Brad Cooper: Appeal info

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly... nothing has changed IMO regarding those lies and deception.

Actually, that is incorrect. We have since learned that many of the supposed lies and deceptions were actually false accusations by the police. Like the accusation that Brad supposedly erased some of his call history. There is no evidence to back this up, it is merely an accusation to make Brad look like he was being deceptive.

The more we learn, the more it looks like Brad is completely innocent of these charges.

As to the evidence of rape, the evidence was inconclusive due to the state of decomposition. That is very different than had her body been found and tested immediately.
 
Actually, that is incorrect. We have since learned that many of the supposed lies and deceptions were actually false accusations by the police. Like the accusation that Brad supposedly erased some of his call history. There is no evidence to back this up, it is merely an accusation to make Brad look like he was being deceptive.

The billing records showed 2 calls from the house to the mobile phone.
The phone's call record only showed 1 call from the house to the mobile phone.

Is this not evidence of erasing part of his call history?

To me, it is evidence of erasing part of the call history and part of the narrative supporting the spoofed call. The erased call could have been a "test" or an "oops", if he set the timer wrong.
 
By oenophile: We have since learned that many of the supposed lies and deceptions were actually false accusations by the police.
Such as?

Why did his own defense attorney admit (to the jury) the defendant told lies?
 
The more we learn, the more it looks like Brad is completely innocent of these charges.

.

I don't see how anyone could form that view just because of the additional arguments presented via the appeal briefs.

The most that can be said is that the defence was not able to get their technical evidence in, and while I think their technical evidence will end up hanging their own client as long as their witnesses are truthful, so be it that a significant issue remains because the State's case has not yet been challenged by a full technical defence.

The rest will be up to a jury, again, with the technical defence coming into evidence.

The most that can be said is Brad attorney's might be able to squeeze him through the door of reasonable doubt. That's the best case scenario for Brad.
 
He is guilty and playing the game.

I cannot believe he actually gets a re do; but the outcome will be the same. He is the ONLY person with MOTIVE TO KILL HER.

And the juries; knew it. CE cases are the best cases of all.
 
Word, Cherry. You are right on target. To wit:

Alimony and lots of it; child support, private schools for two times 13 grades, then college for two; he pays for travel for himself to visit them or for the girls to visit him. Thousands of $$$ going out of his pockets. He had no idea that the initial custody/child support doc that he saw was what Alice Stubbs later explained was the customary "first offer." It's like any other contract -- subject to negotiation -- she explained that the first offer is never the final one -- it's like any other bid or offer, it's a best case scenario.

If he had been more patient and discussed it with his wife after a discussion with his own family law attorney, instead of killing his wife, he would have learned this. Sad to say for all of them, he did not -- so he is incarcerated for life, his girls are many miles away from him, and Nancy is dead.

While other remedies may change some of this situation, Nancy will never be back with her butterflies, her friends, her family or her girls.
icon9.gif
 
The billing records showed 2 calls from the house to the mobile phone.
The phone's call record only showed 1 call from the house to the mobile phone.

Is this not evidence of erasing part of his call history?

To me, it is evidence of erasing part of the call history and part of the narrative supporting the spoofed call. The erased call could have been a "test" or an "oops", if he set the timer wrong.

That is an inaccurate conclusion based on the evidence. I own a Blackberry. I receive many calls that I do not answer and that are never recorded to the Blackberry call log. This happens on a regular basis. There is no evidence that he erased anything. This is pure conjecture on the part of the police (and of those that are convinced of Brad's guilt regardless of the evidence).
 
I don't see how anyone could form that view just because of the additional arguments presented via the appeal briefs.

The most that can be said is that the defence was not able to get their technical evidence in, and while I think their technical evidence will end up hanging their own client as long as their witnesses are truthful, so be it that a significant issue remains because the State's case has not yet been challenged by a full technical defence.

The rest will be up to a jury, again, with the technical defence coming into evidence.

The most that can be said is Brad attorney's might be able to squeeze him through the door of reasonable doubt. That's the best case scenario for Brad.

There are two issues in the briefs. First is whether or not the technical evidence should have been allowed in. Second is whether or not the technical evidence was the foundation for the verdict. In this case, I'm speaking of the second issue. And the evidence presented by the prosecution suggesting that there was abundant evidence outside of the Google search was completely refuted by the defense brief.
 
He is guilty and playing the game.

I cannot believe he actually gets a re do; but the outcome will be the same. He is the ONLY person with MOTIVE TO KILL HER.

And the juries; knew it. CE cases are the best cases of all.

No offense, but you really don't know what you are talking about. There was little motive for Brad to kill his wife. There was a lot of motive for a random attacker to kill her.

The problem with your conclusion is that it doesn't fit the evidence, it only fits a very narrow "the husband did it" preconception that you cannot escape.
 
Word, Cherry. You are right on target. To wit:

Alimony and lots of it; child support, private schools for two times 13 grades, then college for two; he pays for travel for himself to visit them or for the girls to visit him. Thousands of $$$ going out of his pockets. He had no idea that the initial custody/child support doc that he saw was what Alice Stubbs later explained was the customary "first offer." It's like any other contract -- subject to negotiation -- she explained that the first offer is never the final one -- it's like any other bid or offer, it's a best case scenario.

If he had been more patient and discussed it with his wife after a discussion with his own family law attorney, instead of killing his wife, he would have learned this. Sad to say for all of them, he did not -- so he is incarcerated for life, his girls are many miles away from him, and Nancy is dead.

While other remedies may change some of this situation, Nancy will never be back with her butterflies, her friends, her family or her girls.
icon9.gif

You are as wrong as Cherry. That is a ton of assumptions and very little fact. The simple fact is that outside of the Google search, the evidence does not point to Brad, it points away from him. Yes they were going through a divorce, but 99.9999%+ of people that go through a divorce do not have motive to murder their spouses. There is nothing that indicates this case is any different. Nancy will never be back with her butterflies, her friends, her family or her girls, but you are blaming the wrong person for that. And that is disrespectful to Nancy and all the people she left behind.
 
After all these comments let me just add: I could be wrong. He could have totally done it. The problem is that the evidence doesn't indicate that he did. If you take away the neighbors, the police, and the prosecution narratives, the evidence indicates that he did not do it. It does not totally eliminate him either, but it certainly points away from him, all except for that Google search. Which is why the appeal was successful.

If some undeniable physical evidence is presented that conclusively proves that he did it, I'll gladly eat my words. But until then, this circumstantial case is far from the slam-dunk that those on this board portray it as. And even worse, the prejudices against a husband in a murder case are creating irrational conclusions. Unfortunately, I don't think many will be able to overcome these prejudices and consider that he may in fact be innocent.
 
That is an inaccurate conclusion based on the evidence. I own a Blackberry. I receive many calls that I do not answer and that are never recorded to the Blackberry call log. This happens on a regular basis. There is no evidence that he erased anything. This is pure conjecture on the part of the police (and of those that are convinced of Brad's guilt regardless of the evidence).

Brad didn't own a Blackberry. His phone was a Samsung Blackjack II (running a Windows OS).

It wasn't (only) the police who determined a call on the phone log that was completed through seizure and tower ping was missing from Brad's phone. The AT&T witness went through the whole call log, seizure time, tower pinging explanation in excruciating detail. I was there that day in the courtroom listening to him and seeing the various logs projected on the screen. And it wasn't just one call that did not appear on the phone log that was on the AT&T records, I believe there were 2 calls that did not appear on BC's phone and each call had an associated seizure and connection record with AT&T.

Ultimately it was up to the jury to conclude why there was a discrepancy.
 
There are two issues in the briefs. First is whether or not the technical evidence should have been allowed in. Second is whether or not the technical evidence was the foundation for the verdict. In this case, I'm speaking of the second issue. And the evidence presented by the prosecution suggesting that there was abundant evidence outside of the Google search was completely refuted by the defense brief.

A defense brief is not an objective examination of evidence. The jury ultimately decides if there is "abundant" or "enough" evidence once they are given the case. The jury, the triers of fact, concluded there was enough evidence that took them B.A.R.D. to prove guilt to them.
 
A defense brief is not an objective examination of evidence. The jury ultimately decides if there is "abundant" or "enough" evidence once they are given the case. The jury, the triers of fact, concluded there was enough evidence that took them B.A.R.D. to prove guilt to them.

Yes, but the jury also said that it was the Google search that convinced them.
 
Yes, but the jury also said that it was the Google search that convinced them.

Incorrect. Here's what the jury (via foreman Andy Gilbert) said verbatim:
"The evidence presented by Special Agents Johnson and Chappell drove the outcome on this case. It caused [a lot of] the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible."

I was in the courtroom for Johnson's and part of Chappell's testimony, so I saw those portions with my own eyes. The Google search was only 1 piece of digital evidence presented, and it was presented at the end of Chappell's testimony. The evidence they testified to encompassed much more than the Google search.

 
He is guilty and playing the game.

I cannot believe he actually gets a re do; but the outcome will be the same. He is the ONLY person with MOTIVE TO KILL HER.

And the juries; knew it. CE cases are the best cases of all.

How on earth could you possibly know that he was the ONLY person with MOTIVE TO KILL HER?
 
Incorrect. Here's what the jury (via foreman Andy Gilbert) said verbatim:
"The evidence presented by Special Agents Johnson and Chappell drove the outcome on this case. It caused [a lot of] the other circumstantial evidence to become relevant and credible."

I was in the courtroom for Johnson's and part of Chappell's testimony, so I saw those portions with my own eyes. The Google search was only 1 piece of digital evidence presented, and it was presented at the end of Chappell's testimony. The evidence they testified to encompassed much more than the Google search.



Having spoken to a juror (and having followed up with that juror after the appeal stuff came out), I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have convicted Brad without the google search.
 
Does that juror speak for all 12 jurors?

I don't know what the jury would have decided and if they would have been unanimous had there not been the Google Search; I only know what they did decide and what Mr. Gilbert's written statement said, and there was indeed a Google Search and the Google search remains as evidence.

The point is there was other digital evidence presented as part of the Johnson & Chappell (2 or 3 days) of testimony. They did not only present the Google search.
 
Does that juror speak for all 12 jurors?

I don't know what the jury would have decided and if they would have been unanimouss had there not been the Google Search; I only know what they did decide and what Mr. Gilbert's written statement said, and there was indeed a Google Search and the Google search remains as evidence.

The point is there was other digital evidence presented as part of the Johnson & Chappell (2 or 3 days) of testimony. They did not only present the Google search.

I never said that juror spoke for the 12. But I am telling you that without the google search, I don't believe that juror would have voted to convict. And our jury system requires a unanimous vote. So I don't need hypothetical...I've had direct discussions with a juror on the Cooper jury. And I reached out to that juror after the appeal notice came out to get their opinion and their exact words were "I am so glad to hear they are willing to give the computer data a chance to be heard. This was the whole reason I had a hard time being convinced he actually did it. Unfortunately, i had to go on what was presented in court." I think that says enough about how important the google search was to at least 1 of the 12 jurors.
 
No one is claiming the Google search wasn't important. It clearly was. However, it wasn't the 'only' digital evidence the jury had to work with from the Cyber Task Force guys.

The next jury will still have the Google search to consider again and they'll hear more from the defense witnesses on "spoilation" of computer files. In addition, the next jury will have digital evidence the first jury didn't have -- and that is evidence showing BC's laptop had a system event log that will prove he was configuring (or attempting to configure) a 3825 router the night of 7/11/08. At that point the Google search will not be the only important/compelling digital evidence pointing to the defendant's involvement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
2,208
Total visitors
2,331

Forum statistics

Threads
602,105
Messages
18,134,720
Members
231,233
Latest member
Shablee
Back
Top