And that will be fantastic. And if that evidence is correct and can't be refuted, will also probably lead to a conviction again. And hopefully there will be a different prosecution team and judge as well considering the crap that went on in the first trial. And hopefully it will be a fair trial, because the first was certainly not.
Brad Cooper: Appeal info
- Thread starter jrb0124
- Start date
- Status
And that will be fantastic. And if that evidence is correct and can't be refuted, will also probably lead to a conviction again. And hopefully there will be a different prosecution team and judge as well considering the crap that went on in the first trial. And hopefully it will be a fair trial, because the first was certainly not.
calgary123
Member
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 228
- Reaction score
- 0
That would certainly take those doubting his guilt over to the guilt side, except those that just won't face facts for what they are.
Its pretty unfortunate they didn't have that evidence before the trial started. It speaks to the fact that they weren't that thorough investigating in the first place.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Agree it's unfortunate the router log evidence wasn't found by Cisco earlier. The good news is they did find it and since there's a do-over coming, that evidence will come in next time. It will sure be hard to explain that one away.
If the evidence is as described, that would likely move me over into the guilty camp. However, it doesn't make sense that a Windows System log wouldn't be on the computer that was used and that the prosecution had access to all along. How would that type of information end up on a router somewhere on the Cisco network? That doesn't seem to make sense. I guess we'll see during the new trial what this evidence actually is, and how it was obtained.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
It's been detailed and explained (by MacD) more than once or twice. If you do a search on his name you'll find the information. It is not as you describe it.
I've already raised questions as to the details that MacD has provided, in this very thread I believe, and the points that I raised are still valid as I described them. There are two parts to this evidence: what it actually is, and how it is interpreted. At this point, we only have a glimpse as to what it is, and only a prosecution perspective of what it means. If you presume him guilty, that is enough. I believe in presumption of innocence, which means that it needs to be thoroughly vetted before any conclusion can be made. Just because one person here has "detailed and explained" it does not make it valid nor does it allow you to draw an immediate conclusion. I think even MacD would agree with that.
In this case, the billing record shows that the phone was answered and the line held open for about 20 seconds. When asked about it at deposition, Brad claimed the he lost his phone and called the number to find it. No explanation why he answered the phone after finding it, why he held the line open for so long after answering it, or why the call is missing from the call history.
It's circumstantial evidence to be sure, but it strongly implies that that record was erased from the call history on purpose. And that implies that it was erased for a reason, like to cover up a test or mistake made when setting up a spoofed call.
The log was on the laptop.
The router's MAC address was in a message logged in the laptop's Windows System Event log. That showed that the router was connected locally to the laptop and that it was being configured, because the log showed that the router's IP address must have just been changed.
I agree. My bias is towards logic. For me the logic from all of the digital evidence flows towards guilt and cover up.
The notion of the police/detectives/mayor/FBI all conspiring to frame (knowingly) an innocent man because they want Cary to seem safer does not flow from any logic.
Presumption of innocence should not mean: "If a defense attorney comes up with a story to excuse a piece of evidence, then that evidence is ignored." In this case, the defense came up with a story for each piece of evidence. In my opinion however, these stories together are inconsistent and many individually are wild or even provably false.
Needless to say I disagree. First, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out that there would be a telephone record of an outgoing call with the SP. Erasing something on a mobile phone would only draw suspicion, not remove suspicion. Second, regardless of whether it is a Blackberry or other, many calls are not picked up on call lists on mobile phones, for many reasons. As to why a 20-second pickup, I'd have to look at the evidence more directly before analyzing.
For the record, I think that the only piece of evidence that was suggested to be planted was the Google map search. And as such, I'm not suggesting that there is a conspiracy to frame Brad. That could have been done by just one person wanting to help build the case against Brad, and one person does not make a conspiracy. In addition, I don't think they want to knowingly frame an innocent man either, but that they presumed him guilty and were motivated in that direction in order to show that their neighborhood was safe.
Actually the defense did more than that. First, they demonstrated that the physical evidence pointed away from Brad. This included the autopsy. They also presented evidence that someone else committed the crime. In fact, I would argue that with a bias toward logic, the physical evidence flows toward innocence and a police cover up. And that if you take away the Google search, the digital evidence is rather neutral (some things point toward Brad, some things point away from Brad).
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Of course you do.
Based on things you've posted previously and your opinions, it is highly unlikely any circumstantial evidence found and presented would appear to point to BC in your estimation. I don't understand the denial of facts in evidence, but bias works in both directions. There is no direct evidence in this or most murder cases. There's no eye witness or confession to this murder. Everything else by definition is circumstantial.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
No expert was on the stand testifying that 2 calls did not make it to BC's cell phone and that's why those calls don't appear on BC's cell phone. A witness from AT&T did testify and was cross examined by the defense about the various phone calls, logs, seizure times, tower pings, which calls were picked up vs. which calls went to voice mail.
The defense claimed BC's cell phone did receive those calls, but the reason for the calls is he was merely trying to locate his own cell phone by calling it from the home phone (apparently twice). One time he called his cell phone from the home phone and answered his cell phone and then kept the line open for 20 seconds.
The defense claimed BC's cell phone did receive those calls, but the reason for the calls is he was merely trying to locate his own cell phone by calling it from the home phone (apparently twice). One time he called his cell phone from the home phone and answered his cell phone and then kept the line open for 20 seconds.
I have contradicted this assertion on this very thread in the past few days.
There is abundant circumstantial evidence that says he did not do it. His actions on that day and the subsequent days suggest that he did not do it. (As stated previously, this is where I think there is the largest disconnect, because I believe that Brad is being judged primarily on his personality by people who have very different personalities. Virtually all of the actions that were documented suggest to me that he was completely innocent.) But, if there were solid circumstantial evidence that can outweigh that, then I'd be willing to see him guilty. The problem is that the circumstantial evidence for guilt doesn't even come close to the circumstantial evidences for innocence.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
Not only is there circumstantial evidence that points to him, Brad himself set off hinky meters even for people who never met him. He certainly did as well for some folks who did know him (and I'm not referring to friends of his wife). No, not everyone, but there are those who came to the conclusion that he murdered his wife even though it was the last thing they wanted to believe. There are also those who are not sure but they're not saying it's impossible.
It remains to be seen what a 2nd jury decides; it could go either way.
It remains to be seen what a 2nd jury decides; it could go either way.
I really want to see what evidence they present at the second trial. I suspect that it will be shorter, since the prosecution knows which evidence the defense will refute. Jury selection will take awhile. My top questions:
1. Will the defense present a stronger case for tampering now that they have more of the evidence and now that they are prepared against the surprise the prosecution pulled in trying to exclude the expert testimony?
2. Will the prosecution present a strong case against tampering?
3. What is the new router evidence, how solid is it, and what conclusions can be drawn from that?
4. How will the new judge manage the case?
1. Will the defense present a stronger case for tampering now that they have more of the evidence and now that they are prepared against the surprise the prosecution pulled in trying to exclude the expert testimony?
2. Will the prosecution present a strong case against tampering?
3. What is the new router evidence, how solid is it, and what conclusions can be drawn from that?
4. How will the new judge manage the case?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2009
- Messages
- 1,552
- Reaction score
- 2,518
Although I think that it's likely that Brad Cooper did commit this crime, I respectfully disagree that his first trial was fair. I am curious as to the long time thread members thoughts-do you all imagine he will be convicted with ease? I think the prosecution knows the weaknesses in their case and expert witness, and will thus prepare accordingly jmo
Sent from my KFTHWI
Sent from my KFTHWI
Cherry
Pie
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2010
- Messages
- 3,933
- Reaction score
- 1,619
brad cooper got a very fair trial, he is as guilty as they come. Getting Off on a Technicality; will never change the fact that no one else wanted Nancy Cooper Dead, no one else more so than brad. The retrial will produce the same result, a guilty verdict IMO
And I'll be waiting for that.
And I'll be waiting for that.
Three judges disagree with you. This was not a technicality. This was the defendant not being permitted to mount a defense. You have no foundation for saying that Brad Cooper wanted Nancy dead. Zero, ziltch, none. You have no foundation for saying that no one else wanted Nancy dead. Zero, ziltch, none.
If he is innocent, I will be waiting for Brad to be vindicated and reunited with his family, including his girls. Unfortunately, until the real killer is found, which thanks to the Cary PD that will likely never happen, there will be people like those on this board that will always be following him accusing him of murder. And in doing so dishonoring Nancy.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,081
The defendant absolutely mounted a defense. The judge's ruling limited what Ward could testify to based on his determination as to what kind of expert he was, and the appellate court disagreed with the definition of "forensic expert." Massuci's testimony wouldn't have been allowed by any judge at that point--M's testing and subsequent report wasn't even finished when he took the stand.
What's interesting is some of the conspiracy theory did get in and further, Kurtz was able to put conspiracy before the jury as part of his closing arguments (along with using Massucci's charts) and he was able to physically show the jury the $MFT on his buffet table of evidence. That is conveniently forgotten (or overlooked).
As for motive... you (oenophile) have earlier declared this was a random crime, not committed by anyone who knew the victim. As such, by your definition, there would be no pre-existing motive by the perp because perp and victim would have no connection.
Speaking of random killers -- I've always wanted to know how upwards of 16 "witnesses" who (apparently) saw NC or someone who looked like NC running on a Sat morning in full daylight didn't see anyone harassing/accosting/stopping this or any runner. No screams were heard, no reports were called in that a runner was being abducted or otherwise bothered. This runner was seen on public sidewalks, on well-traveled roads, in populated areas.
What's interesting is some of the conspiracy theory did get in and further, Kurtz was able to put conspiracy before the jury as part of his closing arguments (along with using Massucci's charts) and he was able to physically show the jury the $MFT on his buffet table of evidence. That is conveniently forgotten (or overlooked).
As for motive... you (oenophile) have earlier declared this was a random crime, not committed by anyone who knew the victim. As such, by your definition, there would be no pre-existing motive by the perp because perp and victim would have no connection.
Speaking of random killers -- I've always wanted to know how upwards of 16 "witnesses" who (apparently) saw NC or someone who looked like NC running on a Sat morning in full daylight didn't see anyone harassing/accosting/stopping this or any runner. No screams were heard, no reports were called in that a runner was being abducted or otherwise bothered. This runner was seen on public sidewalks, on well-traveled roads, in populated areas.
- Status