Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[otto]

Going the digital route, it would have been a lot easier to forge an email or text document with something related to how to do or hide a murder. Going more physical, a scrap of paper with some notes. The OJ defense team convince a jury that police planted blood splatters on socks and a bloody glove outside OJ's house. There's no limit to possibilities.

In the "plant and hide evidence" theory, what is the smallest list of people that could have done this? To pull in motive, you start including the town manager and the chief of police. To make it happen, you need all the detectives and the FBI. That's grand in my book, but maybe that's just a simple conspiracy in your book.

Only one person needed access to the computer to plant files. It only took one officer to completely wipe the cell phone and delay communicating that information to the defense. That wasn't a conspiracy, but the consequence was that evidence, that could have led to a different suspect, was destroyed.

 

[otto]

Witnesses who had lunch with Nancy testified Nancy had diet coke around 1:30pm on 7/11. Diet Coke has caffeine. The M.E. (Dr. Butts) testified caffeine can stay in/be detected in the system for well over 24 hours.

Did she have caffeine in her system? If so, why couldn't it have been from a morning-run coffee?

 

[PokerPlayer]

Unfortunately, NC police have done this before.

Please forgive my ignorance, but when and where in NC did this occur? Is the case on WS?

 

[Madeleine74]

Did she have caffeine in her system? If so, why couldn't it have been from a morning-run coffee?

Nancy drinking diet coke at lunch on 7/11/08 was witnessed and testified to by 2 people.

There was no testimony or evidence submitted that she drank coffee the morning of 7/12. Brad didn't say she had any coffee that morning, no cup was in the sink, she had no money with her to purchase coffee, she was not seen anywhere drinking coffee on 7/12, there was no evidence she was with anyone else who could have given her or purchased coffee for her on 7/12.

 

[otto]

This link documents NC prosecutors withholding evidence. Will keep looking for planted evidence ...
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/4900

Here are a couple of cases:

124. Jonathon Hoffman North Carolina Conviction: 1995, Charges Dismissed: 2007
Prosecutors in North Carolina on December 11, 2007 dropped all charges against Jonathon Hoffman, who had been convicted and sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of a jewelry storeowner. Hoffman won a new trial in 2004 (Order of the General Court of Justice Superior Court Division: 95-CRS-15695-97) because information favorable to Hoffman was withheld from the defense. During Hoffman’s first trial, the state's key witness, Johnell Porter, received immunity from federal charges for testifying against his cousin. In fact, Porter received thousands of dollars for his testimony. Neither the defense attorney nor the judge knew of this deal—an omission that resulted in the criminal investigation of Ken Honeycutt and Scott Brewer, the prosecutors in the original trial.

126. Glen Edward Chapman North Carolina Conviction: 1994, Charges Dismissed: 2008
Glen Edward Chapman, a North Carolina man who was sentenced to death for the 1992 murders of Betty Jean Ramseur and Tenene Yvette Conley, was released from death row on April 2, 2008 after prosecutors dropped all charges against him. In 2007, North Carolina Superior Court Judge Robert C. Ervin granted Chapman a new trial, citing withheld evidence, “lost, misplaced or destroyed” documents, the use of weak, circumstantial evidence, false testimony by the lead investigator, and ineffective assistance of defense counsel. There was also new information from a forensic pathologist that raised doubts as to whether Conley’s death was a homicide or caused by an overdose of drugs.

Here's another case:

"Deaver, who was fired in January 2011, is also at the center of a growing web of litigation that could ultimately cost North Carolina millions. In one lawsuit, he is accused of deliberately withholding lab results that would have helped prove the innocence of a Raleigh man accused of murdering a prostitute. That man, Greg Taylor, spent nearly 20 years in prison before being exonerated by a state commission charged with investigating prisoners' claims of innocence."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-of-investigation-duane-deaver_n_1516328.html

 

[ncsu95]

Maybe, but we don't know the extent of Brad's plans.
He likely thought he would have an extra 24 hours to clean up before he reported her missing. Maybe he planned to wipe the hard drive later. Maybe he completely trusted InPrivate browsing; modern version are much better now.

I don't think he necessarily used Google Maps to choose the dump site. He certainly had that part of the plan decided long before that day. He just happened to look at the dump site for some reason that afternoon. Second thoughts, mental rehearsing, who knows?

But, it is not logic defying. And far more logical than a grand conspiracy to plant 300 files in a cache directory and hope the FBI finds it. Much easier and more reliable ways to frame someone, IMO.

I really wish they had subpenaed the information from Google. That would solve the mystery of the google search.

 

[otto]

Nancy drinking diet coke at lunch on 7/11/08 was witnessed and testified to by 2 people.

There was no testimony or evidence submitted that she drank coffee the morning of 7/12. Brad didn't say she had any coffee that morning, no cup was in the sink, she had no money with her to purchase coffee, she was not seen anywhere drinking coffee on 7/12, there was no evidence she was with anyone else who could have given her or purchased coffee for her on 7/12.

Perhaps Nancy met with a new friend for a morning run. Perhaps that friend purchased two coffees. Perhaps she did tell Brad that she was meeting a girlfriend for a run, thinking that he'd never discover the truth. If there was caffeine in her system, it is possible that someone gave her a coffee. It seems a little unusual for police to try to trace caffeine to the day before she vanished in order to help frame Brad as a suspect.

Let's suppose that Nancy had a new friend. That's not out of the question, since she had other affairs during the marriage. Let's suppose that Nancy suggested that the new friend might be the father of her daughter. Suppose that she asked him to meet her that morning. Didn't she ask another married man to meet her for a run to discuss something along those lines? Let's suppose that new friend didn't want anything to do with it and suppose that resulted in her murder. We can't know this because the cell phone evidence was destroyed by police, and police have turned themselves into pretzels to wrap the evidence around Brad. However, if this happened, we can be 100% certain that this person did not come forward and admit to buying Nancy a coffee on the morning that she vanished.

 

[calgary123]

It defies logic to believe that Brad is such a talented computer expert that he's spoofing calls, but he so stupid with computers that he used his computer to search the exact location where the body was found. That seems like such a huge and obvious contradiction ... makes no sense whatsoever. That's like suggesting that he is very sneaky and very clever, and even though he has a degree in comp sc, he put a bulls eye target on his forehead by overlooking the fact that his computer would be checked by police.

He certainly should have known better, but someone who "reasons" themselves into planning to kill their own wife and mother of their children isn't exactly operating with all of their best faculties. He was not an expert in how browsers and the operating systems work. He made a mistake.

The alternative is, he was framed and someone planted those files. Consider how extraordinarily difficult that would be do accomplish without leaving any tracks. Then consider who could have accomplished that, and for what reasons. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[macd]

I think it only takes one person to pull off this particular conspiracy. In fact, it would be better if it were only one, then there's no one to have a crisis of conscience and tell someone.

I agree. So, which one person could have done all (or more than one) of the many things claimed by Brad's supporters?

 

[macd]

Did she have caffeine in her system? If so, why couldn't it have been from a morning-run coffee?

Because it was red liquid (wine), not brown liquid (coffee) in her stomach?

 

[macd]

Only one person needed access to the computer to plant files. It only took one officer to completely wipe the cell phone and delay communicating that information to the defense. That wasn't a conspiracy, but the consequence was that evidence, that could have led to a different suspect, was destroyed.

Was it the same person who wiped the phone as planted the 300 browser cache files? If not, the conspiracy is up to two. And neither of them were up for election.

 

[macd]

I really wish they had subpenaed the information from Google. That would solve the mystery of the google search.

Me too.

 

[Madeleine74]

Something was subpoenaed from Google approximately 4 months after the murder. I made a note of it during Det. Young's testimony. I don't know what it was that was asked for from Google and I don't recall seeing any SW, but I know it came up in testimony. No idea if Google ever responded back to that subpoena. I wrote down the exact place in the WRAL video where the question was asked. I'll retrieve that info from my notes tomorrow, if anyone is interested.

 

[StJohn]

I think it would bolster the prosecution theory that Brad needed google maps to figure out where to put his wife's body if there was evidence that he considered several locations ... not just the one zoom into the exact location. If the google maps for that location were discoverable, then any other google map searches should also be easily discovered.

If he had already decided where to put the body, why did he need the map and why would he risk having even a trace of it found on his computer? If he needed the map to figure out where to put the body, how could he possibly have zoomed in on the exact location without exploring and comparing several other locations? It seems to defy logic.

Absolutely, fantastic points. You have put your finger on something that has bothered me about that google map search from the getgo. Defies logic that someone would (1) wait until the day a murder is planned to search for a dump location and magically pick JUST the one location without exploration of other areas or (2) scout a location by car or foot, decide on it, then later search it on the computer, knowing you could be leaving behind incriminating evidence.

Setting aside the possible tampering, as a juror, I would ask, so you want me to believe BC is a telecommunications genius, who could spoof a phone call remotely and methodically plan his wife's murder, and then at the same time believe he is someone who apparently had not read Internet for Dummies to know he could not reliably eliminate evidence of a google search.

And as for his laptop being "secured" behind crime scene tape, the crime scene tape can't prevent someone from dropping files on his laptop remotely since it was still powered on and connected to the Internet and VPN.

 

[Madeleine74]

Ok I was too curious to wait so I went and retrieved my notes.

Det Jim Young sends a SW to Google 4 months and 20 days after the murder asking for Information/Data. (I haven't gone back to listen to the details since I made the notation).

But for those who want to check it out here's the source: WRAL Trial Video Day 14, Part 2, at 22:00 elapsed time.

 

[otto]

He certainly should have known better, but someone who "reasons" themselves into planning to kill their own wife and mother of their children isn't exactly operating with all of their best faculties. He was not an expert in how browsers and the operating systems work. He made a mistake.

The alternative is, he was framed and someone planted those files. Consider how extraordinarily difficult that would be do accomplish without leaving any tracks. Then consider who could have accomplished that, and for what reasons. It just doesn't make sense.

The mistake seems analogous to a cell phone expert not understanding that cell phones ping off towers. In planning a murder, wouldn't a computer expert know to ensure that he didn't use the computer to plan the murder? Instead, we are to believe that the computer expert did a map search that took him to the exact location where the body was found, and no other map searches? That sounds like more than a mistake ... that's like deliberately incriminating himself. Why would he do that?

 

[calgary123]

The mistake seems analogous to a cell phone expert not understanding that cell phones ping off towers. In planning a murder, wouldn't a computer expert know to ensure that he didn't use the computer to plan the murder? Instead, we are to believe that the computer expert did a map search that took him to the exact location where the body was found, and no other map searches? That sounds like more than a mistake ... that's like deliberately incriminating himself. Why would he do that?

OK, I'll bite.

I know Brad (at least, before he moved to NC). He's not a "computer" expert, never has been. He would show off pictures of the telephone systems he built, for example photos of miles of cat cable routed in a single room making hundreds (maybe thousands) of connections within that room, all done by him. He was very proud of these kinds of photos, where most of us would look at them and not really know what the photo was about or why he was so proud about it.

He had knowledge in a very specific area that also dealt with digital data. While his career path may have brought him specific knowledge, it did not bring him knowledge about everything to do with computers, and certainly not every detail of the Windows OS or how broswers record data.

He got sloppy while angry enough that his mind led him to want to kill his wife. Or there was a massive conspiracy. One of these last two statements is true.

 

[oenophile]

He got sloppy while angry enough that his mind led him to want to kill his wife. Or there was a massive conspiracy. One of these last two statements is true.

No, this is not a binary choice. Planting of evidence does not require a massive conspiracy. All it takes is one person, not even necessarily a cop. And in fact, it didn't even have to happen during those 27 hours, it could have been planted before.

Still, I think the burden is on the defense to present their case for tampering. I'll admit I was skeptical at first. But the whole Google map thing just doesn't fit, there was always something suspicious about it.

 

[oenophile]

Please forgive my ignorance, but when and where in NC did this occur? Is the case on WS?

I don't think there was any case notorious enough to be on WS. There is a case in Edenton NC where an officer repeatedly planted evidence. And I remember reading about a couple other cases.

But by far the largest case that featured prosecutorial misconduct in NC was the Duke Rape case. I don't believe they had planted evidence, but they did withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense.

 

[johnfear]

No, this is not a binary choice. Planting of evidence does not require a massive conspiracy. All it takes is one person, not even necessarily a cop. And in fact, it didn't even have to happen during those 27 hours, it could have been planted before.

Still, I think the burden is on the defense to present their case for tampering. I'll admit I was skeptical at first. But the whole Google map thing just doesn't fit, there was always something suspicious about it.

With respect to Calgary123 and oenophile, I had a different take on it.

1) I don't think any of this was the result of a conspiracy. I think there were a series of mistakes that were deemed negligible that weren't. I also think there was a cover-up of the mistakes.

2) I do believe that Google map without a google expert on the stand couched behind a position of national security is worthless. I could not have put any stock in it as a juror, judge or attorney. It was theatrics.

3) There were some bizarre pre-trial gymnastics in this case that bordered not on giving an appeal of the results but pitching the whole thing from the problems this caused. The court, the prosecution and the defense all openly acknowledged that evidence was being withheld past the time-limits of third party scrutiny.

4) The prosecution was deliberately misleading a judge. In any court room, this should be a problem. For some reason, it was overlooked and nearly rewarded.

I was (kind of am) on the fence about what transpired. I had trouble looking at it from the perspective of manslaughter or 2nd degree murder because of the google map and the allegations of a spoofed phone call. I didn't feel it was a first degree murder case as much as it might of been a moment of anger and a bizarre coverup by the perp (from the BC did it side of my brain) and I didn't feel the prosecution was being honest. The things they said early on to throw off the defense were awful. I remember hearing (in court) the DNA evidence conversation between HK and HC and being baffled that they weren't sharing that information in a truthful fashion.

I also sat through arguments here and in person with folks about other crimes that were never solved that felt similar. Most of those have been knifings. But, there were a few strangulations, and the cold case guy deep in my brain won't let that go.

All in all, it was just awful execution of a terrible idea born of tragic circumstances.