Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[oenophile]

....it also seems unlikely, that in a life or death struggle, her socks and shoes would be removed.

Shoes very likely. Socks I would agree.

 

[otto]

Shoes very likely. Socks I would agree.

Joanna Yates, landscape architect in Bristol, was murdered in her apartment. Not only were her socks and shoes removed, but one sock was missing. The missing sock was very likely some part the murder "weapon", or it was used during the murder and contained evidence ... so it was removed from the scene by the murderer. There was no evidence of sexual assault, but during the trial it became apparent that the murder was sexually motivated.

 

[otto]

What were police able to determine from evidence at the scene: footprints that didn't match Brad, tire tracks that didn't match family vehicles? If the investigation was not overshadowed by tunnel vision, then that evidence would have been pursued. For example, footprints found at the scene of Michelle Young's murder were thoroughly examined. Did investigators follow that same procedure regarding unknown footprints in the murder of Nancy Cooper and, if not, why not?

 

[Just the Fax]

The footprints in the Young case were made in the home, in blood. Quite obvious they belonged to the killer.
Though examined, random footprints and tire tracks around an outdoor construction site were not necessarily tied to the killer.

 

[oenophile]

I want to state up front to Just the Fax that I'm not trying to pick on you specifically, but want rather to illustrate a point from an earlier post.

You said the following in this thread:

Strangled with no evidence of sexual assault? Odd don't ya think, considering she was not wearing underwear or shorts, but her jog bra was there - though turned in the wrong way- suggesting it was placed by someone else. Maybe this was foot fetish monster since she was also stripped of her socks and shoes? This is just another piece of HUGE circumstantial evidence pointing straight to Brad Cooper.

Unrelated to this post, I went back to the original thread on Nancy because I was curious how Brad was being portrayed and what was being said by people about the murder. Ironically, I stumbled on this post:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C.

If she has her jogging clothes on ....and she will....that will be his alibi.
(so he thinks)

My point is that people will create a narrative to fit the suspect to the facts, rather than the other way around. And this whole case is about creating a narrative to fit Brad to the facts, even when the facts are wrong. He must have done it because there are missing shoes. He must have done it because there aren't missing shoes. Etc. Etc.

There are many people here who were and are clearly predisposed to his guilt (even though they deny this) and will fit the narrative to the facts. Here's another example from that same thread:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C.

If it happened Friday night, I'd think the ME would be able to tell by stomach contents and blood test if she had alcohol. That would definitely disprove she went jogging Sat. morning, imo.

The ME did determine that her stomach was nearly empty, and that the alcohol tests were consistent with decomposition following sobriety, not decomposition following medium drinking. But again, people found a way to suggest that this showed his guilt via a piece of onion and brown liquid.

The reason why I am convinced of Brad's innocence is because I never had an assumption of his guilty, and all the evidence except for the google search is either neutral or points to his innocence. I then look at the google search, consider the defense's arguments and experts (which I admit sound a bit far fetched), and ask: did the Cary PD or others have motive and opportunity to plant this evidence? And the overwhelming answer is yes.

I realize that this is just an internet BB, and that we are all equal here and entitled to our own opinions. But I have difficulty understanding how an informed opinion can result in such absolute belief in his guilt.

 

[otto]

It sounds somewhat like: Self fulfilling prophecy.

A prediction is made such that A implies B. When A is not true, then the prediction is modified such that also not A implies B.

A-->B
-A -->B

That would mean that B is true regardless of A.
If A is clothing and B is guilt, then the assumption is that Brad is guilty regardless of what clothing were present/absent.

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes oenophile,I was very suspicious of Brad Cooper very early on and always thought he likely did it. The evidence I heard at trial proved beyond a reasonable doubt he was the killer. And yes, I'm dismissing neighborhood gossip, the missing necklace, ducks, dresses, laundry, beds sheets, ect. With the the Department of Justice answer to the appellate court, the Attorney General outlined a very compelling case for guilt by recapping an abundance of compelling CE presented by the state at trial.

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/nancycooper/2013/02/28/12166096/4128-sccoa.pdf

 

[oenophile]

Yes oenophile,I was very suspicious of Brad Cooper very early on and always thought he likely did it. The evidence I heard at trial proved beyond a reasonable doubt he was the killer. And yes, I'm dismissing neighborhood gossip, the missing necklace, ducks, dresses, laundry, beds sheets, ect. With the the Department of Justice answer to the appellate court, the Attorney General outlined a very compelling case for guilt by recapping an abundance of compelling CE presented by the state at trial.

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/nancycooper/2013/02/28/12166096/4128-sccoa.pdf

Thank you for posting that, the farcical state brief illustrates my point entirely. Just look at the shoes. State points to the shoes as evidence to the murder, yet the evidence says otherwise. It is worth reading the opinion of the appellate court, as from a matter of law, their opinion differs from yours completely:

The Google Map files recovered from Defendant's laptop were perhaps the most important pieces of evidence admitted in this trial.

and

The sole physical evidence linking Defendant to Ms. Cooper's murder was the alleged Google Map search, conducted on Defendant's laptop, of the exact area where Ms. Cooper's body was discovered. Absent this evidence, the evidence connecting Defendant to this crime was primarily potential motive, opportunity, and testimony of suspicious behavior.

Thus, absent the Google search, the appeals court unanimously disagrees with your conclusions as well as the state's brief.

I was highlighting your words to make a point, that you have already decided who is guilty and that you are taking the facts of the case and making them fit this predetermined conclusion. You are doing exactly what the state did. And the state's brief is an artistic example of this. Are the BDI folks willing to start from scratch and consider the concept that Brad was not guilty of this crime, then look at the facts from this perspective?

 

[Just the Fax]

Speaking of shoes......wonder what happened to the "white toed tennis shoes w/ black stripe" seen in the Harris Teeter video at 6:22 AM?
They were never seen again and the mysterious disappearance was never explained.

 

[oenophile]

Speaking of shoes......wonder what happened to the "white toed tennis shoes w/ black stripe" seen in the Harris Teeter video at 6:22 AM?
They were never seen again and the mysterious disappearance was never explained.

The ducks were wearing them....

 

[ncsu95]

Speaking of shoes......wonder what happened to the "white toed tennis shoes w/ black stripe" seen in the Harris Teeter video at 6:22 AM?
They were never seen again and the mysterious disappearance was never explained.

If I remember correctly, they never asked for them or searched for them....just like the ducks.

 

[calgary123]

If I remember correctly, they never asked for them or searched for them....just like the ducks.

On the day of her disappearance, they wouldn't have had the Harris Teeter video. However, they should have asked him what he wore there and asked him to show them those clothes. Sounds like basic police work to me.

 

[Madeleine74]

Slippery slope there. If somebody is "missing," no one knows if they're going to be back within a couple more hours, and if the police start asking for the spouse's stuff, when there's no evidence yet of a crime, they would be in hot water legally. By the time the police knew there was in fact a crime committed, Brad had lawyered up. Who were they supposed to ask for his shoes? His lawyers? Brad wasn't talking to police at that point. I think there's an assumption made the police not only had the Harris Teeter video but had viewed the video at least a couple times within the first couple of days and before a body had been found. I don't think that assumption is correct

 

[ncsu95]

I'm not making that assumption. JTF is talking about Brad's missing shoes. I'm simply pointing out that they never asked for them. So they can't be missing and that can't be some type of indication of his guilt.

 

[Madeleine74]

Pictures were taken of the house on the 12th (the day NC was reported missing). If BC had those shoes they should have appeared either at the front door or back door, since BC in his deposition stated he always took his shoes off before entering the house (he claimed that was a "Canadian thing"). Those shoes did not appear in any photos from that day, nor from ones taken on the 15th.

The idea that an item or items can only be considered missing if someone asks the owner for them is illogical and preposterous. The shoes were either there (in or at the house) or they were not. The router is considered missing (no one has argued it's not missing) and police didn't ask BC for that either, nor did they know about such a piece of equipment until much later.

 

[ncsu95]

Just because the shoes weren't photographed doesn't mean they weren't there. I think the ducks prove that. As for the router, we know he had one at some point. We don't know that he had it in July of 2008 based on the evidence presented during the first trial. We also know Cisco doesn't have a very good inventory control process. If there are network logs to prove he had and used one on July 11/12th 2008, then showit in the next trial. Other than that, it is pure speculation.

 

[Just the Fax]

10/29/08 SW for the cooper home included a search for the shoes seen in the Harris Teeter video. After a complete search, the shoes were not found.

Maybe Brad gave them to Goodwill, like his contemporary, Jason Young? :floorlaugh:

 

[Madeleine74]

If the defense had or knew where those shoes were (and knew those shoes didn't implicate BC in the murder) they would have happily marched them into the courtroom for a "gotcha" moment. We know the shoes existed; they were seen on video July 12th. Where did those shoes go? I believe their owner got rid of them on the 12th.

 

[oenophile]

If the defense had or knew where those shoes were (and knew those shoes didn't implicate BC in the murder) they would have happily marched them into the courtroom for a "gotcha" moment. We know the shoes existed; they were seen on video July 12th. Where did those shoes go? I believe their owner got rid of them on the 12th.

You believe but there is no evidence to back up your belief. Things get misplaced all the time. If your hypothesis is correct, then the ducks would have been found earlier. But the fact is, the police weren't looking for them. If they weren't looking for them, sometime during the course of a) a move and b) brad being locked up, they can very easily be misplaced or given away or whatever.

I must admit, I'm going back and watching a lot of the trial video, and I am simply amazed that Brad was even arrested for this crime. Virtually everything that the prosecution presented was either refuted, mistaken, or simply made up.

Finally back to the shoes. Like every other piece of evidence in this case, the prosecution would fit the facts to Brad. If they had the shoes, and they were muddy, they would blame him for the murder. If the had the shoes, and they were clean, they would say he cleaned them and blame him for the murder, claiming it is evidence of a cover up. If they didn't have the shoes (even though they never asked for them), then they blame him for the murder. Just like Nancy's shoes. Just like the bra. Just like the keys. Just like the trunk of the car. Just like the necklace. Just like the bugs. Just like the autopsy. No matter what the facts indicate, they find a way to make it implicate Brad (even when it doesn't) and the gullible follow LE like a flock of sheep.

 

[ncsu95]

Why would he have gotten rid of them? There were no footprints that matched his size at the site. Did that search warrant also include the ducks? Not finding something 3.5 months after a crime doesn't prove anything.