Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[Madeleine74]

That Richardson case is so horrible I couldn't even bring myself to read the media reports. Even seeing the headlines would make me weepy and then nauseous and I'd have to get away from the computer. Can't even visit the threads on the case on WS. It's too much for me.

There is no way I ever could have been a juror in that case; cruelty to either children or animals, nope, can't even hear it in a news snippet. I'd immediately want them to get the DP and there's no way I could ever be impartial. Bless every single juror who had to sit through that; they are strong people.

Anywayyyyy.... back to the BC case.

 

[Madeleine74]

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?

Okay let's take these one by one

1. So if it was someone like JP (who some have alleged might be the 'real' killer) would that have been random? No, it would also qualify under "isolated incident" and "don't believe this is random." Any person who gets pointed to (by BC supporters) would also not be 'random.' Unless you are saying a random group of Hispanics in a van are the perpetrators of this crime? None of us knew who was being looked at when those press conferences were held. Only 1 press conference that had to do with NC being found and the case was a homicide. Everything before that was about her missing and the steps to find her.

2. That rumor started on WS by a member who obtained incorrect info from a family member at that store and then spread it far and wide, and yes it was wrong. What other facts of the crime did the police deny? They were mum on everything about the crime and their investigation, which was frustrating.

3. How did that affect the public, a public that knew nothing about the witnesses or their statements to police until trial? The jury got to decide if witnesses and their testimony was credible or not.

4. I don't recall anyone saying Brad was unwilling to participate in either press conferences or the memorial until those questions were asked in trial (and he was first asked in his civil deposition). I do recall the media asking if Brad was there at one of the press conferences and when they were told no, one media person asked why. No answer was given.

5. Brad was never mentioned in anything I saw or read about the Fund. Even if Brad "didn't do it," there were patterns of behavior that fit the criteria of the NCCADV according to Interact and NCCADV, which was the fundraising partner. Raising money for a 501(c)(3) organization is separate from the courts and the criminal case. None of the Butterfly Fund activities were mentioned in the trial, as far as I can remember, though one witness did call Interact because of her experience and work with DV initiatives and she was concerned about the behaviors and wanted to get NC a contact there.

6. The affidavits were not made public by anyone who wrote an affy, those affidavits were obtained by the media after the documents were legally filed by the lawyers and published by the media. That's really not fair to anyone (plaintiff or respondent) or the affiants. That was a civil matter. I'm not sure how the media got ahold of them. Didn't Kurtz & Blum publish one or more of them plus other things on their own website?

 

[oenophile]

1. So if it was someone like JP (who some have alleged might be the 'real' killer) would that have been random? No, it would also qualify under "isolated incident" and "don't believe this is random." Any person who gets pointed to (by BC supporters) would also not be 'random.' Unless you are saying a random group of Hispanics in a van are the perpetrators of this crime? None of us knew who was being looked at when those press conferences were held. Only 1 press conference that had to do with NC being found and the case was a homicide. Everything before that was about her missing and the steps to find her.

You are correct, if it had been someone like JP, then it also would not qualify as random. But again, look at all of the speculation on this thread, and the fact that she said it almost immediately, along with the other comments about Brad. By my count, there were a total of four press conferences following the identification of the body. They are as follows:

http://www.wral.com/news/video/3211708/
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3214733/
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3222784/
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3231696/

Brad is virtually the only one discussed.

And for the record, I have never believed that JP or anyone else close to Nancy would be a viable suspect in this case. I do believe it was random, and based on testimony that it involved a van, although I think the "random group of Hispanics" is a red herring. At that point in time, there was no reason to rule out a random crime based on the evidence gathered.

This is why I and others were so stunned by the trial. We remember that claim. We were expecting clear evidence to be delivered at the trial based on that claim. Instead what we saw was a house of cards that was clearly initiated by Nancy's friends.

That being said, I can understand why Nancy's friends would be in shock, and why they would immediately look to blame Brad. But the police should be more neutral in their investigation, and they clearly were not.

2. That rumor started on WS by a member who obtained incorrect info from a family member at that store and then spread it far and wide, and yes it was wrong. What other facts of the crime did the police deny? They were mum on everything about the crime and their investigation, which was frustrating.

The big lie, as already mentioned, was #1. Another example of the way that the police swayed public opinion was how they said Brad backed out of the news conference, as mentioned on #4. They could have said something to the effect of "Brad decided that he did not want to be a distraction at the conference", instead they made it sound nefarious by saying that he decided at the last minute to not attend and they don't know why. It was commented on by this board. They also made it clear that they were tailing Brad, although made some lame excuse that it was "for his protection" or something. But people can read through those comments.

Finally, they were answering lots of questions about the investigation, like whether or not they believe she went to JA's house to paint, and that there were marital difficulties. The police were very selective in what they chose to verify and what they chose to remain speculative in the public domain.

3. How did that affect the public, a public that knew nothing about the witnesses or their statements to police until trial? The jury got to decide if witnesses and their testimony was credible or not.

The rumors and comments swayed public opinion. No one was supportive of Brad at that point.

4. I don't recall anyone saying Brad was unwilling to participate in either press conferences or the memorial until those questions were asked in trial (and he was first asked in his civil deposition). I do recall the media asking if Brad was there at one of the press conferences and when they were told no, one media person asked why. No answer was given.

Bazemore said that Brad was going to go to the press conference, but that he decided not to, and that they did not know where he was.

5. Brad was never mentioned in anything I saw or read about the Fund. Even if Brad "didn't do it," there were patterns of behavior that fit the criteria of the NCCADV according to Interact and NCCADV, which was the fundraising partner. Raising money for a 501(c)(3) organization is separate from the courts and the criminal case. None of the Butterfly Fund activities were mentioned in the trial, as far as I can remember, though one witness did call Interact because of her experience and work with DV initiatives and she was concerned about the behaviors and wanted to get NC a contact there.

Seriously? A person is murdered. The fund set up in their name is a fund for domestic violence. That CLEARLY implicates Brad to the public. It has nothing to do with the trial.

6. The affidavits were not made public by anyone who wrote an affy, those affidavits were obtained by the media after the documents were legally filed by the lawyers and published by the media. That's really not fair to anyone (plaintiff or respondent) or the affiants. That was a civil matter. I'm not sure how the media got ahold of them. Didn't Kurtz & Blum publish one or more of them plus other things on their own website?

The point being that they swayed public opinion. In addition, the civil matter was clearly used for the purpose of the criminal investigation and trial.

 

[Madeleine74]

The civil matter was used for the purpose of fighting for custody of the 2 minor children. Had there been no children there would have been no custody civil matter in the first place. And there also would have been no affidavits filed for a custody matter. Your issue is really with the media. The media published documents filed for a private civil custody case. And Brad's attorneys also published materials to try and affect public opinion--do you hold them accountable?

And for the record, I have never believed that JP or anyone else close to Nancy would be a viable suspect in this case. I do believe it was random, and based on testimony that it involved a van, although I think the "random group of Hispanics" is a red herring. At that point in time, there was no reason to rule out a random crime based on the evidence gathered.

You’ll have to get with Brad’s other supporters, the ones who are convinced the killer is in the circle of trial witnesses and insist it was someone very well known to NC and not some random perp. There doesn’t seem to be a cohesive theory among any other than “it can’t be Brad because it just can’t.”

As for the press conferences and the public:

You’re really having an issue with the media. When the media asked if Brad would be there (at the press conference), should Bazemore have lied? Should she have walked out of the room and refused to speak to anyone? Should she have said, “none of your business?” Should she have told the reporters that Brad was downtown meeting with his new attorneys and that’s why he wasn’t there? The media asked questions. Should the media be shut down and no information provided? Should there be a complete blackout?

Every case has rumors and comments. 100% of the time if there is a criminal case in the news there will be comments made after the articles are published and rumors swirl. Just look at articles on WRAL as one example. There are two ways to handle that: spend your time addressing each and every comment and rumor or ignore it and present evidence in the only place that counts--in a courtroom. That won’t stop comments or the rumors though. It would be a full-time job for scores of people to even try and manage social media, comments, and rumors. You’d have better luck and success herding cats.

As for the Butterfly Fund:

The Butterfly Fund was setup long after Brad was already in jail. Over $100K was raised to support some important initiatives in the state (as well as monies raised in Canada for programs there). Yes, for two well-known nonprofits in NC that are focused on protecting women, children, and men in escalating and potentially dangerous situations. The monies went to help a lot of people. Corporations who support Interact and NCCADV also donated. People channeled their grief into philanthropy. The fund was not mentioned in the first trial and I bet it will be the same for the 2nd (if there's a 2nd).

 

[oenophile]

The civil matter was used for the purpose of fighting for custody of the 2 minor children. Had there been no children there would have been no custody civil matter in the first place. And there also would have been no affidavits filed for a custody matter. Your issue is really with the media. The media published documents filed for a private civil custody case. And Brad's attorneys also published materials to try and affect public opinion--do you hold them accountable?

It was clear from the deposition that the custody battle was done in cooperation with police, with an ulterior motive of impeaching Brad. That being said, my issue is also with the media for fueling speculation.

You’ll have to get with Brad’s other supporters, the ones who are convinced the killer is in the circle of trial witnesses and insist it was someone very well known to NC and not some random perp. There doesn’t seem to be a cohesive theory among any other than “it can’t be Brad because it just can’t.”

I honestly don't care what "Brad supporters" think. And I am not a "Brad supporter". I care about the evidence. If the evidence says that he did it, then he did it. But that isn't what the evidence says. Almost all the evidence points away from Brad. And almost all the evidence points away from any other person that knew Nancy as well. The defense attorneys have a different agenda than I do: they want to cast doubt by introducing other potential suspects. I want to know who actually killed Nancy.

You’re really having an issue with the media. When the media asked if Brad would be there (at the press conference), should Bazemore have lied? Should she have walked out of the room and refused to speak to anyone? Should she have said, “none of your business?” Should she have told the reporters that Brad was downtown meeting with his new attorneys and that’s why he wasn’t there? The media asked questions. Should the media be shut down and no information provided? Should there be a complete blackout?

Of course one of my issues is with the media. The media was very BDI from the beginning. Look at the reporting of Amanda Lamb. But it was the CPD that fed the media with dishonesty.

The Butterfly Fund was setup long after Brad was already in jail. Over $100K was raised to support some important initiatives in the state (as well as monies raised in Canada for programs there). Yes, for two well-known nonprofits in NC that are focused on protecting women, children, and men in escalating and potentially dangerous situations. The monies went to help a lot of people. Corporations who support Interact and NCCADV also donated. People channeled their grief into philanthropy. The fund was not mentioned in the first trial and I bet it will be the same for the 2nd (if there's a 2nd).

My issue isn't with setting up a fund, my issue is that the fund was set up to promote awareness of domestic violence for someone who was accused but not convicted of domestic violence. It fed public opinion against Brad. Question: if they had immediately discovered that she was murdered via a random rape and kidnapping, would a fund dedicated to domestic violence have been appropriate?

 

[ncsu95]

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.

The alternates were not released from jury duty and apparently won't be until after sentencing. I will talk to him after that and will share what is appropriate.

 

[Nymeria]

The alternates were not released from jury duty and apparently won't be until after sentencing. I will talk to him after that and will share what is appropriate.

Been away a couple days, just wanted to say Thank You NCSU.

 

[macd]

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

The Google search is pretty strong evidence. Friday afternoon, Brad was looking at Fielding Drive. During the same browsing session (according to Kurtz himself) he was looking up contact information for Nancy's father. He knew Friday afternoon that he would need to call him sometime in the near future.

What is a reasonable explanation for these Google searches if Brad did not do it?

 

[oenophile]

The Google search is pretty strong evidence. Friday afternoon, Brad was looking at Fielding Drive. During the same browsing session (according to Kurtz himself) he was looking up contact information for Nancy's father. He knew Friday afternoon that he would need to call him sometime in the near future.

What is a reasonable explanation for these Google searches if Brad did not do it?

The only two reasonable explanations that I can see, assuming Brad is not guilty, is that either a) it was an innocent search that had nothing to do with the murder, or b) the Google search didn't occur as described and instead was manipulated to look like it occurred as described. In the latter case, this could be someone else doing the Google search, or someone changing the times on the search files to make it look like it was done before the murder instead of after.

And I agree that that is strong evidence. The challenge is balancing it against the strong evidence that suggests he did not do it, then those two reasonable explanations become viable. I actually think the first explanation is more likely than the second, as I cannot remember what Google map searches I did three months ago, and I especially wouldn't remember after a traumatic event.

 

[macd]

The only two reasonable explanations that I can see, assuming Brad is not guilty, is that either a) it was an innocent search that had nothing to do with the murder, or b) the Google search didn't occur as described and instead was manipulated to look like it occurred as described. In the latter case, this could be someone else doing the Google search, or someone changing the times on the search files to make it look like it was done before the murder instead of after.

And I agree that that is strong evidence. The challenge is balancing it against the strong evidence that suggests he did not do it, then those two reasonable explanations become viable. I actually think the first explanation is more likely than the second, as I cannot remember what Google map searches I did three months ago, and I especially wouldn't remember after a traumatic event.

I appreciate the answer.

Personally, I really can not fathom an innocent search. The search started with a large map of the 27518 zip code. Then, in 6 deft clicks over a quick 42 seconds, the map was zoomed to an empty lot that had no significance to anyone, except the killer, until Nancy's body was found there two days later. Whoever did this search/pan/zoom had done it before.

Any scenario involving changing of timestamps is also hard to imagine. Since the slots of a Windows Master File Table (MFT) are assigned sequentially, we know the order files are written to the disk. We know the search/pan/zoom files were written to disk before all the items that came after it. The MFT entry sequence matches the time stamp sequence. For any kind of tampering to come into play, not only would the timestamps needs to be modified, but every MFT entry for every file written after the search/pan/zoom would have to be forged.

 

[oenophile]

I appreciate the answer.

My pleasure, I appreciate the response as well.

Personally, I really can not fathom an innocent search. The search started with a large map of the 27518 zip code. Then, in 6 deft clicks over a quick 42 seconds, the map was zoomed to an empty lot that had no significance to anyone, except the killer, until Nancy's body was found there two days later. Whoever did this search/pan/zoom had done it before.

I can, absolutely. What I cannot fathom is that that would be the ONLY digital evidence that would be left discoverable.

Any scenario involving changing of timestamps is also hard to imagine. Since the slots of a Windows Master File Table (MFT) are assigned sequentially, we know the order files are written to the disk. We know the search/pan/zoom files were written to disk before all the items that came after it. The MFT entry sequence matches the time stamp sequence. For any kind of tampering to come into play, not only would the timestamps needs to be modified, but every MFT entry for every file written after the search/pan/zoom would have to be forged.

I haven't personally done a non-biased recreation of the Google map search, so I can only rely on expert testimony (and your analysis falls into that, as does the defense analysis). Since there are strong legitimate cases to be made on both sides, I am rather neutral on the technology aspects of it (i.e. both are possible). It still bothers me that the judge would not allow either the FBI recreation nor the defense recreation to be admitted, which would have addressed some of those questions in front of a jury. If they can demonstrate that the recreation is different than the MFT entry, under the same conditions, then I think the defense has a case on tampering. I'm not slighting your analysis, I am simply stating that the defense attempted to address some of those claims that you are making, and they were not allowed to do so at trial.

In all three scenarios (the two that I highlighted, and the scenario that he did it as prelude to a murder), we are dealing with possibilities and probabilities. Absent the other evidence, I would say that all three are possible, and that none are probable. If there had been strong corroborating evidence to the murder, then I would say that the BDI scenario would be probable. Given the amount of exculpatory evidence, I believe either of the two scenarios that I presented are probable. And given the incentive that the CPD had to identify the murder as not random, the tampering scenario becomes much more probable than it would be otherwise.

 

[JusticeFever]

Well, after today's ruling in the Jason Young case, I guess we have 2 big retrials in North Carolina coming up, unless other options are explored.Both murder convictions have been overturned at this point and now we wait for the next decison. Will the state drop charges, retry, or offer a plea?

 

[Madeleine74]

My guess is the state will look to a plea in order to avoid the time and cost of having to retry either case.

 

[oenophile]

I don't think the DA will drop the charges in either case. They will offer plea bargains. If either or both of them are guilty, then I think they will take the plea bargain. If they are innocent, then I think it will go back to trial.

 

[Just the Fax]

Well, after today's ruling in the Jason Young case, I guess we have 2 big retrials in North Carolina coming up, unless other options are explored.Both murder convictions have been overturned at this point and now we wait for the next decison. Will the state drop charges, retry, or offer a plea?

Not 2, but 3 convicted wife killers granted new trials. Michael Peterson has been out on bond for >2 years with no word on a new trial date....or even a plea deal.

 

[cluciano63]

I would find it nearly impossible to believe the google search was altered or tampered with. I would probably need a date-stamped photo of someone actually doing it, to buy that, but Jmo.

 

[otto]

I appreciate the answer.

Personally, I really can not fathom an innocent search. The search started with a large map of the 27518 zip code. Then, in 6 deft clicks over a quick 42 seconds, the map was zoomed to an empty lot that had no significance to anyone, except the killer, until Nancy's body was found there two days later. Whoever did this search/pan/zoom had done it before.

Any scenario involving changing of timestamps is also hard to imagine. Since the slots of a Windows Master File Table (MFT) are assigned sequentially, we know the order files are written to the disk. We know the search/pan/zoom files were written to disk before all the items that came after it. The MFT entry sequence matches the time stamp sequence. For any kind of tampering to come into play, not only would the timestamps needs to be modified, but every MFT entry for every file written after the search/pan/zoom would have to be forged.

Did Brad have the training to know these things (MFT)? There does appear to have been some tampering, but was it something that Brad did? It has been suggested that Brad was a common computer science BSc with an MBA who would be dumb enough to search the dump site on his work computer two (three?) days before he murdered his wife, knowing full well that he had to immediately hide this trace information.

The question about changed times would suggest that he knew exactly what he had to do to get away the murder, but why was the search on the computer in the first place? Why complicate things? Why would he do that? Why would he search the dump site and then put her body there two days later if he knew that the search would be traceable? If he was smart enough to try to hide the search, wouldn't that mean that he was well aware of the danger of the search in the first place. Surely the Canadian citizen had a proper street map of the area. I don't get it ... unless ...

Brad did not plan to murder his wife, but he thought about it. Just before lunch one day, he did a quick search of a potential dump site ... on a whim. Did he do one search, or more?

After the party he murdered his wife. Instead of claiming that she fell down the stairs, he thought about the new housing district. It wasn't until after the murder that he realized that he had to remove the mapzoom information from the laptop ... and therefore the tampered time stamps.

 

[otto]

I would find it nearly impossible to believe the google search was altered or tampered with. I would probably need a date-stamped photo of someone actually doing it, to buy that, but Jmo.

Is it not possible to get into the guts of a computer's memory and change a number here and there?

 

[otto]

I don't think the DA will drop the charges in either case. They will offer plea bargains. If either or both of them are guilty, then I think they will take the plea bargain. If they are innocent, then I think it will go back to trial.

What about hedging bets? It wouldn't be the first time that a man in NC admitted committing murder in order to minimize the sentence. The threat of life in prison is powerful and permanent. If there's a way to negotiate out of it, rather than take chances with something that wasn't favorable in the past, then a plea deal, even for an innocent man, might look attractive.

Perhaps the truth could be better known if the sentence was for 25 years rather than forever.

 

[otto]

Well, after today's ruling in the Jason Young case, I guess we have 2 big retrials in North Carolina coming up, unless other options are explored.Both murder convictions have been overturned at this point and now we wait for the next decison. Will the state drop charges, retry, or offer a plea?

Boz has built his career on men like Cooper and Young. I don't think he's going to let them get away too easily.