State v. Bradley Cooper 4-6-2011

[Just the Fax]

Was the black temporary fencing installed after she was found or prior? If prior, was her body on the road side or other side of it?

That was erosion control in place prior to 8-12-08....she was face down in the ditch (would not be able to see from road unless you approached)

 

[Cheyenne130]

1. Due to weather conditions that weekend the body would have been just as decomposed anywhere in this area. However, if he was so "good" at all this planning, he would have planned for an area that would have been in a much more isolated area, where the body would not have been discovered so quickly. It is just amazing at how precise he was with all of the other details (cleaning, VOIP, phone calls, leaving kids in home along on 3 occassions w/o them waking, etc), but dumped the body in such an obvious, easily locatable place. Doesn't make sense to me. But, again, that is just my opinion

2. CPD claims to have seen scratches on Brad's neck. Where are the pics? Everything "accidentally" gets erased from the cell phone. The witness who swears to have seen Nancy running that morning is not called back until after she speaks with the defendent's attorneys. The only person focused on was the deceased's husband.

3. This past Feb, a Cary man was released from prison, after serving almost 20 years, for being wrongfully imprisoned for first degree murder. So, to answer your question: I do NOT believe in people being convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.

#2 is totally untrue as per her own affidavit. They called her back and left a message and then she called them back and gave them her statement.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

So, in other words, you do not believe it is right to find someone guilty of murder if no one saw it, and there was no video of it happening.

Is that correct?

I do not believe it is fair to find someone guilty of murder if there is absolutely NO concrete evidence WHATSOEVER. In this case, NO concrete evidence has been presented. All it is is circumstantial, theories and hearsy from neighbors and friends.
So - to answer your question - if I was on the jury, I could NOT convict Brad at this point in time based on what the prosecution has presented. Maybe they have more to present and I may change my mind. But, only if they have "real" evidence directly linking him to the crime.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

#2 is totally untrue as per her own affidavit. They called her back and left a message and then she called them back and gave them her statement.

She was not called back immediately, from what I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will re-read her affidavit

 

[Albert]

1. Due to weather conditions that weekend the body would have been just as decomposed anywhere in this area. However, if he was so "good" at all this planning, he would have planned for an area that would have been in a much more isolated area, where the body would not have been discovered so quickly. It is just amazing at how precise he was with all of the other details (cleaning, VOIP, phone calls, leaving kids in home along on 3 occassions w/o them waking, etc), but dumped the body in such an obvious, easily locatable place. Doesn't make sense to me. But, again, that is just my opinion

2. CPD claims to have seen scratches on Brad's neck. Where are the pics? Everything "accidentally" gets erased from the cell phone. The witness who swears to have seen Nancy running that morning is not called back until after she speaks with the defendent's attorneys. The only person focused on was the deceased's husband.

3. This past Feb, a Cary man was released from prison, after serving almost 20 years, for being wrongfully imprisoned for first degree murder. So, to answer your question: I do NOT believe in people being convicted solely on circumstantial evidence.

1. The dump site was easily accessible from the road and a short enough distance to carry/drag the body.

2. Without a search warrant which requires probable cause I don't believe they could have taken pictures. The cell phone is one item out of 500+ pieces of evidence so far, do you suppose the cell phone contained the "smoking gun" We only know about the witness from the witness, perhaps we will see, if needed, why the CPD easily dismissed her as an eye witness.

3. not really circumstantial evidence in the conviction, "The case built against Taylor relied on jailhouse snitches who received reduced sentences for providing prosecutors with testimony implicating him."

 

[Cheyenne130]

She was not called back immediately, from what I understand. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will re-read her affidavit

She stated in her affidavit that she saw searchers on Sunday and told her husband about seeing a runner the previous morning. He told her to call police. She called and left a message. She said that they called her back and left a message. (I'm guessing this was Monday and possibly she was at work.) She called them back after she got the message and spoke with someone. She gave her statement at that time over the phone.

 

[CaryFrom NJ]

So, in other words, you do not believe it is right to find someone guilty of murder if no one saw it, and there was no video of it happening.

Is that correct?

After reading about Craig Taylor, a 47 year old man, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering a woman in 1991, who missed being a dad, a husband and a grandfather, due to the jury convincting him with NO physical evidence at all I STRONGLY believe it is NOT right to convict solely based on circumstantial evidence. This man lost close to 20 years of his life due to serving time for a crime he did NOT commit. Like I said, I am not sure that Brad did not murder Nancy. But, at this time, all of the evidence is circumstantial. So - again, no I could not find him guilty today.

 

[jmflu]

I do not believe it is fair to find someone guilty of murder if there is absolutely NO concrete evidence WHATSOEVER. In this case, NO concrete evidence has been presented. All it is is circumstantial, theories and hearsy from neighbors and friends.
So - to answer your question - if I was on the jury, I could NOT convict Brad at this point in time based on what the prosecution has presented. Maybe they have more to present and I may change my mind. But, only if they have "real" evidence directly linking him to the crime.

I think what you misunderstand is the value of circumstantial evidence. (Or maybe the definition of it.) Most crimes are solved with circumstantial evidence. DNA, for instance, is circumstantial evidence. I understand that you are looking for something that is irrefutable. To many people, however, the mounds and mounds of coincidences in this case mean... It can't all be coincidence.

A necklace is made of many beads. By themselves, they mean nothing...don't even resemble a necklace. But many of them, lain side-by-side in a circle irrefutably resemble a necklace...even if there is no wire strung between them to tie them together.

Maybe that's a really crappy analogy. And maybe you need to wear the necklace in order to believe it is indeed a necklace. But most people can see that it is a necklace just from looking at it.

 

[garner_nc]

BC may be a really smart guy, but he is not a ghost in this technology world of trace logs and servers.

It just seems more remote that he spoofed this 6:40am call and magically left no trace of it. They have what buttons he pushed to check his VM, but not one piece of evidence that he made the 6:40am call.

He did not have access to manipulate server data and logs. He may have know how to spoof a call with the right equipment, but would he have know every single server log and trace log, that call would leave behind and to not leave at least one foot-print.

As a tester of a Cisco product, I would say that would be a defect in itself for one of their products to work invisible on their network.

This 6:40am call may have come from the house like he said. Maybe he set a timer and told the oldest child to press redial on the home phone when the timer went off. The kids can’t testify so we will never know.

Unless the pros has something better up their sleeve, the 6:40am remains the elephant in the room.

 

[Cheyenne130]

After reading about Craig Taylor, a 47 year old man, who was wrongfully convicted of murdering a woman in 1991, who missed being a dad, a husband and a grandfather, due to the jury convincting him with NO physical evidence at all I STRONGLY believe it is NOT right to convict solely based on circumstantial evidence. This man lost close to 20 years of his life due to serving time for a crime he did NOT commit. Like I said, I am not sure that Brad did not murder Nancy. But, at this time, all of the evidence is circumstantial. So - again, no I could not find him guilty today.

I believe it was Greg Taylor and I believe he was convicted based in part on faulty eye witness testimony.

 

[CrimeAddict]

I think what you misunderstand is the value of circumstantial evidence. (Or maybe the definition of it.) Most crimes are solved with circumstantial evidence. DNA, for instance, is circumstantial evidence. I understand that you are looking for something that is irrefutable. To many people, however, the mounds and mounds of coincidences in this case mean... It can't all be coincidence.

A necklace is made of many beads. By themselves, they mean nothing...don't even resemble a necklace. But many of them, lain side-by-side in a circle irrefutably resemble a necklace...even if there is no wire strung between them to tie them together.

Maybe that's a really crappy analogy. And maybe you need to wear the necklace in order to believe it is indeed a necklace. But most people can see that it is a necklace just from looking at it.

Wonderful post, explained very well. Circumstantial evidence piled up on BC and its very much pointing to him. I can't wait for all of the testimony to be over and to hear closing arguments.. if you have not been following the case with every word from every testimony at least that part will wrap it up for people. It's very hard to listen to all of this every day, I don't blame anyone for not completely understanding how much is really piling up on this guy. There is just a handful of us who are obsessed enough to read and watch just about everything.. someone save us, we need a life :floorlaugh:

 

[Albert]

BC may be a really smart guy, but he is not a ghost in this technology world of trace logs and servers.

It just seems more remote that he spoofed this 6:40am call and magically left no trace of it. They have what buttons he pushed to check his VM, but not one piece of evidence that he made the 6:40am call.

He did not have access to manipulate server data and logs. He may have know how to spoof a call with the right equipment, but would he have know every single server log and trace log, that call would leave behind and to not leave at least one foot-print.

As a tester of a Cisco product, I would say that would be a defect in itself for one of their products to work invisible on their network.

This 6:40am call may have come from the house like he said. Maybe he set a timer and told the oldest child to press redial on the home phone when the timer went off. The kids can’t testify so we will never know.

Unless the pros has something better up their sleeve, the 6:40am remains the elephant in the room.

Assuming he had a router configured with CallManager Express in his house then those trace files are confined to the router in his house. Again, I am aware of where the burden of proof lies. But we do know that BC had both knowledge and untraceable access to this type of gear.

 

[Maja]

On the street side or ditch side of errosion control fence?

 

[CrimeAddict]

On the street side or ditch side of errosion control fence?

I heard she was halfway down, face down towards the ditch.

 

[Maja]

That was erosion control in place prior to 8-12-08....she was face down in the ditch (would not be able to see from road unless you approached)

On the street side or ditch side of errosion control fence?

 

[johnfear]

I think what you misunderstand is the value of circumstantial evidence. (Or maybe the definition of it.) Most crimes are solved with circumstantial evidence. DNA, for instance, is circumstantial evidence. I understand that you are looking for something that is irrefutable. To many people, however, the mounds and mounds of coincidences in this case mean... It can't all be coincidence.

A necklace is made of many beads. By themselves, they mean nothing...don't even resemble a necklace. But many of them, lain side-by-side in a circle irrefutably resemble a necklace...even if there is no wire strung between them to tie them together.

Maybe that's a really crappy analogy. And maybe you need to wear the necklace in order to believe it is indeed a necklace. But most people can see that it is a necklace just from looking at it.

You need to definitely not put the necklace in another room where the cops can find it. We know that. :floorlaugh::woohoo:


In all fairness, that is a great analogy. I think what quite a few of us are looking for here is not necessarily the wire (despite the nature of this case) that hangs the beads together, but more the clasp and a big diamond pendant that fits and completes the necklace.

Why did Cummings bait Butts on electrical wire? Any takers?

 

[gracielee]

On the street side or ditch side of errosion control fence?

I think it was on the street side. Someone took the body out of a vehicle and threw it head first, face down, into the storm drain, not visible from the road/circle.

 

[carolinalady]

Wonderful post, explained very well. Circumstantial evidence piled up on BC and its very much pointing to him. I can't wait for all of the testimony to be over and to hear closing arguments.. if you have not been following the case with every word from every testimony at least that part will wrap it up for people. It's very hard to listen to all of this every day, I don't blame anyone for not completely understanding how much is really piling up on this guy. There is just a handful of us who are obsessed enough to read and watch just about everything.. someone save us, we need a life :floorlaugh:

BBM

No time to get a life, remember Jason Young's trial is scheduled to begin next month.

 

[less0305]

IMO, bottom line that the jury came away with is, "it could be done".

And just to explain I am totally lost and clueless in all this technical stuff - BUT, didn't the expert say it could be done in ten different ways? TEN?!! Yeah, I think the jury understands the significance of the fact that it COULD be done, Brad knew HOW to do it, Brad had access to WHAT it could be done with, and we know WHY it it was done.

 

[cody100]

And just to explain I am totally lost and clueless in all this technical stuff - BUT, didn't the expert say it could be done in ten different ways? TEN?!! Yeah, I think the jury understands the significance of the fact that it COULD be done, Brad knew HOW to do it, Brad had access to WHAT it could be done with, and we know WHY it it was done.

But, it doesn't mean that he did do it. In fact, none of the evidence required to do this was found at home. Plus, the call record doesn't support that he used this equipment or any other equipment from Cisco to make the call.
As the good Det. Young stated, it had to be dialed. I realize this is not a popular thought in here, but could he actually be telling the truth? I am hoping the DA has some additional information. However, I have rarely seen prosecuters take this long to reveal the smoking gun. But It is too early to convict this guy, and it is too early to clear him of this crime. Again, my opinion only, but I am entitled to my observations. And, I am way too hooked on this trial.