Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[otto]

Hi Calgary!

Each year in tech terms is like comparing dog years to human years. The leaps forward happen so quickly. Netscape changed everything. During graduate work in technology, what was available and taught in '95/'96 is a tiny nugget of what evolved by the time 2008 rolled around.

If one specializes in a specific area within technology, as most people do, then one spends their time learning about those specific technology areas.
Someone who has spent years to become an expert in VOIP technologies, voice networks and related, as an example, is not going to be a person who spends their time worrying about personal computer operating systems or the innards of browser technology. They use the OS and browser, as any tool would be used, but they're not engineering or reverse-engineering those systems.

Keeping it in perspective, internet was developed in the 1990s. What was offered (internet wasn't "taught") at some universities at that time was a small nugget of what was available 20 years later in 2008. Brad should have had a clear understanding of computer guts, memory, how things work, and how not to plant evidence of murder ... especially a 41 second search to hide a body for three days. It sounds like her body was not found for three days ... and all it took was 41 seconds to find this perfect hiding spot.

 

[oenophile]

BBM

Cooper graduated with Computer Science in 1996. When he started his studies, there was no internet. When Cooper graduated, there was internet. Internet has nothing to do with the question at hand. Clearly he wasn't a front end use interface designer.

Point of correction, in 1996 the Internet had existed for at least a decade. What you probably mean to say is that there was no World Wide Web (since it was in its infancy then).

 

[otto]

Thanks Madeleine, its hard to separate memories that far back, but yes I think you are correct. I used the word email in my prior post but that doesn't really describe it, it was different, you didn't have an interface like you do now.

The technology was so different in its use, and the schools were slow to react, at least mine, that its a fallacy to say Brad would have known how to hide his tracks, based on his educational experience, by the time this happened.

He made an error... checking the area via google maps thinking no one would ever find out.

Its not a smart thing, but neither is killing your wife let alone the mother of your two children. Its an awful thing to even think about.

In 2000, schools were discussing wireless, exploring laptops for each user, and well aware of changes in technology. Technology is still thriving in schools.

If there was no internet when Brad complete his Computer Science degree, what exactly was he learning in the four year program? There's only so much one can do with Fortran. And then what ... suddenly he was a networking expert, but he didn't know how computer memory worked?

If Brad was, or wasn't, good at hiding his tracks, why isn't there evidence that this foreigner was actually searching for a dump site for more than 41 seconds just before lunch on the day of the murder? All of a sudden, Brad did search the dump site but the cookies (the tell tale trace) are missing. Still, it is alleged by the prosecutor that his first search for dumping his wife's body was prior to her murder, and it was a 41 second zoom map with irregular time stamps.

 

[otto]

Point of correction, in 1996 the Internet had existed for at least a decade. What you probably mean to say is that there was no World Wide Web (since it was in its infancy then).

Should we look at Alan Turing, and wonder what Brad Cooper could have known in 1992, 1996, and again in 2008 (his wife's murder)? The internet was in its infancy before Brad graduated from University. Why does the search for a body dump site by a person from a foreign country last only 41 seconds, and why is the body discovery description so inconsistent with FBI profiling statements that: persons that murder someone known to them will cover the body, or the face, or somehow offer modesty. That didn't happen in this murder.

Nancy was tossed half dressed into the ditch. She was found three days later. There was nothing modest, suggesting that the person that did this did not know her.

The medical examiner couldn't figure out the time of death ... no surprise given the conflict between forensics, fact, and claims in the North Carolina courtroom ... mis-aligned allegiances, and incompetence.

Obviously there is incompetence in the event that the medical examiner screws up on the time of death. That is, in this case, the suggested time of death is inconsistent with other facts.

 

[oenophile]

Should we look at Alan Turing, and wonder what Brad Cooper could have known in 1992, 1996, and again in 2008 (his wife's murder)? The internet was in its infancy before Brad graduated from University. Why does the search for a body dump site by a person from a foreign country last only 41 seconds, and why is the body discovery description so inconsistent with FBI profiling statements that: persons that murder someone known to them will cover the body, or the face, or somehow offer modesty. That didn't happen in this murder.

Nancy was tossed half dressed into the ditch. She was found three days later. There was nothing modest, suggesting that the person that did this did not know here.

The medical examiner couldn't figure out the time of death ... no surprise given the conflict between forensics, fact, and claims in the courtroom ... mis-aligned allegiances, and incompetence.

I'm not discounting some of the things you are saying, but it is factually incorrect to say that the Internet was in its infancy in the 1990's. It was more like its teenage years. Academia was using the Internet since the early 80's, including email, newsgroups, chat, etc.

 

[macd]

All of a sudden, Brad did search the dump site but the cookies (the tell tale trace) are missing. Still, it is alleged by the prosecutor that his first search for dumping his wife's body was prior to her murder, and it was a 41 second zoom map with irregular time stamps.

The defense attorney did a good job convincing the public (at least a few of you) that there was no cookie for the search. I'll bet you think there is one cookie for every search, but for that one search there was not a cookie.
What really happens is that Google maps saves a handful of cookies for a browser. There is one cookie for ads, one of preferences, one for previous searches, etc. The first time you visit Google maps you get the cookies. The cookies are updated each time you do something relevant on Google maps (e.g. change your preferences.)
If a cookie is not on a computer, there are two possibilities: 1) the browser has never been to Google maps or 2) the cookie was deleted.
So, if you think the missing cookie is proof that the search was "planted", Kurtz tricked you. The missing cookie is proof that a cookie was deleted. It is proof that Brad was trying to cover his tracks.

 

[macd]

Whomever murder Nancy Cooper left clues, but none that add up to a resolution. There are tire tracks, but no one knows what they mean. When Nancy Cooper was found near a drainage ditch after allegedly going for an early morning run, she was not completely dressed and she was exposed. This discovery is the opposite of how victims are found when the culprit is known to the victim ... murderers that know the victim typically cover the body, at least partially. That didn't happen in this case. There were none of the tell tale signs on the body to indicate that the loved one should be the suspect. The body of Nancy Cooper was as desolate as a stranger murder on Long Island.

Perhaps a strategy is to demonstrate how murder profile remarks are inconsistent with reality.

If you want to do some profiling, compare Brad to the profile of an Eraser Killer. http://marileestrong.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-makes-eraser-killers-different.html

 

[ncsu95]

When did Brad make the original search for the "dump site"? A day, a week, a month, six months earlier? Should we assume that this "dump site" search was done on a paper map?

I'm assuming that an earlier electronic search for a "dump site"; one that lasts more than 41 seconds, cannot be found in the "earlier private browsing" session, even though there were software security issues.

Is it also suggested that a computer expert would not have known about private browsing software issues? That is, a computer expert allegedly wouldn't have known that a faulty private browsing session software meant that internet searches were traceable?

Did the software issue happen a month before the 41 second "dump site" search; a week, a day, or was this known software issue a problem for months prior to the murder ... and if this was a long-standing issue with earlier versions of private browsing, where are the earlier traces where Brad originally searched the "dump site"?

What's the theory? Did Brad originally search the dump site on a paper map and then, at the last minute, he did a 41 second search on his work computer just before lunch on the day he allegedly murdered his wife? Why isn't his original search recorded somewhere? Why does the only search of the "dump site" last only 41 seconds? Clearly, 41 seconds is not long enough for someone to decide on a premeditated murder "dump site".

Was the private browsing malfunction something that existed at the time of the software release, and if it was more than a month before the murder, where's the first "body dump" search?

In fact, wasn't email set up at Brad's undergraduate university in 1991?

If Brad did it, then the likely scenario was he came across the location while running or biking. I doubt he would have used google to search for a location to dump a body.

 

[macd]

And the killer did leave behind lots of clues: tire tracks, sightings, etc. The police just never followed up on them.

It's been a while since I posted my theory about the tire tracks and foot prints at the scene.
Here's a link to WRAL coverage.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3210710/
Watch the first 25 seconds or so.
Who sees something that might have a 3' 11" wheel base?

 

[oenophile]

It's been a while since I posted my theory about the tire tracks and foot prints at the scene.
Here's a link to WRAL coverage.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3210710/
Watch the first 25 seconds or so.
Who sees something that might have a 3' 11" wheel base?

So what you are saying is that the police are so incompetent that they did not even match up a vehicle at the scene with the tire tracks so as to rule it out as evidence?

One other point, the "wheel base" as described by the police was actually the track width, not the wheel base, and it was from inside tire to inside tire, whereas track width is from center of the tire to center of the tire. Thus you would need to add the width of the tire (well, 2x 1/2 the tire width) to the police measurement in order to determine the actual track width. Since an average tire width is around 8 inches, that would be a 55 inch track width. That is around the same track width as a Chevy S-10 Blazer.

 

[oenophile]

By the way, can someone please point me toward the "wrongfully convicted" forum on WebSleuths? Does it even exist?

 

[oenophile]

I went back and re-read the prosecution response to the appeal. I am astounded by the number of flagrant lies that were included in this brief. This is compounded by reviewing some of the trial videos where the CPD basically rewrote their notes in order to fabricate evidence that wasn't in their original notes in order to make Brad look guilty.

It is pretty clear from the evidence that the CPD and the prosecution were willing to lie and fabricate evidence in order to convict Brad.

I really hope some of this comes out in the next trial.

 

[calgary123]

I went back and re-read the defence brief for the appeal. I am astounded by the number of flagrant lies that were included in this brief. This is compounded by reviewing some of the trial videos where Kurtz and friends made things up on the spot in order to confuse the evidence to make Brad look not guilty.

It is pretty clear from the evidence that Kurtz and friends were willing to say and do anything in order to let a murderer walk.

I really hope some of this comes out in the next trial.

Pretty effective post, hey? I'll guess some of you may wonder what I'm referring to. I'll let you guess.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm so glad Zellinger failed in his attempt to become DA. I hope his actions in the Cooper trial had something to do with it.

 

[calgary123]

As a Canadian I love the USA, but not all of its institutions. Things that bother me are that some of the judiciary are elected, as are some of the DAs. I also don't like the deadlock in your federal legislative branch that rears its head sometimes. That's not to say I like our Parliamentary system better. Lots of trade offs.

Canadian judges are appointed, and while that presents its own issues, mob mentality can take over if you elect judges-- and DAs.

Anyway, to respond to ncsu, did Boz lose because he's too young? He doesn't look like DA material to me based just on that. I also understand there is some backlash in several cases he's prosecuted. Anyone care to comment?

 

[otto]

I think that Boz screwed up in the recent Amanda Hayes prosecution. The prosecution forgot to ask for aggravating circumstances, so although she was convicted of second degree murder, the fact that the victim was chopped up, transported across state lines and fed to the alligators could not be used to increase her prison sentence. It was a big mistake that was pointed out by the Judge at the time of sentencing.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think that Boz screwed up in the recent Amanda Hayes prosecution. The prosecution forgot to ask for aggravating circumstances, so although she was convicted of second degree murder, the fact that the victim was chopped up, transported across state lines and fed to the alligators could not be used to increase her prison sentence. It was a big mistake that was pointed out by the Judge at the time of sentencing.

You're posting about the Amanda Hayes case in the Brad Cooper trial threads. Were you aware there are dedicated threads for both the Grant Hayes and Amanda Hayes trials? Also, I'm not sure if Boz was the lead prosecutor on that trial. If not, it wasn't his screwup, although he didn't catch that omission either (assuming it was a mistake), until the judge pointed it out.

 

[sunshine05]

The defense attorney did a good job convincing the public (at least a few of you) that there was no cookie for the search. I'll bet you think there is one cookie for every search, but for that one search there was not a cookie.
What really happens is that Google maps saves a handful of cookies for a browser. There is one cookie for ads, one of preferences, one for previous searches, etc. The first time you visit Google maps you get the cookies. The cookies are updated each time you do something relevant on Google maps (e.g. change your preferences.)
If a cookie is not on a computer, there are two possibilities: 1) the browser has never been to Google maps or 2) the cookie was deleted.
So, if you think the missing cookie is proof that the search was "planted", Kurtz tricked you. The missing cookie is proof that a cookie was deleted. It is proof that Brad was trying to cover his tracks.

Actually, Agent Chappell wrote in his report that a cookie was linked to the search. When questioned under cross, he had to admit that there wasn't one.

Agent Johnson testified that he searched for a cookie and there wasn't one. He also searched for a deleted cookie and there wasn't one. This remains a smoking gun indicator of planted evidence.

 

[sunshine05]

I went back and re-read the defence brief for the appeal. I am astounded by the number of flagrant lies that were included in this brief. This is compounded by reviewing some of the trial videos where Kurtz and friends made things up on the spot in order to confuse the evidence to make Brad look not guilty.

It is pretty clear from the evidence that Kurtz and friends were willing to say and do anything in order to let a murderer walk.

I really hope some of this comes out in the next trial.

Pretty effective post, hey? I'll guess some of you may wonder what I'm referring to. I'll let you guess.

Please name one lie from the defense brief. You are calling Ann Peterson a liar. You realize that she wrote the brief, correct?

 

[macd]

This remains a smoking gun indicator of planted evidence.

No it isn't. Kurtz did a super job making you, and others, believe that, but it is not so.

There is not one-cookie-per-search. There is one-cookie-per-google-maps. If there is no cookie, than google maps has never ever been used on that computer. (or someone securely deleted the cookie).