Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[ncsu95]

I'm not familiar with the case. Do you remember a name?

Kelly Morris

 

[calgary123]

-Brad was not one to carry equipment or gear in his cars. I'm specifically referring to a Jeep YJ he used to have, and which he would drive into Banff National Park in Canada. I can't speak for the BMW 325i (or 323?) he bought shortly after that and took with him to NC. He was not good keeping his vehicles maintained, mechanically or even from a cleanliness standard. His Jeep always had an alternator issue, and as a result the battery would go dead or his lights wouldn't work, so no night driving.

-I'm not sure what you mean by prominent. Each family was white collar middle class and respectable, but not stand out in any way. Neither had any type of even pseudo-celebrity status. Even in small Medicine Hat (pop. 50,000 or so, now 60Kish) his father wasn't known unless you attended the college. In Edmonton--- greater area population near 1,000,000 --- Nancy's family did not stand out in any way.

-the philanthropist you cite wasn't a boyfriend. They had a coffee date the morning after Brad and Nancy's first get-together. They knew each other through work channels. The philanthropist made it well known he wasn't looking for a girlfriend at the time.

-Brad's expertise was networks. At the time he took computer science, internet browsers were brand new and the internet itself just starting to be known. In fact, when he started college the public at large did not have access to the internet. Browsers were not taught at the UofC then. Nor were forensic classes in computer science. In fact, the U of C didn't have access for students to the internet as of 1994--- students could use a U of C bulletin board, and access the university network, but that was about it. I am positive no such types of classes you potentially refer to were available by the time he graduated (2 yrs Medicine Hat College, 2 yrs U of C).

 

[calgary123]

-As for issues of gain, Brad was aware that sometimes civil legal proceedings can go against you (he had one go against him in Calgary, and he tried to avoid judgment collection but his bank account was seized, resulting in him missing his rent payments and pissing off his live-in-girlfriend at the time). He also saw Nancy's demands in terms of a divorce settlement. Whether or not one thinks Brad did it, its clear he had a lot to lose in a divorce situation. If Nancy was dead, he doesn't pay alimony, child support, nor split the family assets.

-I can't comment on the bank account issue, but the bigger problem from the evidence was that Brad wouldn't give her money anyway.

 

[oenophile]

-
-Brad's expertise was networks. At the time he took computer science, internet browsers were brand new and the internet itself just starting to be known. In fact, when he started college the public at large did not have access to the internet. Browsers were not taught at the UofC then. Nor were forensic classes in computer science. In fact, the U of C didn't have access for students to the internet as of 1994--- students could use a U of C bulletin board, and access the university network, but that was about it. I am positive no such types of classes you potentially refer to were available by the time he graduated (2 yrs Medicine Hat College, 2 yrs U of C).

I question many of these statements. The Internet was well known long before 1994 in the University environment (note, this is different than the web). Computer Science students would never really need to "study" browsers, browsers are simply a graphical interface for HTML. A CS student would do a lot of programming. And virtually every educational institution that wasn't in the dark ages had internet access for some students by 1994. My first email address was in 1986, and there wasn't a University in the developed world that didn't have domains then. The access was different though, it was mostly mainframe, which was a common way to program. But more importantly, as a computer science student, you understand how file systems work. And during your career you learn how to look at HTML, and understanding how browsers work. It comes with the territory, doesn't require any forensics classes to learn, regardless of your expertise.

A relative of mine with many more decades of tech experience than I have once said that as long as you realize that everything can be reduced to 0's and 1's at the most basic level, you can understand virtually any computer technology.

 

[calgary123]

I was a student there from 1990 to 1994.

 

[oenophile]

I was a student there from 1990 to 1994.

You were a computer science student? I cannot imagine that a computer science student would not have internet accounts in 1990, let alone 1994. It was a necessary part of any curriculum.

Edited to add: Ok, I looked it up, and it looks like the ucalgary.edu domain wasn't registered until 1997. Very surprising, as it was pretty far behind (a decade even) other schools like mine. And we were not known for our computer science program. I wonder if there was another domain that they used.

 

[calgary123]

You were a computer science student? I cannot imagine that a computer science student would not have internet accounts in 1990, let alone 1994. It was a necessary part of any curriculum.

Edited to add: Ok, I looked it up, and it looks like the ucalgary.edu domain wasn't registered until 1997. Very surprising, as it was pretty far behind (a decade even) other schools like mine. And we were not known for our computer science program. I wonder if there was another domain that they used.

I don't know about domain registrations but would clarify my prior post and I agree my words were too strong.

I was not in computer science as a major but took two CS courses to meet the science requirement of my BA...dropped one. I graduated from there in 1994. The CS courses I took were a complete joke even at the time, though the ones I took were not a lot about programming.... but I do recall that during a class I corrected my professor who had an IRQ problem when trying to show us how sound cards worked on different motherboards... once that happened I switched my science class to archeology but admittedly that wasn't much better. I had been programming since 1982, albeit in BASIC, and what was going on in that class made me wonder why I was there. And I was not interested in the math problems they were introducing, because I'd never use them and didn't want to learn them. The math issues I think were being taught in perl or c or something like that. I don't remember the detail anymore.

I should add that I was aware of a broader network but it wasn't considered useful except for academic purposes. I know some had access to usenet and email, but in my prior post I didn't consider that the "internet", but I'm probably wrong with that definition.

For this thread, my only point is that Brad's degree does not speak to his knowledge of how browsers work. They didn't even exist.

And I will never forget when Brad showed me .mp3 music. I was stunned that you could do that on a computer. He was well ahead of the curve in that nobody I knew other than Brad was aware of that technology, though it caught on very fast.

Edit: I'm struggling with years... I'd say it was mid 1998 when he showed me mp3s and how to get them.

 

[calgary123]

Finally, this should be about what Brad did. Was he truly stupid enough to google map the place he deposited his wife's body, the day before he planned to kill her? Or maybe he didn't?

Did he, as a computer science graduate, not consider that the police would check his work computer, or more importantly, that even "private browsing" leaves evidence?

I don't know the answer to these questions. Some of you suggest Brad knows enough not to leave evidence.... but he was not trained in the workings of the MS browser, nor was he trained in how operating systems... in particular, Windows or the browser, leave evidence. If anything, if he was he left very little evidence, but enough to show his intentions.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'd like to see a defense attorney in court argue the logic in this case that Brad could not have done something that would ultimately implicate him in a murder (like a search on a computer) because "the guy's really smart and if he did that it would be so stupid and he would have known better. Therefore, since he's not stupid and he would have known better and should have known better, he could not have done that very thing that pointed right to him being responsible."

 

[Madeleine74]

I started working in Internet technology in the 90's. Got my first email account in '93 and it was an account through class.org, which at that time was the only way to obtain access from within the corporate sector. I saw a browser for the first time in '94 (v1.0) and that was on a field trip to Netscape, down the road. Remember them?

Before that, any Internet searches were done using text based tools. And email too was through a text based client (Pine or Elm). It looked just like the plain text interface one would get using a mainframe computer. To search the web, such as it was, required a different tool (lynx was what we used). FTP, Archie, etc. were the tools in use in those early years. FTP is still is use today, of course, but the tools have improved greatly.

In '94 browsers were in their infancy. Someone in college in the early 90's would have been using text based tools on any network. Microsoft didn't have their first browser until '95, when they packaged it with Win95. Netscape was the name of the game then.

 

[calgary123]

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.

 

[Madeleine74]

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, an 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.

 

[oenophile]

My larger point is that you don't need to be trained on "browser technology" to understand the foundational aspects of html, cookies, temporary internet files, etc. These all come with the territory of being in technology. And the foundational computer science skills that you built in university are designed to let you learn as technology evolves.

Any person involved in technology professional should know how browsers work, how html works, and how a browser uses caches to temporarily maintain local copies of internet files. What they probably won't know is the details around how timestamps work, how to read an MFT file, etc.

The problem is that it is difficult to believe someone with those skills would leave an obvious digital trail.

One question which I didn't catch from the trial: were the temporary internet files recovered from the google search out in the open, or were they deleted and then recovered from the hard drive manually?

NB It is amazing how quickly technology evolved in the last 20 years. I remember using Gopher and being amazed at the possibilities.

 

[macd]

I feel like we've time warped back to 2011.

On evidence:
The old adage is "There is no such thing as a perfect crime", meaning a criminal always leave a clue or two behind. Whoever killed Nancy left very few clues.
The Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad's too smart to leave clues, they must have been planted.
The Not-Pro-Brad Crowd: he's a smart guy and managed to cover 98% of his tracks, but was thwarted by a couple details.

On motive:
The Not-Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad is the only one with motive.
The Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad had no motive.
The draft separation agreement shows Brad's motive. Their credits cards were maxed out, 401k loaned out, a hefty mortgage, and two leases on their BMWs. Nancy wanted the house, a car, the kids, and the option to move. Brad got the debt and alimony, child support, and private school tuition payments. He did not have access to enough money to hire an attorney. Alice Stubbs backed Brad into a corner.

 

[oenophile]

I feel like we've time warped back to 2011.

I agree.

On evidence:
The old adage is "There is no such thing as a perfect crime", meaning a criminal always leave a clue or two behind. Whoever killed Nancy left very few clues.
The Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad's too smart to leave clues, they must have been planted.
The Not-Pro-Brad Crowd: he's a smart guy and managed to cover 98% of his tracks, but was thwarted by a couple details.

More like:
The Pro-Evidence Crowd: There is only one piece of digital evidence pointing to Brad, and it is suspect.
The Pro-Convict-Brad Crowd: It is a storybook ironic twist that Brad can commit an almost-perfect crime, then leave something complete obvious for the police to find.

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

On motive:
The Not-Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad is the only one with motive.
The Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad had no motive.
The draft separation agreement shows Brad's motive. Their credits cards were maxed out, 401k loaned out, a hefty mortgage, and two leases on their BMWs. Nancy wanted the house, a car, the kids, and the option to move. Brad got the debt and alimony, child support, and private school tuition payments. He did not have access to enough money to hire an attorney. Alice Stubbs backed Brad into a corner.

More like:
The Pro-Convict-Brad Crowd: Brad is the only one with motive.
The Pro-Evidence Crowd: Brad had little to no motive, like the rest of the 50% of husbands who get divorced. And there are plenty of other possible people with motives, most likely being a random kidnapper/sexual assault.

 

[otto]

While I have always thought the google search doesn't make sense, if it is actually an issue with the early version of private browsing, then BC wouldn't have known the files were still on the PC. That is supposed to be the point of private browsing.

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?

 

[otto]

-Brad was not one to carry equipment or gear in his cars. I'm specifically referring to a Jeep YJ he used to have, and which he would drive into Banff National Park in Canada. I can't speak for the BMW 325i (or 323?) he bought shortly after that and took with him to NC. He was not good keeping his vehicles maintained, mechanically or even from a cleanliness standard. His Jeep always had an alternator issue, and as a result the battery would go dead or his lights wouldn't work, so no night driving.

-I'm not sure what you mean by prominent. Each family was white collar middle class and respectable, but not stand out in any way. Neither had any type of even pseudo-celebrity status. Even in small Medicine Hat (pop. 50,000 or so, now 60Kish) his father wasn't known unless you attended the college. In Edmonton--- greater area population near 1,000,000 --- Nancy's family did not stand out in any way.

-the philanthropist you cite wasn't a boyfriend. They had a coffee date the morning after Brad and Nancy's first get-together. They knew each other through work channels. The philanthropist made it well known he wasn't looking for a girlfriend at the time.

-Brad's expertise was networks. At the time he took computer science, internet browsers were brand new and the internet itself just starting to be known. In fact, when he started college the public at large did not have access to the internet. Browsers were not taught at the UofC then. Nor were forensic classes in computer science. In fact, the U of C didn't have access for students to the internet as of 1994--- students could use a U of C bulletin board, and access the university network, but that was about it. I am positive no such types of classes you potentially refer to were available by the time he graduated (2 yrs Medicine Hat College, 2 yrs U of C).

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.

I think that we can assume that Brad was learning computer guts (since there was no internet), which includes understanding computer code and memory. He was well familiar with computer software issues prior to graduation, and the internet was in place at the time that he graduated. The man that Nancy had an affair with through work is documented in Amanda Lamb's book (quoting family) as more than coffee.

Where's Brad's initial search for a dump site? Clearly a 41 second search in an undeveloped housing district is a little farfetched in terms of explaining his "first idea" to commit murder in a foreign country.

Email was in place before Brad was accepted to post secondary studies, and internet was developed when he was completing his degree. Was he really too stupid to understand how computer memory worked ... even though he was a lowly "network" guy? Was he really too stupid to know that there were "private browsing software" issues? Was he so clever as to remove earlier "dump site" searches, but leave the 41 second search ... for a body dump site in a foreign country ... 41 seconds?

 

[otto]

I feel like we've time warped back to 2011.

On evidence:
The old adage is "There is no such thing as a perfect crime", meaning a criminal always leave a clue or two behind. Whoever killed Nancy left very few clues.
The Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad's too smart to leave clues, they must have been planted.
The Not-Pro-Brad Crowd: he's a smart guy and managed to cover 98% of his tracks, but was thwarted by a couple details.

On motive:
The Not-Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad is the only one with motive.
The Pro-Brad Crowd: Brad had no motive.
The draft separation agreement shows Brad's motive. Their credits cards were maxed out, 401k loaned out, a hefty mortgage, and two leases on their BMWs. Nancy wanted the house, a car, the kids, and the option to move. Brad got the debt and alimony, child support, and private school tuition payments. He did not have access to enough money to hire an attorney. Alice Stubbs backed Brad into a corner.

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.

 

[otto]

There's been some really weird stuff going on between investigators, forensic lab experts, the prosecutor's office, and North Carolina Courts for many years.

The next thing we heard, there were four dirty court cases directly related to prosecuting the husband after the wife was found murdered: Michael Peterson, Abaroa, Brad Cooper, and Jason Young. They are all awarded new trials because court judges screwed up with violations of the law. Are NC Judges particularly confused about the law, or do they have an agenda? What is going on there?

 

[otto]

My larger point is that you don't need to be trained on "browser technology" to understand the foundational aspects of html, cookies, temporary internet files, etc. These all come with the territory of being in technology. And the foundational computer science skills that you built in university are designed to let you learn as technology evolves.

Any person involved in technology professional should know how browsers work, how html works, and how a browser uses caches to temporarily maintain local copies of internet files. What they probably won't know is the details around how timestamps work, how to read an MFT file, etc.

The problem is that it is difficult to believe someone with those skills would leave an obvious digital trail.

One question which I didn't catch from the trial: were the temporary internet files recovered from the google search out in the open, or were they deleted and then recovered from the hard drive manually?

NB It is amazing how quickly technology evolved in the last 20 years. I remember using Gopher and being amazed at the possibilities.

I would hope that anyone that has studied computer science in the 1990s understands computer memory and internet.

We've never heard whether the zoomsearch images were out in the open, or whether they were recovered deleted items. Is it possible to know this based on the illustrations that have been published? That is certainly the question: if there is evidence of tampering, who did it?