April 15th wknd of Sleuthing

[SleuthinNC]

Most municipalities and police departments can't afford smart phones for all their employees. Usually they have some generic flip phone that's about as updated as a tin can. Most people just use their work phone and don't carry around two cell phones, so it doesn't surprise me that neither detective know how anything about a blackberry or a smart phone. I know in my municipality - NONE of our police, public works, or administrative departments have smart phones. I'd say 99% of those employees just use the work phone as their cell and don't have their own cell phone on the side. Most don't know anything about what all a smart phone can do.

His own words state he had both experience and training related to cell phones and lists out the type of data he is familiar with people using cell phones for which has been evidence in prior cases. I don't care if he used two tin cans with a string in between for his own communications his words in the document contradict his testimony on the stand as to his knowledge of cell phones and the data they contain.

 

[less0305]

No one can verify that NC made that phone call. No one else heard her voice. There is no voice mail from NC. Not one other human being on earth can testify that NC 100% made that phone call. I believe the jury will see that Brad Cupper is a known liar. I believe the jury will see that Brad Cupper had the knowledge, means, and opportunity to spoof that call. I think the jury will see that 31 seconds is a long conversation - time it themselves. And 31 seconds is entirely too long to say "Also, get the kids some green juice, you filthy bag of exrement." He couldn't elaborate any further on anything that was said. So I don't think the jury will believe that BC and NC sat with an open phone line for 26 seconds of complete silence before hanging up on each other. They will reasonably come to the conclusion that BC was the only person who would benefit from a 31 second call from his home - to set up an alibi.

Had BC used his pointed forehead for anything other than shade for his eyes, he would have made up a 31 second conversation or argument. Once again, I see dumb people (BC). He thought out a technical alibi, just not a common sense one.

 

[less0305]

His own words state he had both experience and training related to cell phones and lists out the type of data he is familiar with people using cell phones for which has been evidence in prior cases. I don't care if he used two tin cans with a string in between for his own communications his words in the document contradict his testimony on the stand as to his knowledge of cell phones and the data they contain.

You will continue to believe what you believe, I will continue to believe what I believe. I think the detectives are believable and have no reason to frame Bradley. Bradley framed himself.

 

[Cheyenne130]

This is what bothered me because Young said certain things were Daniels and when Daniels was questioned he said they were Young's, never one wanted to take ownership. The Judge said Young could not testify if it was Daniels work and then Daniels just said they weren't his notes.

I would need to compare the defense cross of both witnesses and see if both witnesses were passing on the same information. If one answered some questions but passed on others and the second answered those questions but passed on those that had previously already been answered then I would say that each took ownership of their own portion. I will agree that neither wanted to take responsibility for the erased phone but it sounded to me like Young did take that responsibility as he is the one that erased it. MOO

 

[Cheyenne130]

There is no evidence that NC did not make that call. Until I hear the defense side of the google search I don't know how real it is and that is the only actually incriminating piece of evidence I have seen.

Looking at his stories which have been impeached by witnesses that appear to have lied pretty much makes those things a wash for me.

You can't prove a negative.

 

[Palomine]

think about it...just when would Detectives decide which defendants to frame, or do sloppy work...The whole idea of becoming a detective is finding out what actually happened. Detectives are so dedicated to their cases they work long hours, neglecting their families and loved ones...I think the government should outfit most police departments with the large scanners so everything is preserved as the day investigation started

 

[Palomine]

No one can verify that NC made that phone call. No one else heard her voice. There is no voice mail from NC. Not one other human being on earth can testify that NC 100% made that phone call. I believe the jury will see that Brad Cupper is a known liar. I believe the jury will see that Brad Cupper had the knowledge, means, and opportunity to spoof that call. I think the jury will see that 31 seconds is a long conversation - time it themselves. And 31 seconds is entirely too long to say "Also, get the kids some green juice, you filthy bag of exrement." He couldn't elaborate any further on anything that was said. So I don't think the jury will believe that BC and NC sat with an open phone line for 26 seconds of complete silence before hanging up on each other. They will reasonably come to the conclusion that BC was the only person who would benefit from a 31 second call from his home - to set up an alibi.

Had BC used his pointed forehead for anything other than shade for his eyes, he would have made up a 31 second conversation or argument. Once again, I see dumb people (BC). He thought out a technical alibi, just not a common sense one.

when the bell guy comes to fix a phone in a home the test call made from his equipment doesn't show up on the phone bill...the phone rings..but when picked up it is repair on the other end

 

[Danielle59]

Remember that picture we saw of the kitchen Thursday? That had that big ole boiling pot with the tongs in it sitting on the stove? Unless Brad boiled a ham for the children for lunch on Saturday, I guarantee you that was the pot Nancy boiled the ribs for the party in on Friday still sitting there.

I was wondering if it was clean or dirty and just hadn't been put away, if clean. A little thing, but I am curious.

 

[Albert]

Did anyone catch the mention that Officer Hayes made a note that he believed he saw NC running that morning too? It was mentioned in the defense petition. I thought it was interesting.

It seems that the facts are being stretched a bit here with this statement. Officer Hayes mentioned he saw a woman matching the description of NC. Now you are making the claim that Officer Hayes did see NC running that morning. Are you simply adjusting the facts to fit a theory?

 

[SleuthSayer]

You can't prove a negative.

You can when it involves mutually exclusive truths. So, in this case, if you could prove that someone or something else made the call, you have proved that NC did not make the call.

 

[Danielle59]

Speaking of this, I thought it was odd that when BC went to pick up the kids from HP's house on Saturday afternoon and KL was there, they went to a restaurant to eat. I couldn't imagine with all that was going on, going out to eat, or even eating at all. I would have just wanted to be home or out searching but it really did seem that there wasn't any food in the house. Were they really, really broke or what was going on in that home? I mean, NC bought ribs the previous night, why not get some food for the house too? And if she didn't have the money for that, she shouldn't have bought the ribs. It just seemed like they were really living on the edge. Both of them. If they were that strapped, did they really need the gym membership?

KL said she gave NC some money at the end of the vacation (but NC didn't have it anymore) and then JA paid her on Wednesday, so why didn't she stock the pantry and fridge?

And her father gave her $125 for a toothbrush, then changed it to $120, did she ever buy the toothbrush?

 

[Albert]

There is no evidence that NC did not make that call. Until I hear the defense side of the google search I don't know how real it is and that is the only actually incriminating piece of evidence I have seen.

Looking at his stories which have been impeached by witnesses that appear to have lied pretty much makes those things a wash for me.

So, let's see if this work both ways. Since there was no router gear or FXO port in the house then there is no evidence that BC could have made the 6:40am call. But, since there is no evidence that NC did not make the call at 6:40 then it is easy to assume as a fact that NC indeed made the call.

 

[Danielle59]

I was having a hard time figuring out how BC cleaned everything he said he did, and then seemed to have put all the toys. boxes and junk right back in the middle of everything. I guess everyone has their own system?

I think he cleaned around the boxes, or I know I would if my house looked like that in the mdist of being half packed for a potential move. The clothes in every room laying all over everything would drive me crazy, why didn't they just open another box to drop clothes in, at least they would have been centralized. A box per room even.

 

[Madeleine74]

I like how all of Cooper's lies, seen right from his own mouth on depo video, are conveniently overlooked and discarded as if they never occurred.

 

[SleuthinNC]

And her father gave her $125 for a toothbrush, then changed it to $120, did she ever buy the toothbrush?

She never bought the toothbrush. She told her father she used the toothbrush money to pay the exterminator because he required cash payment the day he did the treatment.

She also said she didn't get her $300 because BC was angry her father had given her money.

 

[SleuthinNC]

I like how all of Cooper's lies, seen right from his own mouth on depo video, are conveniently overlooked and discarded as if they never occurred.

I haven't overlooked them I have seen them be matched head to head with the lies from NC friends and CPD which are also conveniently overlooked or discarded as if they never occurred.

 

[SleuthinNC]

So, let's see if this work both ways. Since there was no router gear or FXO port in the house then there is no evidence that BC could have made the 6:40am call. But, since there is no evidence that NC did not make the call at 6:40 then it is easy to assume as a fact that NC indeed made the call.

I have never said it was assumed fact that NC made the call. What I have said all along is that there is no definitive evidence either way to prove that she did or did not make that call.

Can't be proven nor disproven, therefore to me it is a wash. You can choose to place it on whichever side of the argument you prefer or throw it out completely.

 

[Danielle59]

I can appreciate someone being suspicious with any and all inconsistencies. I can't figure out how those inconsistencies can lead away from a belief that BC committed the crime unless you ignore any and all evidence against him. I'm not talking about how much money he gave her for an allowance or what a lousy husband he was. I'm talking about his own stories, timeline and digital evidence against him in addition to all of his inconsistencies. The only "alibi" is that a call was received by his cell phone at 6:40 a.m. that came from the home phone number. There is no evidence that NC made that call. MOO

I would like to know where the blood under her nails came from. Who had broken skin at the time that could have caused that.

That would be a trace if he spoofed that call, there is no evidence that he did.

 

[Lori59]

I would like to know where the blood under her nails came from. Who had broken skin at the time that could have caused that.

That would be a trace if he spoofed that call, there is no evidence that he did.

Brad Cooper

 

[Shadow722]

Given that Nancy's body was found in a place where she would not have run, and no one saw her running there, and she was found not wearing anything but a red & black jog bra rolled under and her diamond earrings, whatever sighting RZ gave ultimately would not have led the cops to either Nancy's body or her killer.

The bug guy further added corroborating testimony that Nancy's body was available for fly infestation very early Sat morning.

Whatever RZ saw the runner wearing, wasn't found anywhere. Not on or near Nancy's body. Not around any of the running trails or sidewalks or streets. Common sense informs most people, and it is not reasonable that random attacker(s) would remove every single item of NC clothing, ponytail elastic, hat, shoes, socks, put a jog bra on her (rolled under) and then leave diamond earrings in her ears.

Nancy would have tried to fight off some random attacker, but no one heard or saw any such thing, and yet all these people saw Nancy running. So many people. Makes you wonder how anyone was able to snatch her off the sidewalk or trail with so many witnesses.

Common sense is what I think the jurors will use to determine that Nancy never went for a run on Sat July 12 because she was dead and discarded long before 7am.

Not trying to shake whatever belief you have in BC's guilt, but from a jury perspective circumstantial evidence works both ways: For example:

RZ alleged NC sighting could lead to her killer if somehow it were NOT BC....Your suspension of belief in a possible eye witness is only because it does not fit YOUR set of facts.

The bug guy's infestation time line was between 1 AM and 11 AM. Meaning 6 hours before 7 am (meaning BC did it) and 4 hours after 7 am (could mean BC did not do it). It is equally possible one way or the other, therefore not in it self definitive.

The lack of clothes on the victim when found points to no one in particular. A sociopath (whether that sociopath is BC or someone else) does not do things according to rational motives.

"Nancy would have tried to fight off some random attacker, but no one heard or saw any such thing, and yet all these people saw Nancy running. So many people. Makes you wonder how anyone was able to snatch her off the sidewalk or trail with so many witnesses." Again it is your assumption that it must be BC or a random attacker. There may be other possibilities not yet explored, but might be addressed in the defense portion or not.

Certainly the preponderance of evidence is building pointing solely to BC's guilt. But for the jury to convict the following are hurtles that must be overcome:

1) A Crime without a crime scene. There has been no forensic evidence that NC was murder in the house. None Zip....... One would then have to posit that the man who never cleans (BC), now cleaned so well as to leave no evidence, not a trace. This could be a mitigating factor against BC doing it in a jurors mind.

2) Together with a crime without a crime scene, there is no forensic evidence that BC transported NC body in either vehicle. Again it requires that the man who never cleans, now performed a perfectly forensically spotless cleaning job. This could be a mitigating factor against BC doing it in a jurors mind.

3) The 6:40 AM phone call. The Pros may have shown 10 different ways that this call could have been spoofed. What they have not done is shown any evidence to the jury that BC did in fact spoof it. To prove BC spoofed it requires more than has been shown. What that leaves in the jury's mind is perhaps reasonable doubt.

4) The google search is currently the strongest direct evidence that ties BC to the crime. But is a 41 second google map search on his own 27518 zip enough to establish that as a slam dunk? We have not heard what search frames came before or after during that 41 seconds. So if a juror is leaning towards guilty, yes those 41 seconds should be enough to convict. If a juror is leaning towards not guilty, those 41 seconds may not be enough without more direct (as opposed to circumstantial) evidence.

The google search may be enough direct evidence to convict for the jury. And it certainly puts other indirect evidence into context. And Certainly the preponderance of small items are weighing heavily against acquittal.

But there is still a bunch of trial and testimony to go. And the defense is not bound by Brady requirements, so who knows what they still might reveal and they have yet to mount their defense.

BC certainly looks guilty, but I'm not quite sure the case it is a slamdunk for the state as yet.

Respectfully......