Brad Cooper - Timeline, Behavior, Interview, & Evidence Inconsistencies

[fran]

Everyone is talking about her phone being locked. He was a telecommunications expert. Could he not just take her SIM card and put in another phone?

I don't think it matters if her phone was locked or not. IIRC, the phone call to Brad during the after 6:15 a.m. HT visit was made from the home, per Brad's affidavit, to Brad's cell phone.

IMHO, these means, most likely, the phone call was made from the home phone and not NC's cell phone.

Having said that, BC is a VoIP expert. BC had VoIP capability at his home. Of course, BC said he no longer had his home phone on the VoIP system, but ..........Brad said a LOT of things.

JMHO
fran

 

[sunflowers]

But, keep in mind, LE is not telling us ANYthing. Remember a couple weeks ago when the woman said she saw Nancy, and I thought LE should put out a statement defending themselves? Other people reminded me that they are keeping everything close to the vest. They have less interest in updating the public with the truth than they do nailing their man.

just finished reading through all of the HT stuff. reminders as you all think about this:
1. Cary Chief of Police's reaction when 4:20 time brought up---seems that her reaction suggests this may be a possibility
2. momto3kids had 2 separate confirmations of this timeframe, from 2 separate people who didn't know the other had said anything.
3. there are many issues that LE clearly hasn't wanted to tip their hand about, & one concerns this HT situation. LE has said NOTHING about these trips---there's a reason---they are protecting their case
4. brad's attorneys are the ones who wanted to "clear" brad by publishing the HT information THEY WANTED THE PUBLIC TO KNOW. we know of the 6 a.m. trips from Brad's legal team, and it seems they have been somewhat successful in persuading many people that maybe there wasn't a 4:20 a.m. trip.
5. even though it's confusing, perhaps that's part of the strategy. if we focus on the other 2 trips, who would imagine there'd be an earlier one.
doesn't seem logical, but if we think outside of the box & think of all the possible options, it actually is possible.

 

[sunflowers]

I don't think it matters if her phone was locked or not. IIRC, the phone call to Brad during the after 6:15 a.m. HT visit was made from the home, per Brad's affidavit, to Brad's cell phone.

IMHO, these means, most likely, the phone call was made from the home phone and not NC's cell phone.

Having said that, BC is a VoIP expert. BC had VoIP capability at his home. Of course, BC said he no longer had his home phone on the VoIP system, but ..........Brad said a LOT of things.

JMHO
fran

exactly. we don't want to start formulating our theories based on what one person is saying, especially when that one person has everything to lose & is biased.

doesn't mean he's guilty, it just means that he would not exactly be the most objective person to get information from.

to consider his info / statements together with all of the other information, yes. to make decisions based just on his input, not a good idea.

 

[ncsu95]

You hit the nail on the head! This is why they won't show that clip.

But I don't believe that they would ever intentionally put out false information, especially not for 1 client. That could ruin there whole practice.

 

[SleuthyGal]

It would be a foolish move if they state he absolutely did not visit any store, or any other store, at any other time that day other than the 2 visits they posted on their website, and then we come to learn he did. Very, very foolish. Time will tell. Note that it would totally turn the public's view of BC's involvement in the crime if CPD did have such evidence in their possession and released this info. If LE has this evidence they are saying nothing about it, and are thus protecting Mr. Cooper. This should make everyone happy as his rights are really not being trampled during the investigation.

 

[Star12]

IIRC, in his affidavit about that phone call, BC says Nancy called from home. Later, regarding another phone call, BC says home phone (I think this may have been in his depo, but I couldn't tell you just where at this point in time). So he does make a distinction as to a land line.

And my sim card has been switched between phones 4 different times, but as far as if being locked would transfer to another phone, I have no idea, since I have never bothered locking mine.

As far as the 4:20 HT trip, BC said he was up at 4 am. I can't discount a trip to HT at 4:20. It would have been more than helpful if K&B had shown the HT tape from that time period. Like Chief Bazemore said, sometimes you have to look at things to rule stuff out. So we have no proof as to whether he was there at that time, or not.

 

[fran]

From what I understand, it was NOT BC's attorney's intent to DENY any 4:20 a.m. HT trip. It was to DENY that BC purchased BLEACH, which was the FIRST story circulating. (therefore, IF the 4:20 a.m. trip ever DOES come out, the attorney wasn't lying (which I don't think he would do) he could claim (and maybe rightly so) BC never told him about it) and BC could say he did NOT buy bleach.

In actuality, the ORIGINAL '4:00 a.m. store trip' mentioned by mom, here on Weblseuths, (which is WHERE the media got the information in the first place) was said to be 'LAUNDRY DETERGENT WITH BLEACH' and the media got it wrong as just plain BLEACH. From there, the other media outlets ran with it and it's been repeated incorrectly ever since, including by many posters here on Websleuths.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, FWIW.

JMHO
fran

PS......So,...........ask yourself..........Why did he buy laundry detergent at 4:20 a.m., MILK at after 6:15 a.m., laundry detergent and juice at 6:30 and 6:45?:waitasec:

Could the 4:20 purchase be on the way home from dumping NC's body? The 6:15 MILK purchase because they were really out of milk and the 6:30 and phone call and 6:45 puchase be part of the staging?

just a hypothetical question.

 

[SleuthyGal]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

 

[fran]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

Interesting SleuthyGal. Thanks for the info!

Wonder IF the attorney actually looked through the tapes or IF he's going by Brad's statement?

I recall one instance brought out at the Scott Peterson trial where LE showed Scott one of the infamous pictures of 'Scott and Amber' taken at Christmas time, the one with Amber in the red dress. LOL, Scott said, "That's supposed to be me?":bang:..........Amber came forward a few days later and Scott began his media blitz where he claimed 'he'd told LE about the girlfriend the very first night Laci was missing."

LE couldn't believe it! ..........EITHER time!

fran

 

[garner_nc]

I find it amusing that because K&B has not posted a 4:20am video that people assume they are hiding something. If they did post a 4:20am video, then people would say – “oh, maybe it was 4:25am, and they only showed the part of the video where he was not in the video.”

They cannot show him at HT at 4:20am if he was not there. They could probably provide video from 4:00am to 5:00am, but they stated These were "Brad's only trips to any store that morning" so they do not see the point in posting another one.

I just think that even if K&B did provide a 4:20am video, some on here would still say that does not prove he was not out buying detergent at 4:20am. Some would claim he went to a different store or he knew where cameras where in the store and he covertly walked in and out of HT unseen.

Posting a video or not will not satisfy those who believe he was out shopping at 4:20am, so why bother posting one.

 

[ncsu95]

From what I understand, it was NOT BC's attorney's intent to DENY any 4:20 a.m. HT trip. It was to DENY that BC purchased BLEACH, which was the FIRST story circulating. (therefore, IF the 4:20 a.m. trip ever DOES come out, the attorney wasn't lying (which I don't think he would do) he could claim (and maybe rightly so) BC never told him about it) and BC could say he did NOT buy bleach.

In actuality, the ORIGINAL '4:00 a.m. store trip' mentioned by mom, here on Weblseuths, (which is WHERE the media got the information in the first place) was said to be 'LAUNDRY DETERGENT WITH BLEACH' and the media got it wrong as just plain BLEACH. From there, the other media outlets ran with it and it's been repeated incorrectly ever since, including by many posters here on Websleuths.

Just thought I'd throw that out there, FWIW.

JMHO
fran

PS......So,...........ask yourself..........Why did he buy laundry detergent at 4:20 a.m., MILK at after 6:15 a.m., laundry detergent and juice at 6:30 and 6:45?:waitasec:

Could the 4:20 purchase be on the way home from dumping NC's body? The 6:15 MILK purchase because they were really out of milk and the 6:30 and phone call and 6:45 puchase be part of the staging?

just a hypothetical question.

Yes it was there intent to deny a 4:20 am trip to HT. They explicitly denied any trip prior to the 6:20 am trip.

 

[ncsu95]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

Right, which is why I completely doubt the validity of it. I honestly believe MT3Ks source just got it wrong. They were correct about 2 trips (1 for detergent, another for milk).

 

[fran]

Yes it was there intent to deny a 4:20 am trip to HT. They explicitly denied any trip prior to the 6:20 am trip.

Thanks ncsu95. I also thanked SleuthyGal for the information and the quote.

Guess you just can't believe everything you read on the internet or MSM's though, INCLUDING attorney's websites.

fran

 

[EnvoyDriver61]

RE a 4:00 - 4:30 a.m. trip

BC states he's at home tending to a sick child, IMO, a good cover for when/if a 4:20 a.m. potential trip comes up.

If it does, according to BC and his attornies 1. ) it can't be him because he stated he was at home. 2. ) it will just be a coincidence that someone who might look like BC came in 3. ) why would someone need detergent at 4:20 a.m. AND 6:20 a.m.

If you add all the stories up, there is already a foundation for reasonable doubt being laid.

 

[gritguy]

From K&B's website:

"To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning."
-----

That one sentence is a bold assertion, unless K&B know for a fact that there were only 2 visits to HT or any other store. if Brad went to any store (incl. HT) at any other time that morning..i.e. a 3rd HT trip on 7/12/08, then the store will have it on video. And IF he did, he lied about it. And that would bode very, very poorly for him, IMHO.

Moreover, if they had an inkling that he made such a trip, they should get out in front of the story and publish it themselves with an explanation. The defense should want no surprise information coming from the prosecution that is at odds with their story.

On maxim we always observed at trial: if there is bad information coming about your case, be the one to tell it! You get to shape the story first, and you get to take the zinger away from the other attorney. Hell, put it in your opening statement. Make it look like you have nothing to hide, even if you wish the evidence didn't exist. Telling a story to the jury when the other attorney can get up and bust a hole in it that you knew was coming would be stupid. This is why the defense team should and maybe has checked out that 4:20 story. This is why the LE team should follow up on anyone who calls in to say they saw NC after her last known encounter with BC.

So, if those attorneys didn't check, then they have a lot riding on BC's personal timeline, but of course it's his risk if he lied to the attorneys, not their risk.

 

[SleuthyGal]

RE a 4:00 - 4:30 a.m. trip

BC states he's at home tending to a sick child, IMO, a good cover for when/if a 4:20 a.m. potential trip comes up.

If it does, according to BC and his attornies 1. ) it can't be him because he stated he was at home. 2. ) it will just be a coincidence that someone who might look like BC came in 3. ) why would someone need detergent at 4:20 a.m. AND 6:20 a.m.

If you add all the stories up, there is already a foundation for reasonable doubt being laid.

Just a clarification: he didn't say he was tending to a sick child...just that both he and Nancy got up to tend to Katie, as she woke up around 4am.

 

[ncsu95]

Moreover, if they had an inkling that he made such a trip, they should get out in front of the story and publish it themselves with an explanation. The defense should want no surprise information coming from the prosecution that is at odds with their story.

On maxim we always observed at trial: if there is bad information coming about your case, be the one to tell it! You get to shape the story first, and you get to take the zinger away from the other attorney. Hell, put it in your opening statement. Make it look like you have nothing to hide, even if you wish the evidence didn't exist. Telling a story to the jury when the other attorney can get up and bust a hole in it that you knew was coming would be stupid. This is why the defense team should and maybe has checked out that 4:20 story. This is why the LE team should follow up on anyone who calls in to say they saw NC after her last known encounter with BC.

So, if those attorneys didn't check, then they have a lot riding on BC's personal timeline, but of course it's his risk if he lied to the attorneys, not their risk.

Exactly...and this is why I don't believe he made a trip at 4:20. They would be idiots to put out information that was easily proven to be false. It's not like they don't know the store is video taped.

 

[fran]

Like I said before, you can either believe the 4:20 a.m. story or not. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's what LE has that counts. Do they have this info? :waitasec:They're not talking.

IMO, this attorney should tread very lightly when it comes to putting stuff out to the general public, especially when it comes to the 'word' of his client.

Kinda' reminds me of one infamous case where the 'Hollywood-type' attorney, in his quest to embarrass the DA in open court, may have helped convict his client of double murder. It was the defense attorney who brought attention to the fact the defendent did NOT leave the marital home at the time he so claimed. Thus leaving it virtually impossible for another person to have committed the crime.:bang:

Just sayin'
fran

 

[SleuthyGal]

It's what LE has that counts. Do they have this info? They're not talking.

That's the $64K question! And they will never confirm or deny this info, so it will continue to linger until such time as there is a trial (if that ever happens).

 

[gritguy]

Like I said before, you can either believe the 4:20 a.m. story or not. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. It's what LE has that counts. Do they have this info? :waitasec:They're not talking.

IMO, this attorney should tread very lightly when it comes to putting stuff out to the general public, especially when it comes to the 'word' of his client.

Kinda' reminds me of one infamous case where the 'Hollywood-type' attorney, in his quest to embarrass the DA in open court, may have helped convict his client of double murder. It was the defense attorney who brought attention to the fact the defendent did NOT leave the marital home at the time he so claimed. Thus leaving it virtually impossible for another person to have committed the crime.:bang:

Just sayin'
fran

Good point, but here they have staked themselves out seven ways to sunday stating or implying that the trips to the store did not involve him being there at 4:20. Assuming he's guilty, you dang right I hope that's a slip-up and LE has videotape of him strolling right in there. BC's position is clear and as you say LE takes no public position so we'll see. Hopefully sooner rather than later!