) from her home. No sign of burglary. Not wearing anything but rolled under jog bra. She wasn't killed where she was found.

There are footprints (that are muddy, distorted, and filled with water). There are tire tracks, also distorted and filled with water. However, neither of these things can be dated. They could have been there before the murder as this is a construction site. No proof of when they were made. Assumption by many is they were made by the murderer but where's the evidence of the timing? Day of the murder was dry, no rain for day(s) prior and no rain until 2 days after body was dumped.

Homicide investigators would be laughed at and shunned by every other agency out there if they didn't investigate the spouse of a homicide victim. It's standard.

So what would lead investigators away from someone closest to the victim in terms of domicile and relationship? What would allow them to exclude such a person from a list of possibilities? Exclusion is part of the process in trying to figure out the "who." DNA works the same way. When there's DNA in a case it's used to exclude as much as include. There wasn't any as part of this case.

I'm in 100% agreement with this post.

My problem was that the police excluded the possibility of a random crime from the day the body was found. They said so in their press conference.

In addition, there was significant evidence that this was a random crime, including some of the things you talk about in your post. They were not definitive, but they were supportive of the random crime theory.

 

[Madeleine74]

The police said (about 3 different times) they had "no indication this was anything other than an isolated incident." Meaning, this crime does not appear to be connected to any other crime, as far as they knew. They further qualified why they thought that during the press conferences, but the explanation for some reason is not considered or accepted. So I ask, "why should they assume this was a random crime and not an isolated incident?" The word "random" btw, was used by one media person first. Not random means the person intended to hurt that particular victim.

Now the contention being made by some is this crime has evidence of it being a random crime. I've not read or heard anything that makes it appear that way. Some van sightings? Where are the reports of someone being taken? Where are the screams heard? What facts exist that indicate this was random?

You have many witnesses who claimed to see a "tall female runner with brown hair in a ponytail." Which witness saw this runner being attacked? Which witness saw a runner in distress? Which witness heard screams? What evidence on the body suggests a struggle ensued? A "van turning around" doesn't equal runner attacked. Connecting a sighting of a (red, white, pink, takeyerpick what color) van to this murder hasn't been made except by suggestion and imagination. Someone should have seen something if upwards of 16 people saw this runner.

And we know something else: this runner was in the Lochmere neighborhood. She wasn't out running on some trail in Umstead Park, she wasn't many miles away running in some forlorn area, so if this runner was NC, then there's no reason for her to be away from home for > 3 hrs at the most. If she left near 7am then she should have been back by 10am even if she went for a long run. Now, BC said NC went running with (he assumed) CC. No one ever saw 2 runners. CC had no plans to run with NC that day. No one ever saw 1 runner stopped and conversing with anyone else (like a man) nor a runner stopped near a van. No reports match what BC said. BC had her with another person, running.

Why again should LE have excluded BC when what they are learning doesn't match what BC told them and they are hearing contrary things from NC's family about her, her habits, her mood, etc?

 

[oenophile]

The police said (about 3 different times) they had "no indication this was anything other than an isolated incident." Meaning, this crime does not appear to be connected to any other crime, as far as they knew. They further qualified why they thought that during the press conferences, but the explanation for some reason is not considered or accepted. So I ask, "why should they assume this was a random crime and not an isolated incident?" The word "random" btw, was used by one media person first. Not random means the person intended to hurt that particular victim.

You are creating a very bizarre definition of both random and isolated incident. It was clear that the police believed that the killer knew Nancy. Are you seriously denying this?

Now, I ask you, what specific evidence did the police have the week following the murder that indicated this was an isolated incident? Or a random incident? At that point, the only thing they knew is that Nancy's friends were claiming it was Brad. And they were trying to suppress anything that did not fit that theory.

Now the contention being made by some is this crime has evidence of it being a random crime. I've not read or heard anything that makes it appear that way.

Some van sightings? Where are the reports of someone being taken? Where are the screams heard? What facts exist that indicate this was random?

I've documented, in great detail, the evidence that suggests this was a random crime. I'm reasonably certain that people who abduct others at random do so in a way so as to avoid being witnessed. The undeniable fact is that it happens often.

And we know something else: this runner was in the Lochmere neighborhood. She wasn't out running on some trail in Umstead Park, she wasn't many miles away running in some forlorn area, so if this runner was NC, then there's no reason for her to be away from home for > 3 hrs at the most. If she left near 7am then she should have been back by 10am even if she went for a long run. Now, BC said NC went running with (he assumed) CC. No one ever saw 2 runners. CC had no plans to run with NC that day. No one ever saw 1 runner stopped and conversing with anyone else (like a man) nor a runner stopped near a van. No reports match what BC said. BC had her with another person, running.

Brad said she may have gone running with CC, I don't recall him saying definitively that she went with CC. And frankly, that would be pretty dumb for him to say if he killed her, since he would have known that it wasn't possible for her to have run with CC. Yet another example of his behavior suggesting his innocence. The rest, frankly, is irrelevant.

Why again should LE have excluded BC when what they are learning doesn't match what BC told them and they are hearing contrary things from NC's family about her, her habits, her mood, etc?

A. No one said that LE should have excluded BC. I am saying that they should not have excluded other possibilities on day one, which is exactly what they did.
B. We learned that her friends and family didn't know her habits as well as they thought they did.

 

[macd]

That is very different than saying the detailed timestamp claim originated with Kurtz. There is no doubt that the tampering claim originated with Kurtz, but to suggest that the defense simply searched for someone to testify about the defense theory is inaccurate.

If not the timestamps, what "anomalies" is Kurtz referring to?

Isn't that what a lawyer should do? Shouldn't he look for irregularities in the prosecution case and expose them the best way possible?

What am I missing? Is it a criticism of the lawyer that he identified irregularities in the prosecution case and then contacted an expert that could speak to the subject?

I have nothing but compliments for Kurtz. He's top on my list if I ever need that kind of help.

My comments were intended to illustrate that the claim of tampering is ludicrous. Some of the claims are provably false for anyone willing to experiment. The tampering claim was a theory generated by a lawyer (doing his job) who then shopped around the theory until he found an "expert" willing to write a report and testify to it in court.

 

[Madeleine74]

"Isolated incident" and "random" are not my words and the police chief has her own definitions. Those were used during the missing person part of the investigation and were continued to be used by LE during their pressers. I took it at face value and figured perp and victim had some connection and this crime wasn't connected to other murders that occurred before.

The police were mum on details of the investigation the whole way through. Not a peep about what they were finding or not finding. The only clues were through legal docs filed that the media were able to get and publish (like returned search warrants) and through the legal docs that got filed in the custody case and which the media made available through publication. Not one thing was released by LE, which annoyed me because as a very curious person I wanted to know what was going on and I wanted to know the details, like many people here.

To this day I still don't know who all LE talked to in their investigation and I haven't seen anything published about that. How do you know they never looked at or considered anyone else during the months between the murder and the arrest of BC? I'd like to see some official notes detailing the list of people they talked to. I'd like to see the notes they took, lists they made, etc. All I saw from the criminal side of the case was complete silence for 3+ months after the last presser before arrest, then then one presser after arrest, then nothing until trial. Did you get a hold of the police binders and investigation notes?

BC could never be excluded as a suspect. The laptop was analyzed somewhere in the August - Sept timeframe, maybe results as late as early Oct? I don't know the dates of that, but it did happen in 2008. BC's lies (or "lapses in memory and judgement that could happen to anyone" as some claim) helped keep him the #1 POI/suspect.

 

[oenophile]

Equally fascinating read is the defense response to the appeal.

It addresses very clearly all of the main points of the state's brief.

 

[calgary123]

That is a very well written brief. I like how they clearly set out the theory about the invalid files. It provides a genuine platform for an actual technical vetting of their position. Though I suppose in retrial the defence won't be limited to the appeal argument or even committed to it.

This is probably the first time I've seen real direct written argument on some very key issues. That is probably a plus for the prosecution as at trial the defence was more about making the evidence seem muddy or equivocal. Now, with their client's life in prison on the line, they're making bold commitments about what the evidence shows or where it falls short.

They even take on in a direct way Brad allegedly deleting the call history (and do a good of that but it looks bad for them even with them putting the best possible spin on that evidence).

This is going to trial again.

 

[ncsu95]

Equally fascinating read is the defense response to the appeal.

It addresses very clearly all of the main points of the state's brief.

That is a thorough smack down of the prosecutions appeal. It looks like we get to do this all over again.

 

[dgfred]

Though extremely rare in Cary, of course random murders occur. Then again, check the MO for the very rare case of an adult woman abducted off the street by a random person. One would expect to find evidence of rape....not in this case.

Sure the spouse is always a person of interest early on, just because of the very high statistical likelihood. CPD sharpened their focus on Cooper because of his numerous lies and deception. He had motive and opportunity and obviously had something to hide.

Exactly... nothing has changed IMO regarding those lies and deception.