Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[Just the Fax]

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.

The SW for jason Youngs shoes was 15 months after the murder.
And yes, it was proven the shoes were key to conviction.

Not sure about you, but most men don't typically toss a pair of shoes worn 3 months earlier. I will admit to tossing shoes into the 'goodwill pile' if I have not worn in several years.
Brad had to be frugal....his wife spent all their money :wink:

 

[otto]

The ducks were key to the prosecution's case, yet little was done to actually locate the ducks. On that basis, I'm not convinced that any conclusions can be drawn about shoes that were not requested until 15 months after the fact.

It appears that the prosecution assumed that the ducks were missing and therefore felt confident that the ducks could be included in their murder theory. It appears that they felt safe in developing a theory about any object that they couldn't be bothered to find. Instead of developing a theory based on evidence, prosecutors had a theory (Brad did it) and they felt that it was safe to take any object that wasn't in evidence and imply that because it wasn't in evidence, it was evidence that Brad was guilty.

 

[oenophile]

Not sure about you, but most men don't typically toss a pair of shoes worn 3 months earlier.

Not sure about you, but as a guy, I think most guys barely pay attention to their shoes.

Snark aside, the other thing to consider is that Brad and his family were packing things away and giving them away. That one of Brad's pairs of shoes was among those things given away shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[Madeleine74]

The ducks were key to the prosecution's case, yet little was done to actually locate the ducks.

That's false. The ducks were never key to the state's case. One witness testified she didn't see items in a picture of the foyer taken on July 12th that she remembers seeing before. Right or wrong that was her memory. The sticks in the vase were never found, btw.

 

[calgary123]

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.

You are assuming Brad would have known he didn't leave footprints at the dump site. Brad may have displayed considerable chutzpah over the years but that's going too far.

If you believe he did it, dumping the shoes is a precaution for someone who thinks maybe science would allow traces of dirt to be related back to a specific location, or who wasn't sure as to how good they were not leaving footprints. This also assumes he wasn't so careful as to use and dump different shoes than showed up in the Harris Teeter video.

If you believe he didn't do it, the shoes should be part of the inventory of goods seized under the search warrant, or should have shown up in the initial photographs taken by police. Alternatively you could believe Brad just happened to throw those shoes away shortly after his wife's death. Knowing he was under the microscope and a suspect it would be pretty stupid to be throwing that kind of item away if he himself knew he didn't do it.

I don't know what the evidence at the past trial showed about the shoes, I don't remember and maybe didn't see that part as I couldn't watch the entire trial.

 

[otto]

That's false. The ducks were never key to the state's case. One witness testified she didn't see items in a picture of the foyer taken on July 12th that she remembers seeing before. Right or wrong that was her memory. The sticks in the vase were never found, btw.

The fact remains that investigators failed to locate the ducks, and then used that absence of evidence to support the hypothetical prosecution theory that there was a struggle in the foyer ... which of course was used to support the theory that Brad is guilty. The absence of evidence was used to argue guilt.

That you mention that "sticks" were missing from the same area suggests to me that there is still some belief that those missing sticks are relevant ... yet absence of evidence should not imply guilt. If the missing ducks and sticks were not mentioned for the purpose of implying that Brad is guilty, why were they mentioned? It seems like "funny logic" in the sense that absence of stuff is used to argue guilt ... kind of bizarre, actually.

"Detectives said they were never able to find wooden ducks that sat on a table in the foyer of the Cooper home and thought that they might have been broken during a struggle."

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9508528/

 

[calgary123]

The fact remains that investigators failed to locate the ducks, and then used that absence of evidence to support the hypothetical prosecution theory that there was a struggle in the foyer ... which of course was used to support the theory that Brad is guilty. The absence of evidence was used to argue guilt.

*snip*


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9508528/

This is still as it was in the past trial a very good point. The prosecution went reaching and got stung.

But the absence of evidence is different when we're talking about a router and clothing worn on the day of the murders.

 

[Madeleine74]

The theory of a struggle in the foyer may or may not be valid and that's completely aside from any ducks. Brad's cleaning of that foyer area suggests it as one possible area of concern. Note I said "possible." There's no video of the murder and they both lived in that house so forensics outside of something obvious like blood wouldn't provide a smoking gun. Fingerprints--they would be there from both NC and BC. Hairs and fibers, ditto. This was a bloodless crime. Forensics yielded nothing inside the house from what they did test. When alleged perp and victim both reside in the same domicile then bloodless crimes make it extra challenging to find forensics and many times there are none.

This case came down to digital forensics and many lies told by the person on trial that were contradicted in the trial. There are two distinct digital pieces that help tie BC to the crime. One was entered in trial #1. The other was testified in a proffer but not brought in. If there's a 2nd trial it will be brought in. The lies aren't going away and a 2nd jury will hear them and determine if they can trust the defendant.

 

[oenophile]

The theory of a struggle in the foyer may or may not be valid and that's completely aside from any ducks. Brad's cleaning of that foyer area suggests it as one possible area of concern. Note I said "possible." There's no video of the murder and they both lived in that house so forensics outside of something obvious like blood wouldn't provide a smoking gun. Fingerprints--they would be there from both NC and BC. Hairs and fibers, ditto. This was a bloodless crime. Forensics yielded nothing inside the house from what they did test. When alleged perp and victim both reside in the same domicile then bloodless crimes make it extra challenging to find forensics and many times there are none.

On this part I agree. Although there were things missing. An actual sign of a struggle. No children awoken. No physical evidence in the trunk (other than it was clean, which is neutral). Things you would expect to see in a murder scene with two children at home. In addition, it is equally valid to evaluate the way Brad acted on the day of and days following Nancy's disappearance. This is perhaps the most compelling of all, because to me everything he did seemed normal for an innocent person. But in fact I think this is where so many people differ, because Brad's personality is not extroverted, and this can be perceived as being cold. I believe people prejudged Brad as a result, including the police, because they didn't really like him. I'll admit, I believed there was a good chance he was guilty, until I watched the trial.

This case came down to digital forensics and many lies told by the person on trial that were contradicted in the trial.

The only confirmed "lies" that I can recall are errors in memory and a couple of minor things that were not really relevant to the deposition or really the trial. If that is the case, virtually every one of Nancy's friends lied in their affidavits.

What we actually have here is a very strong assumption of guilt on the part of many people. What the case came down to was the digital forensics.

As for the other piece of digital forensics that was proffered, I'm very interested in seeing that too, because I have a feeling that it is not what it was claimed to be. But we shall see. I'm still open to the possibility that he is guilty, but not without real evidence that isn't tainted.

 

[Madeleine74]

His lies were pervasive enough that his own attorney had to proactively admit them during opening statements. That's a maneuver used to try and take the hit up front and is done when an attorney knows it's bad for his client. Brad proved himself to be a consummate and frequent liar. If one can't admit the obvious then there is little or no objectivity in play and no point in discussing the case.

 

[oenophile]

His lies were pervasive enough that his own attorney had to proactively admit them during opening statements. That's a maneuver used to try and take the hit up front and is done when an attorney knows it's bad for his client. Brad proved himself to be a consummate and frequent liar. If one can't admit the obvious then there is little or no objectivity in play and no point in discussing the case.

No offense, but that is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic. If I don't agree that Brad is a consummate and frequent liar then I am not objective? That assumes facts not entered into evidence. First, prove that he is a frequent liar. I see lots of accusations flying around, but I don't see a lot of verifiable evidence. Most times he is accused of being a liar is when his statements conflict with other witnesses whose credibility is in question. I believe there were a couple of verifiable lies in his multi-hour deposition, but that does not create a "consummate and frequent liar", that is merely your opinion (and the opinion of those here that presumed his guilt).

If you don't want to discuss the case anymore, be my guest. But don't use a tired debate tactic with me.

 

[Cherry]

He killed his wife; he left nancy there dead or dying. There IS no Debate. HE killed her and most know it. I'll go the third round. See ya at the Sentencing!

 

[oenophile]

He killed his wife; he left nancy there dead or dying. There IS no Debate. HE killed her and most know it. I'll go the third round. See ya at the Sentencing!

Santa Claus exists; he comes down the chimney every year. There IS no debate. HE exists and most know it.

At least that is the opinion of most American children. I prefer evidence.

The evidence in this case doesn't support your claim.

 

[tarheellvr]

Santa Claus exists; he comes down the chimney every year. There IS no debate. HE exists and most know it.

At least that is the opinion of most American children. I prefer evidence.

The evidence in this case doesn't support your claim.

I, among others, believes the evidence in this case DOES point to Cooper's guilt.

I'm with you Cherry......MANY of us will be here for the sentencing. Although taking a plea deal wouldn't surprise me.

 

[tarheellvr]

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:

I ALWAYS enjoy your humor.....and your knowledge of these cases is always appreciated too, especially your devotion to justice for Michelle Young.

 

[oenophile]

I, among others, believes the evidence in this case DOES point to Cooper's guilt.

I'm with you Cherry......MANY of us will be here for the sentencing. Although taking a plea deal wouldn't surprise me.

That's fair, but I ask, which evidence? Apart from the google search, all the evidence can be at least equally if not more valid if he is innocent. Is there something other than the google search that actually points to his guilt and away from his innocence?

I will be very pleased for Nancy when he is found Not Guilty, because I think it is a travesty for her memory if the wrong person is convicted of her murder. My biggest concern is that the mob mentality of BDI will continue to impact the relationship between he and his girls.

And taking a plea deal would completely surprise me, because I believe him to be innocent. If he takes a plea, he is admitting guilt. If he is actually guilty, then I believe he should take the plea deal. If he is innocent, he should not.

 

[otto]

Oenophile, I ALWAYS enjoy your humor.....and your knowledge of these cases is always appreciated too, especially your devotion to justice.

 

[tarheellvr]

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.

 

[tarheellvr]

Oenophile, I ALWAYS enjoy your humor.....and your knowledge of these cases is always appreciated too, especially your devotion to justice.

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

 

[otto]

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

There are 63,286 members on this forum. It would be very difficult to claim that one person, or another, is "more devoted" to justice. Fortunately, people have the mutual objective of ensuring that only the guilty are convicted.

The courts have ruled that Brad Cooper did not receive a fair trial, so that's a good step in the right direction - since we all saw that with our own eyes. Since Brad will have a new trial, the verdict reached by the jury is essentially annulled and he is, once again, an innocent suspect.