Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[Madeleine74]

Quite the opposite, I do think that someone who committed murder would make missteps. Which is why the Google search is so strange, because it is so obvious and detectable. If he was so methodical to a) erase all other possible digital evidence; b) fake a phone call then make the equipment used to fake the call disappear; c) leave no trace or evidence of transporting or dumping a body; etc, then it doesn't make sense that he would risk leaving the girls home alone where they could wake up and discover both their parents gone. Or make an obviously traceable Google search. Or fight so hard for custody so as to sit through a deposition. It is inconsistent with the narrative.

a) Which he didn't do or not successfully.

b) An expensive router being the equipment, yes, but apparently he didn't know there would be evidence showing showing configuration activity, during a time he said he was asleep, between his laptop and said router, which was captured on a win sys event log and later discovered by Cisco. That of course will be available if there's a 2nd trial.

c) He removed stuff out his trunk and striations seen on trunk lining the day his wife is missing showed recent vacuuming, in contrast with the condition of the rest of the car's interior.

d) As compared to what? Risks had to be taken. He minimized risk by doing his various activities in the middle of the night and then in the morning he blocked the children's bedroom opening, at least partially, with a TV that was not normally in that spot.

e) the Google search was not obvious and it was not intended to be found. The search done was consistent with other searches he did when he checked a weather site. The cookie pointing to the Google search was deleted, which implies that the search was not supposed to be seen. He had no idea that beta version browser on his laptop had bugs that ultimately revealed that activity.

f) he first agreed on a temporary custody arrangement with his in-laws for 3 months outside of the court, and chose to sit for a deposition where he would be questioned. He lied multiple times during his deposition, and it was totally his choice to lie. He got caught. He had the opportunity to but declined to take the stand at the custody hearing itself.

 

[Madeleine74]

I am very fearful for the sake of the children. The call their Aunt Krista "mom" now, which is very confusing since she is not their mother, nor is their Uncle their father. They lost the relationship with their father because someone killed their mother and the people around her wrongly blamed their father. Imagine becoming a teenager and discovering this. Keeping Brad out of their lives is doing real damage.

He lost contact because he was arrested and incarcerated and then convicted of 1st degree murder. What would you have the children do -- live in a cell next to him? I've yet to see anyone explain how exposing a 2 yr old and 4 yr old (now 7 and 9) to the concept of prison, then further expose the reality that one parent is in prison for killing their other parent, would be appropriate before the children are old enough and ready for that.

Would you hold adoptive parents to the same standard? Would you suggest they remind their adopted children they're not really their parents and they just took them in because their birth parents gave them up, and "don't call us mom or dad because technically we're not really your parents?"

 

[otto]

He lost contact because he was arrested and incarcerated and then convicted of 1st degree murder. What would you have the children do -- live in a cell next to him? I've yet to see anyone explain how exposing a 2 yr old and 4 yr old (now 7 and 9) to the concept of prison, then further expose the reality that one parent is in prison for killing their other parent, would be appropriate before the children are old enough and ready for that.

Where do the children think there father is?
What do they think he is doing?

Don't they know about their father and if not, why not?
This is their life history. Should they hear it on the playground?

 

[Madeleine74]

Where do the children think there father is?
What do they think he is doing?

Don't they know about their father and if not, why not?
This is their life history. Should they hear it on the playground?

I have no idea what the children know.

What makes you think the children are going to hear about the case on a playground?

And what parent of a fellow 7 yr old or 9 yr old would expose their own child to the subject of one parent killing another? Would you talk about such things to your children at that age?

 

[oenophile]

a) Which he didn't do or not successfully.

Again, take away the Google search and you have nothing.

b) An expensive router being the equipment, yes, but apparently he didn't know there would be evidence showing showing configuration activity, during a time he said he was asleep, between his laptop and said router, which was captured on a win sys event log and later discovered by Cisco. That of course will be available if there's a 2nd trial.

This "evidence" has not been subject to any cross examination yet. We've already seen massive amounts of evidence presented by the prosecution that have been revealed to be nothing. We'll need to wait and see how real this is...

c) He removed stuff out his trunk and striations seen on trunk lining the day his wife is missing showed recent vacuuming, in contrast with the condition of the rest of the car's interior.

And yet they found dirt inside the trunk, but no signs of anything that would suggest someone was transported against their will.

d) As compared to what? Risks had to be taken. He minimized risk by doing his various activities in the middle of the night and then in the morning he blocked the children's bedroom opening, at least partially, with a TV that was not normally in that spot.

Again, this is completely inconsistent with the idea of a carefully preplanned murder. One moment he is a criminal mastermind, the next a bumbling fool. It doesn't add up. And I need to go back and rewatch the testimony about the TV being moved, but I recall that it ended up being yet another red herring, like so many things in this trial.

e) the Google search was not obvious and it was not intended to be found. The search done was consistent with other searches he did when he checked a weather site. The cookie pointing to the Google search was deleted, which implies that the search was not supposed to be seen. He had no idea that beta version browser on his laptop had bugs that ultimately revealed that activity.

A. If the beta version browser on his laptop had these bugs, why didn't they find other incriminating evidence? Doesn't make sense. B. Temporary internet files are easy to find, everyone knows this. C. As to whether they were "intended to be found", that depends on whether you are predisposed to his guilt.

f) he first agreed on a temporary custody arrangement with his in-laws for 3 months outside of the court, and chose to sit for a deposition where he would be questioned. He lied multiple times during his deposition, and it was totally his choice to lie. He got caught. He had the opportunity to but declined to take the stand at the custody hearing itself.

What lies? He remembered some things wrong. So did JA, HP, and a bunch of other people. He didn't remember working on the computer Friday night. Why would he lie about something that is so easily verifiable, which would only make him look guilty? Again, doesn't make sense. Criminal mastermind, bumbling fool.

 

[oenophile]

And another thing that has bothered me about the whole spoofed call theory: if there really was a router there, when did he get rid of it? That would require yet a third trip, since the call happened on the second trip to Harris Teeter. If the neighbors saw him leave again, what was his excuse as to where he was going? Doesn't add up.

 

[otto]

a) Which he didn't do or not successfully.

b) An expensive router being the equipment, yes, but apparently he didn't know there would be evidence showing showing configuration activity, during a time he said he was asleep, between his laptop and said router, which was captured on a win sys event log and later discovered by Cisco. That of course will be available if there's a 2nd trial.

c) He removed stuff out his trunk and striations seen on trunk lining the day his wife is missing showed recent vacuuming, in contrast with the condition of the rest of the car's interior.

d) As compared to what? Risks had to be taken. He minimized risk by doing his various activities in the middle of the night and then in the morning he blocked the children's bedroom opening, at least partially, with a TV that was not normally in that spot.

e) the Google search was not obvious and it was not intended to be found. The search done was consistent with other searches he did when he checked a weather site. The cookie pointing to the Google search was deleted, which implies that the search was not supposed to be seen. He had no idea that beta version browser on his laptop had bugs that ultimately revealed that activity.

f) he first agreed on a temporary custody arrangement with his in-laws for 3 months outside of the court, and chose to sit for a deposition where he would be questioned. He lied multiple times during his deposition, and it was totally his choice to lie. He got caught. He had the opportunity to but declined to take the stand at the custody hearing itself.

a. I don't understand a

b. Were automated activities recorded on his laptop while he was connected via vpn, or was he doing something with the computer and lied about this (apparently oblivious to the fact that the information could be retrieved later)

c. If only the trunk was vacuumed, he is sloppy. Was the vacuum cleaner bag collected as evidence? If so, it was careless to vacuum the trunk of the car and keep the evidence in the vacuum.

d. A TV stand was in the children's bedroom. The stand has two shelves and the TV is 4-5 feet off the ground. Children would figure out a way to get past it if they wanted. Because there was nothing in Nancy's stomach (no alcohol, no food) and she had caffeine in her system, it could be assumed that up to 3 hours had passed since her last meal and she had coffee. She locked her bedroom door at night, and the murder didn't happen until 3+ hours after she returned from the party. The murder either happened in the morning, or after she went for a run.

e. He might be an incompetent computer scientist, but given his job promotions and MBA success, that doesn't appear to be true. Would a competent computer scientist do a quick google map search and zoom straight into the dump site the day before he dumped his wife's body in that exact location?

f. Brad Cooper lied and said that he couldn't remember his nephews name, and gave a variation of an ex-girlfriend's last name. It is a video taped custody application video that found it's way to international TV, so it's just as well that he did not give exact names. Whatever he agreed to in terms of custody was dissolved the minute the children were taken from his arms well before he was charged with a crime.

 

[otto]

And another thing that has bothered me about the whole spoofed call theory: if there really was a router there, when did he get rid of it? That would require yet a third trip, since the call happened on the second trip to Harris Teeter. If the neighbors saw him leave again, what was his excuse as to where he was going? Doesn't add up.

I'm assuming that he had to key into the building if he was dropping off a router in the back room on the weekend shortly after murdering his wife. There should be a record of him entering the building, or at least entering the room where routers are stored. A computer software company had to have fob or keycard entry for the room where equipment was stored. Did he have a chance to drop off the router after allegedly murdering his wife?

If there's no record of him being in the building between the time that his wife asked him for groceries and the time that he drove around looking for her, then how did the router get back into the building? Did he have any alone time after the neighbor called police?

Didn't someone from work testify at the end of the trial that the router had been found, but testimony about the router wasn't allowed?

 

[otto]

I have no idea what the children know.

What makes you think the children are going to hear about the case on a playground?

And what parent of a fellow 7 yr old or 9 yr old would expose their own child to the subject of one parent killing another? Would you talk about such things to your children at that age?

Brad's children were taken from his arms well before he was charged with murder. One argument for taking the children from their father was a claim from Nancy's family that because Brad was "suicidal", he might harm the children and himself. That claim doesn't appear to be founded in reality. Brad is still alive and well after several years in prison ... not suicidal ... the allegation of suicidal tendencies appears not based in fact and not a reasonable justification for taking the children from his arms.

The children should be aware of their history. They should not learn about it on the playground. Their mother was murdered, their father is in prison for that murder, they are living with their aunt and uncle. If their father has increased privileges regarding contact with his family, that family bond should be supported as it is an important step in terms of rehabilitation and healing for the entire family.

If his conviction is confirmed, then at the very least the children will have had a small opportunity to know one of their parents.

Regarding the ages of 7 and 9, what's the youngest age of a child that has been convicted of a criminal offence in adult court in the US? What should children know at the age of 9?

 

[otto]

Quite the opposite, I do think that someone who committed murder would make missteps. Which is why the Google search is so strange, because it is so obvious and detectable. If he was so methodical to a) erase all other possible digital evidence; b) fake a phone call then make the equipment used to fake the call disappear; c) leave no trace or evidence of transporting or dumping a body; etc, then it doesn't make sense that he would risk leaving the girls home alone where they could wake up and discover both their parents gone. Or make an obviously traceable Google search. Or fight so hard for custody so as to sit through a deposition. It is inconsistent with the narrative.



Most people going through a divorce do not kill their spouse. It is the norm that people have the foresight and emotional maturity to know that divorce is a better option.

Nancy had boyfriends during the marriage. There was a question about the father of her youngest child. It appears that she was interested in other women's husbands, and that when she was out of town she was interested in finding a new husband. She kept contact with a man that she knew when she worked in Canada. His marriage fell apart while they were dating.

Nancy's cell phone was wiped clean by detectives, but Nancy knew that her husband was monitoring her electronic activities, so if she was going to run with a new male friend, the electronic trace was probably on her cell phone.

Brad was looking at divorce options, Nancy had received a lot of family money to pay for her divorce. It looks like Brad's primary objective was to prevent his children from being taken away. It looks like Nancy's primary objective was to return to Canada with the children. The courts could have resolved the situation, but Brad was out of money and Nancy wouldn't stop spending. Could he have been pushed to a point where he chose murder over divorce?

 

[otto]

There was no exculpatory physical evidence. Or are you referring to the phone call from Harris Teeter, which is based on digital footprints?

There was incriminating physical evidence, the most obvious which was his search on the dump site. Or is that not physical because it was digital?

You can't have it both ways, but your argument requires that you change that definition to meet your preferred conclusion.

It's true, it's hard to have it both ways. Brad spoofed a call from home to the grocery store twice, timed perfectly, but there's no proof. Then, he was so stupid that he did a google search, on his way to lunch, of the exact location where he would later leave his wife's body.

 

[dgfred]

So do y'all think the google search was done by ......

If not Brad?

Why would someone else zoom on the spot where she just happens to be found... on his computer?

 

[calgary123]

-He lied about his ex-gf's name because he knew that if authorities talked to her, they would find out things which would suggest he is capable of some very nasty things, and did commit some criminal offences in Canada for which he had not been caught. They did talk to her, and she was queued up as a prosecution witness but ultimately not called. He was under oath and had sworn to tell the truth, but chose to lie.

-he was under oath, but also lied about who his friends in Canada were. He specifically used names of two people who didn't have anything bad on him. One of those who was mentioned found it odd his name came up. Again, he could have told the truth but chose to lie, and was under oath.

-the person she kept in contact with and spoke with while he was in Toronto has become somewhat of a Canadian celebrity. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Brett_Wilson. There was no romantic connection other than, they had a coffee date the day after Nancy and Brad's first "date" together.

-as for the evidence, that google search is hard to explain away, as is the missing router, not to mention he made up Nancy's plans for the day and made them up wrong. He is the only identified person who had the motive, the means, and to whom evidence points.

 

[oenophile]

So do y'all think the google search was done by ......

If not Brad?

Why would someone else zoom on the spot where she just happens to be found... on his computer?

Preface this by saying that I don't think it was necessarily planted during the 17 hours that the computer was unsecured in policy custody--it could have happened before.

Only two options really: one of Nancy's friends or someone in the police. The case was going nowhere. There was no hard evidence, but lots of pressure to convict Brad. The Cary PD was committed to proving this was not a random crime, both to fulfill the words of Chief Bazemore as well as to protect the reputation of the Town of Cary. It is entirely feasible that an overzealous police officer either a) planted the files or b) changed the dates and times on the files. Likewise, one of Nancy's friends could have done the same. Without the Google search, there was no case.

How much pressure was the Cary PD under? Just look at the Money Magazine "Best Places to Live in the U.S." list. 2005: Cary is number 34. 2006: Cary is number 5! 2007: Cary not on the list. 2008: Cary is number 16. Safety is a big part of that survey. A random murder could be an indicator that Raleigh crime is creeping into Cary.

I don't think anyone would have done it to protect someone else, but rather because they believed Brad to be guilty and wanted to put their thumb on the scale to ensure a conviction.

 

[oenophile]

-He lied about his ex-gf's name because he knew that if authorities talked to her, they would find out things which would suggest he is capable of some very nasty things, and did commit some criminal offences in Canada for which he had not been caught. They did talk to her, and she was queued up as a prosecution witness but ultimately not called. He was under oath and had sworn to tell the truth, but chose to lie.

-he was under oath, but also lied about who his friends in Canada were. He specifically used names of two people who didn't have anything bad on him. One of those who was mentioned found it odd his name came up. Again, he could have told the truth but chose to lie, and was under oath.

He could have said the wrong names in order to protect them. Or he could have actually forgotten.

-as for the evidence, that google search is hard to explain away, as is the missing router, not to mention he made up Nancy's plans for the day and made them up wrong. He is the only identified person who had the motive, the means, and to whom evidence points.

There was no missing router. There was a claim of a missing router, but there were virtually no inventory controls. Just like the shoes. Just like the ducks. This is merely a theory with no evidence to support it.

In what way did he make up Nancy's plans for the day? Nancy told different people different things as to her plans, according to the testimony.

There were a ton of unidentified people who had the motive, means, and to whom the evidence points. I would question motive (divorce is a really bad reason to kill someone), and as demonstrated repeatedly, the vast majority of evidence points away from Brad. The only thing that incriminates him is the Google search.

 

[calgary123]

He could have said the wrong names in order to protect them. Or he could have actually forgotten.



There was no missing router. There was a claim of a missing router, but there were virtually no inventory controls. Just like the shoes. Just like the ducks. This is merely a theory with no evidence to support it.

In what way did he make up Nancy's plans for the day? Nancy told different people different things as to her plans, according to the testimony.

There were a ton of unidentified people who had the motive, means, and to whom the evidence points. I would question motive (divorce is a really bad reason to kill someone), and as demonstrated repeatedly, the vast majority of evidence points away from Brad. The only thing that incriminates him is the Google search.

I get you approach this from the point of view that Brad did not do it, but at least admit that doesn't mean he's Mr. Clean on all fronts. He gave false names intentionally for reasons that could become clear in the second trial. He wasn't protecting them, they didn't need protection, only he did, as a potential suspect in a murder. In fact, it was upon hearing of Brad's false testimony that led one of those people to contact the Cary authorities with information. She knew full well why Brad changed her name, and had evidence demonstrating Brad certainly hadn't forgotten her name. Believe me, he's one nasty dude when relationships are crumbling.

The router evidence was entered at trial but was not made complete. We all know what the additional evidence was based on trial observers' who have posted here. The jury didn't get to hear that evidence. He dumped a router, we knew that from the evidence the jury did hear, and we don't know where. The jury didn't know he also actively configured the router when he got home from the party. And of course the next day, where the router had been sitting was now an empty space. I'm not sure where otto got the idea he returned the router to Cisco, I thought the evidence was it was never recovered.

As to making up Nancy's plans for the day, my memory is now fading but go back to the threads when the evidence came out at trial. The basics are that Brad messed up saying what she was doing by implicating that Nancy was running with someone with whom she never had plans.

 

[dgfred]

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

 

[Madeleine74]

I have to LOL at the amount of mental gymnastics that occur to make Brad the innocent and wronged party.

I've even seen various assertions that:

- "Brad simply couldn't have done this murder." (Oh really? How's that?)

- "Brad's really smart and if he did that Google search on his own work laptop that was really dumb, and he would have known that search would be found, therefore he couldn't have done that search because he is smart." (Oh really? How's that?)

- "A 42 second Google search where the map image is then zoomed in isn't long enough and doesn't prove anything." (So what is the minimum time required to make the map search 'long enough?' It was zoomed in where the body was later disposed.)

- "A husband wouldn't leave his wife lying dead in a drainage ditch mostly unclothed, to be found that way. It makes no sense that a husband would do that, therefore it is not possible Brad did that." (Hmroo? How's that logic go again?)

- "The router really isn't missing; it must be at Cisco & they just lost it." (Oh really? CFry of Cisco found evidence that disputes that and provided info about what he discovered during a hearing in May 2011).

- "Brad didn't lie during his deposition, he just forgot things or remembered them differently. But even if he did lie it was only to protect others from being dragged into this case." (LOL, he was under oath & swore to tell the truth. So he lied about that first & foremost.)

- "Cary merely wanted to protect their image so they arrested this upstanding husband just so they could close the case." (How does arresting a wrong and innocent person protect a community? Wouldn't the 'real' killer be out there to kill again?) And how do you get a DA of a county to go along with this "just arrest this husband so this one Town of Cary will continue to look safe?"

- "JA called the police and accused Brad of murder & that's why he's in prison, because the entire investigation followed whatever JA said." (again, Hmroo? And BTW, murdered mom from Kinston, NC, Laura Ackerson's friend called the police when Laura couldn't be found and hadn't answered her phone or returned calls, but that friend is not pointed at by anyone as being anything but a loving and worried friend. Of course it helped that Laura's body parts were found where the murderers were.)

 

[oenophile]

I get you approach this from the point of view that Brad did not do it, but at least admit that doesn't mean he's Mr. Clean on all fronts. He gave false names intentionally for reasons that could become clear in the second trial. He wasn't protecting them, they didn't need protection, only he did, as a potential suspect in a murder. In fact, it was upon hearing of Brad's false testimony that led one of those people to contact the Cary authorities with information. She knew full well why Brad changed her name, and had evidence demonstrating Brad certainly hadn't forgotten her name. Believe me, he's one nasty dude when relationships are crumbling.

I admit gladly that he is not Mr. Clean, and I have no idea how he manages relationships (other than he tends to do it privately, based on the evidence). It is just a long way between there and murder.

The router evidence was entered at trial but was not made complete. We all know what the additional evidence was based on trial observers' who have posted here. The jury didn't get to hear that evidence. He dumped a router, we knew that from the evidence the jury did hear, and we don't know where. The jury didn't know he also actively configured the router when he got home from the party. And of course the next day, where the router had been sitting was now an empty space. I'm not sure where otto got the idea he returned the router to Cisco, I thought the evidence was it was never recovered.

Actually we do not know what the additional evidence is, we only know what it is claimed to be. This trial has demonstrated that what is claimed is often far from reality. Please point to any evidence that he "dumped a router". There is no evidence that a router was sitting in that empty space (with a lot of dust on it, I might add) the day before Nancy was killed. As to what Otto was referring to, there was something about a router in a ucbu testing group that matched the supposedly missing router, but I don't recall the exact details..

As to making up Nancy's plans for the day, my memory is now fading but go back to the threads when the evidence came out at trial. The basics are that Brad messed up saying what she was doing by implicating that Nancy was running with someone with whom she never had plans.

This is another one of those inaccurate pieces of information. JA testified that Brad told her that Nancy was running with CC when JA called in the morning. However, this is not corroborated. Brad called JA later and asked for CC's contact information. I surmise that JA added the part about CC to the earlier call by mistake (or she lied, but I think it was simply mistaken) because she confused the two conversations. When Brad called JA later in the day, he was trying to find Nancy, and one of the possible leads was that she may have met up with CC since they had been doing a lot of running lately.

And that brings up another inconsistency. Why on earth would he even say that she was running with CC if he actually killed her? It was easily verifiable. If she had been running with CC that day, and he had killed her, then CC would have been calling looking for Nancy. It doesn't make sense.

 

[oenophile]

I have to LOL at the amount of mental gymnastics that occur to make Brad the innocent and wronged party.

Well, in the U.S., the accused is supposedly presumed innocent. Except here.

I've even seen various assertions that:

- "Brad simply couldn't have done this murder." (Oh really? How's that?)

The physical evidence indicates that he didn't commit the murder.

- "Brad's really smart and if he did that Google search on his own work laptop that was really dumb, and he would have known that search would be found, therefore he couldn't have done that search because he is smart." (Oh really? How's that?)

Because the state is making the case that Brad is this criminal mastermind that is able to commit the murder without anyone knowing, create a fake alibi, make all evidence of the faked alibi disappear, get his daughter to say that she saw her mom alive in the morning, transport and dump a body without any physical evidence, cover all his digital tracks, and play innocent. And after all this, he leaves a huge incriminating piece of evidence where it was easy to find. Makes for great fiction but not real life.

- "A 42 second Google search where the map image is then zoomed in isn't long enough and doesn't prove anything." (So what is the minimum time required to make the map search 'long enough?' It was zoomed in where the body was later disposed.)

I think most people says it is incriminating circumstantial evidence, however the length of time just doesn't fit with any reason to do the search. The question is, why would he do something like that for such a short period of time? It is inconsistent.

- "A husband wouldn't leave his wife lying dead in a drainage ditch mostly unclothed, to be found that way. It makes no sense that a husband would do that, therefore it is not possible Brad did that." (Hmroo? How's that logic go again?)

A husband who claimed his wife was out running wouldn't leave her mostly unclothed. And it was the BDI crowd that said from the beginning that her being found in her running outfit would prove Brad was guilty. See previous posts on this thread.

- "The router really isn't missing; it must be at Cisco & they just lost it." (Oh really? CFry of Cisco found evidence that disputes that and provided info about what he discovered during a hearing in May 2011).

To repeat ad nauseum, we don't know enough about this evidence to determine its validity. That is why there is cross examination. And as we saw at the trial, almost all of the supposed evidence turned out to be non-evidence after cross examination.

- "Brad didn't lie during his deposition, he just forgot things or remembered them differently. But even if he did lie it was only to protect others from being dragged into this case." (LOL, he was under oath & swore to tell the truth. So he lied about that first & foremost.)

JA and HP and others didn't lie when they said that Nancy always wore the necklace, did they? They didn't lie when they said that she used ALL detergent, did they? And they said these things under oath.

- "Cary merely wanted to protect their image so they arrested this upstanding husband just so they could close the case." (How does arresting a wrong and innocent person protect a community? Wouldn't the 'real' killer be out there to kill again?) And how do you get a DA of a county to go along with this "just arrest this husband so this one Town of Cary will continue to look safe?"

Arresting the wrong and innocent person doesn't protect a community, but it makes the community look good if the alternative is an unsolved murder. The DA deals with the case it is given, and wants to win.

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

- "JA called the police and accused Brad of murder & that's why he's in prison, because the entire investigation followed whatever JA said." (again, Hmroo? And BTW, murdered mom from Kinston, NC, Laura Ackerson's friend called the police when Laura couldn't be found and hadn't answered her phone or returned calls, but that friend is not pointed at by anyone as being anything but a loving and worried friend. Of course it helped that Laura's body parts were found where the murderers were.)

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.