Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[oenophile]

Until Masucci took the stand, he and his partial findings (his own admission is he wasn't finished) were unknown to the state and certainly not in time to do any in depth examination of his report. Doesn't matter if he agreed with Jay Ward or not. Masucci may have misinterpreted the data, he may have overlooked data that contradicts what he testified to, etc. (your words, not mine, just applied to Masucci the same as applied to CFrye).

Masucci is not Jay Ward and neither Masucci nor his proffer got the same examination that would be expected for CFrye's proffer to be seen as anything other than mere speculation at this point. Neither witness testified in front of the jury, therefore neither ones' evidence is considered real or valid until it is presented in front of a jury (per your prior claim of CFrye's assertions of the Win Sys Event log only being supposedly what it shows).

Can't say one witness' proffer is valid(ated) evidence and the other witness' proffer is not valid(ated) evidence. Well I suppose one can, but that seems disingenuous to hold only one side to a standard.

Are you serious??? I'm sorry, but it is disingenuous to suggest that the Masucci testimony is in any way equivalent to the Frye testimony. One was brought on to replace another witness who the court would not certify as an expert in order to provide very specific expert testimony about an analysis that was well known to the State. The other was brought on in order to introduce completely new information that had been introduced in the days prior.

The ONLY REASON Masucci was there was because Jay Ward was precluded from testifying due to the objections of the State and the ruling of the court. That alone should clarify the intent of the testimony. Comparing Masucci to Frye is like comparing apples and orangutangs.

That being said, it is all water under the bridge, and I welcome the State to do an extensive cross examination of the defense's witnesses in the new trial. In one sense you are correct, in that since we never heard Masucci or Ward in open court, the State never had a full cross in front of the jury (although you can blame the State and the trial judge for this). Although the accusation of tampering is within reason, it is also not the most reasonable explanation for the Google search, and it should be subjected to the same critical examination that the Windows System Log claims will be subjected to.

 

[ncsu95]

They did not find the router itself.

They found a message in the Windows System Event Log. The message had a MAC address in it. The MAC address (burned in at manufacture time) matched the missing router. The timestamp of the message was around 10pm that night; a time that Brad testified he was sleeping.

I believe that an expert witness will be able to testify that the only way that message could have occurred is if Brad's computer was physically connected to the router and he was changing the configuration of either it or his laptop.

The implication is that he was getting the router ready to spoof phone calls.

The router was in the house when Nancy was alive. The router was not in the house after the house was sealed.

Wasn't there testimony about the length of time of a call if using the fxs card? And the actual call was longer than the time of an automated call?

 

[macd]

Wasn't there testimony about the length of time of a call if using the fxs card? And the actual call was longer than the time of an automated call?

Here is a contemporaneous post from websleuthers Albert and Just the Fax with notes from the testimony of the AT&T employee introducing the phone records.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6255304&postcount=478

There are three calls that morning from the home number to the Brad's cell.
6:05: 23 second duration, 1 second seizure time
6:34: 0 second duration
6:40: 32 second duration, 8 second seizure time

The prosecution never put on an expert witness to interpret these times. They did ask the AT&T guy about seizure time, but an objection was sustained.

So, for now, we're left guessing. For the next trial, the prosecution could use an expert who can interpret AT&T phone records from 2008 for a previous Cingular customer. Billing and record policies may have changed since then.

Here is my very non-expert interpretation.

AT&T's billing policy is:

Chargeable Time begins ... for incoming calls when a signal connection from the caller is established with our facilities. Chargeable Time ends after you press END (or similar key), but not until your wireless telephone's signal of call disconnect is received by our facilities and the call disconnect signal has been confirmed.

So, let's say, from the router's perspective, there is 21 seconds of talk time. Assume seizure time is the time for the tower to find the phone and ring and then for the user to pick up. Assume seizure time is included in call duration for incoming calls. Assume disconnect processing takes 1 to 3 seconds.

6:05 Call: 21 talk + 1 seizure + 1 disconnect = 23 seconds duration.
6:40 Call: 21 talk + 8 seizure + 3 disconnect = 32 seconds duration.

This works for me.

If it turns out that seizure time (in 2008 for AT&T) is not included in call duration, then we could assume disconnect processing has a higher variability. For example, if the phone is inside a grocery store and can not confirm the disconnect signal. Perhaps there is a 10 second timer for the tower to give up after waiting for confirmation.

6:05 Call: 21 talk + 2 disconnect = 23 seconds duration.
6:40 Call: 21 talk + 11 disconnect = 32 seconds duration.

This works for me too.

Alas, we await an expert to be called to the stand.

 

[jrb0124]

Been a while since I checked this thread. Since no one has posted this piece of info yet (as far as I can tell):

Offender Name: BRADLEY G COOPER
Offender ID: 1264179
Date of Birth: 10/09/1973
Age: 40
Race: White
Gender: Male

Custody Status: Out of Custody
Date: 02/04/2014
Reason: Release by court order

[LINK]

 

[jrb0124]

...to hear your thoughts on what might happen in a

IF there is a retrial (and that's not a foregone conclusion), and this time Brad is afforded his constitutional right to a complete and robust defense - including crossing every State witness + his own IT experts opining on all the evidence...reasonable doubt will be difficult for all 12 jurors to overcome.

Its my opinion that the Google Maps (only reason for conviction) were not planted. If Brad looked up the loc, it was done after he had been advised of the location by LE. I think those files were tampered with - not planted. This will come out. Paired with the cell phone wipe (drill down deeper on this), it won't look good for the State.

 

[macd]

I think this means released from the state facility, and turned over the county facility.

Been a while since I checked this thread. Since no one has posted this piece of info yet (as far as I can tell):

Offender Name: BRADLEY G COOPER
Offender ID: 1264179
Date of Birth: 10/09/1973
Age: 40
Race: White
Gender: Male

Custody Status: Out of Custody
Date: 02/04/2014
Reason: Release by court order

[LINK]

 

[macd]

IF there is a retrial (and that's not a foregone conclusion), and this time Brad is afforded his constitutional right to a complete and robust defense - including crossing every State witness + his own IT experts opining on all the evidence...reasonable doubt will be difficult for all 12 jurors to overcome.

Its my opinion that the Google Maps (only reason for conviction) were not planted. If Brad looked up the loc, it was done after he had been advised of the location by LE. I think those files were tampered with - not planted. This will come out. Paired with the cell phone wipe (drill down deeper on this), it won't look good for the State.

Check out my thoughts on tampering evidence in the other thread.
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Recreating the Google Search

 

[ncsu95]

Excellent information macd. I hope that this would be presented in course. And I hope the defense has the chance to refute it. Basically, I hope for a fair trial.

 

[tarheellvr]

I'm confident he will be found guilty again. Circumstantial evidence....yes. But as in the Young and Abaroa cases, who else had motive? What evidence pointed to anyone else?

I'm sickened by these men who kill their wives! I'm sickened Abaroa was offered a plea. I'm sickened Young is appealing. I wish all 3 could rot in he!! for what they've done to their children and families involved!!

 

[Madeleine74]

I agree, Tarheellvr, although as we know motive is not something the state ever has to prove because the inner thoughts of a person can never really be known 100%. If and when motive is known or discovered, that's icing on the proverbial cake for the prosecution. Inferences can be made about motive(s) based on evidence showing actions, activities, and words of the victim as to who s/he was embroiled with in the last days of their life. It can narrow the field of possible perps.

But ultimately someone having a motive is not going to get a conviction or even an arrest without evidence, nor should they. So it comes down to evidence -- what evidence exists, where is that evidence found, how was it found, where does the evidence point and how does the jury view the evidence.

 

[oenophile]

But ultimately someone having a motive is not going to get a conviction or even an arrest without evidence, nor should they. So it comes down to evidence -- what evidence exists, where is that evidence found, how was it found, where does the evidence point and how does the jury view the evidence.

I agree with this, even though I disagree with the idea that Brad alone had motive. First, I don't think that Brad had strong motive at all. A divorce by itself is not motive, even if there was a child custody dispute. 50% of marriages end in divorce. And Brad had no history of domestic violence (the domestic violence claims are a smokescreen to pin the blame on Brad).

On the other hand, there are random attacks all the time, with the usual motive being sex and power over an innocent person.

So the idea that only Brad had motive, or even that he had much motive at all, is simply false.

But as you say, it doesn't really matter that much, because it comes down to evidence. And that is a good thing for the sake of justice, innocent or guilty.

 

[oenophile]

I'm sickened by these men who kill their wives! I'm sickened Abaroa was offered a plea. I'm sickened Young is appealing. I wish all 3 could rot in he!! for what they've done to their children and families involved!!

I'm sickened that an innocent man could be sitting in prison. I'm sickened that his children were stripped away from him and will never know their only parent. I'm sickened by the rush to judgement without evidence based on misrepresentations and blatant lies by the community around him, especially by the police department.

And I'm sickened that this means Nancy's murderer will likely never be found, and that she will never get the justice she and her family deserves.

 

[Tink56]

To say that there definitely was a router in the home in July is the same as Brad was out buying bleach the morning of the murder.

Brad was the last to have checked out the router. Brad made statements that turned out to be false. (i.e. He wasn't on his computer late the night before Nancy "went for her run.")

All of this is circumstantial evidence, the primary basis for his conviction IMO.

Here's the definition, again, in case people are forgetting that direct evidence is not required for all convictions.

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

As we know, even the computer evidence is circumstantial. There are varying degrees of circumstantial evidence. Brad certainly raised LE's and the family's hinky meters. He did have motive and opportunity, presence and place of the crime, evasions and/or contradictions on his part, and his general conduct. He had a router checked out to him that vanished. There is some indication that router was used. The marriage was in shambles. Nancy was planning to leave, and this would cause Brad to spend $$$ he didn't have and didn't want to spend.

It will be interesting to see how the second trial--IF THERE IS ONE--is conducted.

 

[oenophile]

Brad was the last to have checked out the router.

For a weekend months before the murder.

Brad made statements that turned out to be false. (i.e. He wasn't on his computer late the night before Nancy "went for her run.")

Jessica Adams made statements that turned out to be false. Many of the prosecution witnesses made statements that turned out to be false. Add to that, the fact that he was on the computer that night is meaningless toward his guilt or innocence, thereby demonstrating only that his memory was faulty after a traumatic event.

All of this is circumstantial evidence, the primary basis for his conviction IMO.

None of that is the basis for his conviction, the basis for his conviction was the Google search. The jury said that, the judges said that, end of story.

As we know, even the computer evidence is circumstantial. There are varying degrees of circumstantial evidence. Brad certainly raised LE's and the family's hinky meters. He did have motive and opportunity, presence and place of the crime, evasions and/or contradictions on his part, and his general conduct. He had a router checked out to him that vanished. There is some indication that router was used. The marriage was in shambles. Nancy was planning to leave, and this would cause Brad to spend $$$ he didn't have and didn't want to spend.

Not all of that is accurate, and none of that adds up to murder. He was not evasive, he fully cooperated with the police, even sat for a depo. No evidence presented yet in court of a router in his possession at the time of the murder (although this could be presented in the second trial). Plus there is a lot of additional circumstantial evidence that points away from him. He had an alibi. The physical evidence points to someone else. Eyewitnesses saying they saw Nancy running that morning.

It will be interesting to see how the second trial--IF THERE IS ONE--is conducted.

What would stop a second trial short of the prosecution deciding to drop the charges?

 

[Cherry]

Please add to that list: BC also looked up the exact spot he dumped her body on his PC.

This case is a done deal. He can get all the do overs he wants. HE is guilty and always has been. This is a crime of hatred. Crimes of hatred are usually committed by loved ones. And BC hated his wife. That is clear. As clear as the day is long.

 

[oenophile]

Please add to that list: BC also looked up the exact spot he dumped her body on his PC.

So at least you agree that the Google search is the evidence that convicted him.

This case is a done deal. He can get all the do overs he wants. HE is guilty and always has been. This is a crime of hatred. Crimes of hatred are usually committed by loved ones. And BC hated his wife. That is clear. As clear as the day is long.

The case is clearly not done. Clearly, from the comments, many people believe he is guilty because they always have, they never considered his innocence to be a possibility. Claims such as "BC hated his wife" are not supported by evidence, and are about as valid as the existence of Bigfoot.

Nancy's friends and the police did a great job of convincing the public that Brad was guilty long before he ever was arrested, and long before the Google map search was ever "discovered". From the sentiment here, they were clearly effective. Thankfully, courtrooms are held to a higher standard.

 

[Madeleine74]

How did the police convince the public Brad was guilty before the arrest? They didn't talk about details of the case and refused any questions that would give details, which was a source of frustration for many who were curious about what was happening.

And same question concerning the friends and family? What info did they release?

 

[ncsu95]

As most of you know, I have a neighbor that was a juror on the Cooper trial (see the my discussions with a juror thread). As fate would have it, I have a very good friend (best man in my wedding) that was a juror on the Jonathon Richardson child torture/murder case in Johnston county. He was an alternate, so he didn't get to deliberate. But I'm looking forward to an interesting conversation with him soon. For those that didn't follow that case, you probably shouldn't look it up. Pure evil. I'd gladly put a bullet in his head myself.

 

[oenophile]

How did the police convince the public Brad was guilty before the arrest? They didn't talk about details of the case and refused any questions that would give details, which was a source of frustration for many who were curious about what was happening.

And same question concerning the friends and family? What info did they release?

A point of clarification, I did not say family influenced people. In most public commentary, Nancy's parents were very neutral despite the custody battle.

But here are the facts:

1. Chief Bazemore specifically stated that this was not a random crime (in multiple ways). These statements points to Brad, and they were provided almost immediately after the body was found. This is huge, and it is completely glossed over by people here. It was repeated at multiple press conferences, to the point that Bazemore was telling runners that it was perfectly safe to go out running.
2. Someone leaked that Brad had purchased bleach (false) and the PD did not deny it, even though they denied other facts of the crime.
3. Witnesses changed their story to the police following consultation with other friends in order to make Brad look guilty (e.g. Nancy's running plans).
4. Police and press reporting of Brad's unwillingness to participate in the press conferences and the memorial service in a way that made Brad seem uncooperative.
5. Nancy Butterfly Fund. If Brad didn't do it, then there was NO domestic violence, yet that is what the fund was collecting for. At that point, he was accused by not convicted. The fund was essentially a public relations campaign to brand Brad a murderer.
6. Nancy's friends affidavits in the custody battle. Those affidavits, made public, clearly accused Brad of the murder.

Need more?

 

[Nymeria]

As most of you know, I have a neighbor that was a juror on the Cooper trial (see the my discussions with a juror thread). As fate would have it, I have a very good friend (best man in my wedding) that was a juror on the Jonathon Richardson child torture/murder case in Johnston county. He was an alternate, so he didn't get to deliberate. But I'm looking forward to an interesting conversation with him soon. For those that didn't follow that case, you probably shouldn't look it up. Pure evil. I'd gladly put a bullet in his head myself.

Ncsu, if you feel comfortable with it we would love to hear about your friends observations about the trial. Not looking for gory details, but an insider view is always nice. A couple of WS'ers attended a day of trial, and are starting a purple ribbon campaign for Teghan.

Thanks!

The thread link is here (well the current thread)-

GUILTY The State vs Jonathan Richardson - Page 9 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community


PS- Bless your friend, we only followed through twitter and the media and no one is coming away from this trial without some mental anguish.