Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[oenophile]

oenophile ....I'm a strong believer in circumstantial evidence.

I am too, but only when it points toward guilt. Let's take a look at each one of those things:

I think the videos at Harris Teeter speak volumes.....

I watched them. Several times. They look like someone going in and buying a few products. There is nothing unusual about them.

and where ARE the shoes?

By shoes, I assume you mean Brad's? It has already been demonstrated in dramatic fashion that something thought to be missing was not sought until months or years later. And in a move, with other people around the house, things go missing all the time. Had the police asked to see the shoes within a week of seeing the video, I would agree with this being circumstantial evidence. But not under these circumstances.

Another thing for me is the router....where is it?

There is no evidence of a router in the house immediately prior to the murder. As to the router going missing, it wasn't Brad's router going missing, it was Cisco's router. There is no reason to believe that a router he took home for a weekend stayed in the house for months. And Cisco routers in the office apparently were borrowed by different groups all the time, trying to locate it 2.5 years later doesn't make something missing.

The deposition video is of importance to me as is his demeanor in the beginning.

This, as I mentioned upthread, is the crux of the reason people think Brad is guilty. Personally, based on the deposition video and the way that he is described to have acted, I find his behavior to fit his personality and to reflect his innocence, not his guilt. In fact, if you look at the affidavits by Nancy's friends on behalf of the Rentz's, they all describe him as socially awkward. And that is precisely how he acted.

It is his demeanor and his personality that will never allow the BDI advocates to consider his innocence, despite the evidence.

I'll note, I have not followed Jason Young or Raven Abaroa, so I cannot comment on those two cases.

BTW.....I spoke with an attorney/judge relative over the weekend. I was told roughly 5% of appeals in NC are found to be valid and a new trial granted when citing errors from the presiding trial judge. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.........I have a strong feeling Brad Cooper AND Jason Young will be sitting right where they are for the rest of their lives. The odds are NOT in their favor.

Out of curiosity, did the relative read the opinion? Thus far, every legal analyst in the media who has read it said that it was a correct decision.

 

[oenophile]

As for justice, there is no one here more devoted to justice than JTF......just saying.......

In this particularly case, devotion to justice means devotion to finding and convicting the person or persons that murdered Nancy, NOT convicting Brad. Brad should only be convicted if the evidence says he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the police and some people forget this.

 

[Just the Fax]

"In the petition seeking Supreme Court review, prosecutors contend that the defense challenged the computer evidence and argued at the close of the trial that someone had tampered with the files. Prosecutors further contend that the defense had other computer experts on their potential witness list whose expertise would not have been challenged, but the defense chose not to call them as part of a tactical move.

Prosecutors also argued that the Google Map search was not “direct evidence,” as defined by previous court decisions, but should have been considered circumstantial.

“It is strong circumstantial evidence in this case, to be sure,” Daniel P. O’Brien, an assistant NC attorney general, stated in the petition for discretionary review. “But it is only one piece of strong circumstantial evidence amidst a sea of strong pieces of circumstantial evidence, chief among them being the evidence that came from the defendant himself, the plethora of his demonstrable and highly inculpatory lies.”

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/20/3213035/prosecutors-ask-nc-supreme-court.html#storylink=cpy

 

[otto]

"In the petition seeking Supreme Court review, prosecutors contend that the defense challenged the computer evidence and argued at the close of the trial that someone had tampered with the files. Prosecutors further contend that the defense had other computer experts on their potential witness list whose expertise would not have been challenged, but the defense chose not to call them as part of a tactical move.

Prosecutors also argued that the Google Map search was not “direct evidence,” as defined by previous court decisions, but should have been considered circumstantial.

“It is strong circumstantial evidence in this case, to be sure,” Daniel P. O’Brien, an assistant NC attorney general, stated in the petition for discretionary review. “But it is only one piece of strong circumstantial evidence amidst a sea of strong pieces of circumstantial evidence, chief among them being the evidence that came from the defendant himself, the plethora of his demonstrable and highly inculpatory lies.”

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/09/20/3213035/prosecutors-ask-nc-supreme-court.html#storylink=cpy

Perhaps this would be a good time to borrow a page from the Amanda Knox is Innocent camp. Brad was in a foreign country, he didn't understand the law, he must have been confused and upset that he was being accused of murdering his beautiful wife ... who vanished during a morning run while he was looking after the preschool children. He was being shunned by not only neighbors, but also his own extended family (Nancy's family). With that kind of stress on an introverted computer geek, it cannot be surprising that he potentially made statements that were not 100% accurate.

 

[ncsu95]

oenophile ....I'm a strong believer in circumstantial evidence. As far as actual evidence, I think the videos at Harris Teeter speak volumes.....and where ARE the shoes? Another thing for me is the router....where is it? The deposition video is of importance to me as is his demeanor in the beginning. Even without the google search, I would have found him guilty had I been on the jury.

I know not one of these things point to guilt......I know this. It is the "whole picture" I have considered. Just as in Jason Young and Raven Abaroa, it's putting everything together and looking at the "whole picture" of things.

When I do this in all 3 cases, the ONLY verdict I can possibly see/believe/etc is guilty.....and yes, I can say this without a shadow of a doubt.

BTW.....I spoke with an attorney/judge relative over the weekend. I was told roughly 5% of appeals in NC are found to be valid and a new trial granted when citing errors from the presiding trial judge. Guess we'll have to wait and see what happens.........I have a strong feeling Brad Cooper AND Jason Young will be sitting right where they are for the rest of their lives. The odds are NOT in their favor.

What exactly do the ht videos speak volumes about? That he was at the store buying milk, detergent, and juice? Oh the horror. As for the shoes, they didn't look for them until months after the murder. That proves nothing. As for the router, there was no evidence that he had one in his possession at the time of the murder. We know he had one 18 months earlier. And we also know that Cisco kept horrible records. And we know that the router he had can't be located. But given their lack of record keeping, you can't definitively say he had it that night. And you can't say he used it that night. Now there were hints that someone would testify about logs showing he had one and used it that night. But without that testimony, it's a hypothetical that he had and used one that night or morning. And a lot of this case was hypothetical. I o hope the prosecution presents valid and concrete evidence showing how he spoofed the call and how private browsing caused the file errors with the google search. Because him knowing how to spoof a call isn't proof that he did. And if Nancy made that call, he didn't kill her.

And as I talked about during the trial, I'm still really bothered by the test work calls he made that morning (validating a system upgrade I believe). I find it hard to believe that someone that just killed there wife and that was in the middle of cleaning it up, would take the time to make work calls in the middle of it. That has always bothered me.

 

[Just the Fax]

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/nancycooper/2013/09/23/12915978/Bradley_Cooper-nacqpdr.pdf

The state spending $500,000+ on a new trial (DA and indigent defense), only to hear the tainted testimony of 2 publicity hound defense experts? What a waste of tax money. The state will have proof of the missing router and additional experts that will flush the ridiculous defense theory of planting files by CPD....or a drive-by hacker that is beyond stupid.

The response by the Attorney General office is compelling. I think the SC will review the case and overturn the court of Appeals ruling.

 

[ncsu95]

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/nancycooper/2013/09/23/12915978/Bradley_Cooper-nacqpdr.pdf

The state spending $500,000+ on a new trial (DA and indigent defense), only to hear the tainted testimony of 2 publicity hound defense experts? What a waste of tax money. The state will have proof of the missing router and additional experts that will flush the ridiculous defense theory of planting files by CPD....or a drive-by hacker that is beyond stupid.

The response by the Attorney General office is compelling. I think the SC will review the case and overturn the court of Appeals ruling.

The state should have presented proof of the missing router during the first trial. And they should have flushed the ridiculous defense theory during the original trial instead of pulling the unethical crap they did. They have no one to blame but themselves. It was a farce and I hope he gets a new trial.

 

[Cherry]

The state did just fine in it's first case proving that he pulled up the very site long- lat site exactly where she was found DUMPED at.

Period End Of Story!

 

[borndem]

This WRAL article, today:

NC Supreme Court grants stay in Brad Cooper appeal

http://www.wral.com/state-will-ask-supreme-court-to-consider-brad-cooper-appeal/12916203/

 

[oenophile]

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/nancycooper/2013/09/23/12915978/Bradley_Cooper-nacqpdr.pdf

I admit that the state's brief is a much more compelling read than the appeal brief. And it is more well written too.

The state spending $500,000+ on a new trial (DA and indigent defense), only to hear the tainted testimony of 2 publicity hound defense experts?

"Publicity hound defense experts"? That doesn't sound like an accurate description from someone that is more devoted to justice than anyone else here.

What a waste of tax money.

A trial is a waste of tax money? That doesn't sound accurate from someone that is more devoted to justice than anyone else here.

The state will have proof of the missing router and additional experts that will flush the ridiculous defense theory of planting files by CPD....or a drive-by hacker that is beyond stupid.

Ditto.

The response by the Attorney General office is compelling. I think the SC will review the case and overturn the court of Appeals ruling.

Given how well written the state brief is, I do think there is a chance that the SC will review the case, but I don't think there is a chance they will overturn the ruling.

 

[Just the Fax]

The state should have presented proof of the missing router during the first trial. And they should have flushed the ridiculous defense theory during the original trial instead of pulling the unethical crap they did. They have no one to blame but themselves. It was a farce and I hope he gets a new trial.

Tactical move not to call the CISCO employee that retrieved the logs showing Brad in fact used the router Friday night. Similar tactical move by the defense not to call their prepared computer expert that was on the witness list. Perhaps their legit expert did not agree with Mr Ward?

Why did Cooper bold face lie about laying down with the girls at 9:30 PM, falling asleep, only to be"awaken by Nancy around midnight" ? Internet history and screen unlocks with his
password showed that he was up and active and on the internet on the night of Friday 11 July 2008 at 10:05, 10:17, 10:39, 10:45, 11:17, 11:32, 11:49, and 12 midnight.

And....per brief...., "Phone billing records, which contrasted with his call
history as he presented it to detectives on 14 July, revealed that he had
selectively deleted certain calls he had made that morning and lied about
it to detectives; those calls were likely used to test and initiate the
automated calls.

 

[Grammy Jean]

Tactical move not to call the CISCO employee that retrieved the logs showing Brad in fact used the router Friday night. Similar tactical move by the defense not to call their prepared computer expert that was on the witness list. Perhaps their legit expert did not agree with Mr Ward?

Why did Cooper bold face lie about laying down with the girls at 9:30 PM, falling asleep, only to be"awaken by Nancy around midnight" ? Internet history and screen unlocks with his
password showed that he was up and active and on the internet on the night of Friday 11 July 2008 at 10:05, 10:17, 10:39, 10:45, 11:17, 11:32, 11:49, and 12 midnight.

And....per brief...., "Phone billing records, which contrasted with his call
history as he presented it to detectives on 14 July, revealed that he had
selectively deleted certain calls he had made that morning and lied about
it to detectives; those calls were likely used to test and initiate the
automated calls.

and the fact that Brad with all his technology expertise asked a friend during the search for Nancy how to access his incoming calls on his cell phone. I am very very limited when it comes to technology and even I know how to view my incoming calls.
Also the exterminator's description of the garage AFTER Nancy's vacation was quite incriminating. I seriously believe those two circumstantial pieces of evidence are every bit as incriminating as the google search.

 

[thepinkdragon]

Wow, I just watched an ID show today on this case! Now I have 20+ pages to go back and read.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[oenophile]

and the fact that Brad with all his technology expertise asked a friend during the search for Nancy how to access his incoming calls on his cell phone. I am very very limited when it comes to technology and even I know how to view my incoming calls.
Also the exterminator's description of the garage AFTER Nancy's vacation was quite incriminating. I seriously believe those two circumstantial pieces of evidence are every bit as incriminating as the google search.

My problem with this type of analysis is that if you take 50 things that anyone does in any given day, five of those things can probably be used to incriminate you in some crime that you didn't do just out of randomness, 40 are neutral, and the other five will tend to make you seem innocent. If you just focus on the five that make you look guilty and ignore the five that make you look innocent (as well as the neutral stuff), you can blame practically anyone for anything on circumstantial evidence.

This type of analysis is sloppy at best and dishonest at worst. In the case of this forum, I consider it sloppy. In the case of the NC DA, I think it is dishonest.

 

[Just the Fax]

My problem with this type of analysis is that if you take 50 things that anyone does in any given day, five of those things can probably be used to incriminate you in some crime that you didn't do just out of randomness, 40 are neutral, and the other five will tend to make you seem innocent. If you just focus on the five that make you look guilty and ignore the five that make you look innocent (as well as the neutral stuff), you can blame practically anyone for anything on circumstantial evidence.

This type of analysis is sloppy at best and dishonest at worst. In the case of this forum, I consider it sloppy. In the case of the NC DA, I think it is dishonest.

Well, in this case there are way more than five things Cooper did that incriminated himself. And no, taken in totality, they do not suggest randomness or just weird coincidences. In addition, there are numerous calculated, bold face lies told to CPD in a clear attempt to deceive.

Some want to ignore the clear lies and deception and latch on to one of the tiny pieces of CE the state used in 3+ weeks that was weak, or in fact neutral to suggest he is innocent. The necklace... the tarp...the ducks....the dress color....the Saucony shoes, ect. Jurors weigh the evidence and obviously dismiss a lot of small pieces of testimony due to reasonable doubt in CE cases. In the end, they have to ask, why would this man lie numerous times and try to deceive the police if he was 100% innocent?

 

[oenophile]

Well, in this case there are way more than five things Cooper did that incriminated himself. And no, taken in totality, they do not suggest randomness or just weird coincidences. In addition, there are numerous calculated, bold face lies told to CPD in a clear attempt to deceive.

Some want to ignore the clear lies and deception and latch on to one of the tiny pieces of CE the state used in 3+ weeks that was weak, or in fact neutral to suggest he is innocent. The necklace... the tarp...the ducks....the dress color....the Saucony shoes, ect. Jurors weigh the evidence and obviously dismiss a lot of small pieces of testimony due to reasonable doubt in CE cases. In the end, they have to ask, why would this man lie numerous times and try to deceive the police if he was 100% innocent?

Lies are another thing that have lots of misinterpretations. Especially when you are talking about memories. I guarantee that if you describe what you did the day before, you will forget things. Especially if you are in the midst of a traumatic event.

The necklace, the tarp, the ducks, the dress color: these are all neutral items, although they do tend to make Nancy's friends look like bold faced liars, don't they? See how memories can be manipulated to make someone look like a liar?

The missing set of Saucony shoes are CE that suggest his innocence.

As stated before, there are lots of other pieces of physical and circumstantial evidence that point to his innocence. The big one, of course, is the phone call. Of course the police and others have the ridiculous theory that he faked it, which is just stupid. (sound familiar?)

But there are others. The stomach contents point toward innocence. The alcohol content points toward innocence. The daughter describing the mother that morning points toward innocence (I would love to see this evidence reinstated). The footprints and tire tracks at the dump site point toward innocence. The multiple sightings of Nancy point toward innocence.

No, all this stuff about the other circumstantial evidence is just smoke screen for the truth: the Google map is what convicted him. The jury spokesperson said this. The appeals court said this. There is no argument.

 

[oenophile]

And one other thing that always bothered me: why would a guilty person put himself through an eight hour deposition when he knew that his words could be used to impeach him if they were purposefully not true? Doing the deposition itself is the act of an innocent man.

 

[Just the Fax]

And one other thing that always bothered me: why would a guilty person put himself through an eight hour deposition when he knew that his words could be used to impeach him if they were purposefully not true? Doing the deposition itself is the act of an innocent man.

Cooper is a highly intelligent man and he thought he could easily outsmart a family law attorney and the cops behind many of the questions. He also won over many like you that said "doing the deposition itself is the act of an innocent man". I for one did not fall for his charade.

 

[seattlechiquita]

And one other thing that always bothered me: why would a guilty person put himself through an eight hour deposition when he knew that his words could be used to impeach him if they were purposefully not true? Doing the deposition itself is the act of an innocent man.

He would not be the first nor the last defendant to think him/herself smart enough to fool LE. Pretty common for perps to volunteer talking to LE for hours on end... think Jodi Arias.

 

[Madeleine74]

The problem is when you try and logic it out why someone who is smart would do dumb things, as if there's some kind of IQ test where if you score well it somehow proves you cannot be guilty of a murder. And we all know it doesn't work that way, yet that is often one of the arguments used why Cooper can't be guilty.

Killing someone in cold blood is dumb. Killing someone in a rage is dumb. Lying to people, especially investigators is dumb. But humans do all of it, be they smart, average, or slow. So the argument, "he's too smart to do that because that's really dumb and he's not dumb, so he couldn't/wouldn't do that, knowing he'd get caught if he did that" doesn't wash and it makes no sense. It's a circular argument that goes nowhere and means nothing.