Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[calgary123]

I've followed this case so long in a casual manner I've forgotten some of the reasons I think he did it. That appeal brief is dynamite. Still, he'll get his retrial because there are important principles at stake.

And the digital forensics world has changed a lot since then, I sat through a seminar today and did you know they now have "Faraday Bags", where they put the smart phone into the bag and even with a battery installed, remote wiping instructions won't penetrate the bag? News to me, but a good idea. The bag has its own internal plug to access the device without permitting internet interference. And yes the CPD screwed up erasing the blackberry, that's a live issue for the next trial.

Anyway, while my own reasons for initially believing guilt may differ from those focused on a legal perspective, for anyone who is interested, check out my early posts (you can search my username, I've pretty much only posted about this case).

During the deposition, he lied about the name of his ex-fiance. He also lied about who his friends were in Canada. There are lies not even pointed out on this forum and certainly not pointed out in trial. There just wouldn't be enough time. Certainly these facts didn't make it into the appeal brief. The prosecution actually chose not to call witnesses who would verify some of those lies, but there were witnesses given subpoenas who were ready to do so if asked. The reasons he lied about those people are probably slightly sensational, but telling. Its not direct evidence, but he really didn't want certain things to be known by the prosecutors.

There are enough lies in his deposition testimony that my view is he took the risk. I believe his thinking was he would beat the system and felt that public backlash against him not submitting to a deposition (i.e. defending the custody of his daughters) would be worse than taking the risk of lying. He knew he would have a jury trial. He needed a jury that might believe in him. And I don't think he appreciated the breadth of questions that would be asked of him, including his past relationships. In that regard, I also don't think he had any idea about the depth of the investigation against him and figured vague responses would win the day. He certainly didn't know the CPD already knew he had been surfing the net while he claimed to be asleep.

Submitting to the deposition was a massive mistake, legally and factually. He never should have participated in that deposition, and his own lawyers never should have let him. Give Kurtz all the credit you guys want, this was the single biggest mistake they made... why in the hell would they allow Brad to be civilly questioned while one of their own civil attorneys IN THE SAME FIRM sat by? I guess they themselves believed him, but still, look at the resources on the internet about why you should never speak with the police, then consider that what Brad did was the effective equivalent. ProTip: If your client is a murder suspect, DON'T LET HIM TESTIFY IN THE CIVIL ACTION!

I don't think Brad appreciated the level of resources that would come after him and figured that his lies which in many cases were not related to the events of the day, would never be checked out. I also think the Kurtz group believed Brad and well.... there it went. Your client may say he didn't do it.... but don't expose him!

Once the authorities started checking the lies from the deposition out it only fueled the fire for pursing a criminal case that he did it. And I think they were right.

For those that want to forgive Brad's lies because he may have been stressed on the day due to his missing wife, or the stress of the police being there, how about the fact he prepared and submitted to questioning in the civil matter? Did his memory also temporarily fail him at those moments such that he couldn't remember his own past and lengthy history? He knew he was a suspect! What was the motivation for his lies during the deposition?

Anyway, he'll get a new trial. He'll be convicted again. And there will be a segment which still will say it was someone else that killed Nancy. And they'll be wrong.

 

[borndem]

Excellent points, Calgary -- And for one of the best & most intelligent family attorneys, Alice Stubbs, to be the one who questions him was very unfortunate for him. She's a real ace and one to be reckoned with in that arena.

Many folks think that LE just decided that he was the husband/killer and went no further with their investigation -- that's just not so, IMO. Sometimes you just can't get by what a witness (not on the stand) has told you -- LE checked what he told them and it didn't add up and their experience -- and they had a lot of it -- told them that it didn't sound right & it didn't look right. This wasn't long after her body was found -- so they started to dig more. By the time the custody hearing had come & gone, LE had more facts about the case... Now BC's self-dug hole was quite a bit deeper. As you said, that's what made him look so guilty -- LE couldn't get past that, and neither could he.

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Calgary.

 

[otto]

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.

Would a highly intelligent man with a University degree in Computer Science use a work computer to search one, and only one, location using google maps, and then put his wife's body at that exact location the very next day?

That sounds like something a very stupid man would do.

Is he an intelligent man; a computer expert, but when it comes to understanding computer footprints, he's suddenly stupid? That's like an oxymoron ... it does not compute.

I didn't fall for the neighborhood witch hunt charade.

 

[otto]

I've followed this case so long in a casual manner I've forgotten some of the reasons I think he did it. That appeal brief is dynamite. Still, he'll get his retrial because there are important principles at stake.

And the digital forensics world has changed a lot since then, I sat through a seminar today and did you know they now have "Faraday Bags", where they put the smart phone into the bag and even with a battery installed, remote wiping instructions won't penetrate the bag? News to me, but a good idea. The bag has its own internal plug to access the device without permitting internet interference. And yes the CPD screwed up erasing the blackberry, that's a live issue for the next trial.

Anyway, while my own reasons for initially believing guilt may differ from those focused on a legal perspective, for anyone who is interested, check out my early posts (you can search my username, I've pretty much only posted about this case).

During the deposition, he lied about the name of his ex-fiance. He also lied about who his friends were in Canada. There are lies not even pointed out on this forum and certainly not pointed out in trial. There just wouldn't be enough time. Certainly these facts didn't make it into the appeal brief. The prosecution actually chose not to call witnesses who would verify some of those lies, but there were witnesses given subpoenas who were ready to do so if asked. The reasons he lied about those people are probably slightly sensational, but telling. Its not direct evidence, but he really didn't want certain things to be known by the prosecutors.

There are enough lies in his deposition testimony that my view is he took the risk. I believe his thinking was he would beat the system and felt that public backlash against him not submitting to a deposition (i.e. defending the custody of his daughters) would be worse than taking the risk of lying. He knew he would have a jury trial. He needed a jury that might believe in him. And I don't think he appreciated the breadth of questions that would be asked of him, including his past relationships. In that regard, I also don't think he had any idea about the depth of the investigation against him and figured vague responses would win the day. He certainly didn't know the CPD already knew he had been surfing the net while he claimed to be asleep.

Submitting to the deposition was a massive mistake, legally and factually. He never should have participated in that deposition, and his own lawyers never should have let him. Give Kurtz all the credit you guys want, this was the single biggest mistake they made... why in the hell would they allow Brad to be civilly questioned while one of their own civil attorneys IN THE SAME FIRM sat by? I guess they themselves believed him, but still, look at the resources on the internet about why you should never speak with the police, then consider that what Brad did was the effective equivalent. ProTip: If your client is a murder suspect, DON'T LET HIM TESTIFY IN THE CIVIL ACTION!

I don't think Brad appreciated the level of resources that would come after him and figured that his lies which in many cases were not related to the events of the day, would never be checked out. I also think the Kurtz group believed Brad and well.... there it went. Your client may say he didn't do it.... but don't expose him!

Once the authorities started checking the lies from the deposition out it only fueled the fire for pursing a criminal case that he did it. And I think they were right.

For those that want to forgive Brad's lies because he may have been stressed on the day due to his missing wife, or the stress of the police being there, how about the fact he prepared and submitted to questioning in the civil matter? Did his memory also temporarily fail him at those moments such that he couldn't remember his own past and lengthy history? He knew he was a suspect! What was the motivation for his lies during the deposition?

Anyway, he'll get a new trial. He'll be convicted again. And there will be a segment which still will say it was someone else that killed Nancy. And they'll be wrong.

I assumed that Brad avoided providing names of people not involved in his life in NC and living in a foreign country, as well as the names of his brother's children, in order to try to avoid dragging them into the investigation. It could be seen as a kind gesture to keep the names of his brother's children out of the news, and it could be seen as an unreasonable lie. Which makes more sense?

 

[calgary123]

I assumed that Brad avoided providing names of people not involved in his life in NC and living in a foreign country, as well as the names of his brother's children, in order to try to avoid dragging them into the investigation. It could be seen as a kind gesture to keep the names of his brother's children out of the news, and it could be seen as an unreasonable lie. Which makes more sense?

Not lying under oath makes more sense.

He gave the wrong name for his ex-fiance because she has some very disturbing and scary stories about his behaviour. She was on the witness list but ultimately not called (much to her relief).

He gave the names of friends who weren't really friends to hide a trail of those who knew his past behaviour.

Who cares about the names of his brother's children. I don't know if he gave the right or wrong names for that, and I don't think those names matter. That has nothing to do with my post.

The key is, he had skeletons in his closet, he tried to keep them there. His lies about the names has nothing to do with protecting anyone.

Ironically, it was giving the false name that made the authorities think he was hiding something there, and they were right. This is just more proof about Brad being willing to lie or misdirect in the hopes of hiding something. He did it under oath, and he did it to the police. What colour was that dress again, Brad?

 

[Madeleine74]

Calgary,

I just want to say I enjoy your posts and am grateful you are continuing to follow the case and post here. I think I learn something new every time you do post. You've provided some good perspectives and have a view of Cooper that no one else here does, considering you know him and had actually lived with him as a roommate back in the day.

Some want to paint BC's ex-girlfriends as bitter, jealous ex's, hellbent on revenge, even though this murder occurred 9 years after any of them had to deal with Cooper. Give me a break; their lives moved on and I'm sure in a better direction compared to their time with him. He was a real "charmer" for sure, especially the subtle and not-so-subtle putdowns, only some we saw in one of the ex's affidavits. Thank goodness they escaped.

 

[ncsu95]

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!

Yes they did. But if I remember correctly, the fake agent (ie, the Durham police officer) testified that he had no idea how the invalid timestamps got there but didn't believe the pc was tampered with. That's the problem with the testimony.

 

[ncsu95]

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.

Those have nothing to do with my comments. I'm specifically talking about the missing router and the invalid timestamps. I've never said Brad Cooper was a good guy, and honest guy, or anyone I'd care to associate with.

 

[ncsu95]

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?

Well I know at least 1 juror that was glad about the appeal decision. That juror is glad that the computer data will be heard in a new trial. This juror also had a difficult time with learning about the questions about the search data after the trial....but said they had to go on what was presented in court. Although I haven't asked the question (and won't), I don't believe this juror would have convicted Brad without the google search (and I'm pretty confident in my opinion of that). So ultimately, this trial really does come down to that google search for a lot of people.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think it's sad that because someone lives and serves in the county of Durham in a LE position they are automatically painted with broad brush strokes of "fake agent" and other adjectives, and are not judged for their own merits, their own deeds, and their own character. Perhaps no one from Durham can ever be considered good enough for the FBI to partner with in their field office operations to the satisfaction of a community member. Any oath they take must mean nothing since they're from Durham. Apparently the word "agent" is so special that the use of it by and for other partnering LE folks (who yes, are in fact called agents by other FBI folk) brings derision. Apparently only agents working for the FBI in Quantico, VA and paid solely by federal monies can be considered 'real' agents. Anyone else is an imposter, certainly not "real."

The CART guys testified they didn't know why there were invalid timestamps. Frankly neither does the defense know why. The defense is postulating a theory, but they don't have proof of exactly what happened. They've sung the planting/conspiracy song and lots of people believe it. MacD showed how he was able to duplicate the same outcome of invalid timestamps and also posted several times, through his research, what can innocently cause timestamp anomalies. He further showed proof that MS Vista had one of the access times turned off by default as a way to make the OS faster, the result of which makes it appear just like what was seen on the Cooper laptop which was also running MS Vista. That's a setting by Microsoft.

 

[oenophile]

I've followed this case so long in a casual manner I've forgotten some of the reasons I think he did it. That appeal brief is dynamite. Still, he'll get his retrial because there are important principles at stake.

And the digital forensics world has changed a lot since then, I sat through a seminar today and did you know they now have "Faraday Bags", where they put the smart phone into the bag and even with a battery installed, remote wiping instructions won't penetrate the bag? News to me, but a good idea. The bag has its own internal plug to access the device without permitting internet interference. And yes the CPD screwed up erasing the blackberry, that's a live issue for the next trial.

Anyway, while my own reasons for initially believing guilt may differ from those focused on a legal perspective, for anyone who is interested, check out my early posts (you can search my username, I've pretty much only posted about this case).

During the deposition, he lied about the name of his ex-fiance. He also lied about who his friends were in Canada. There are lies not even pointed out on this forum and certainly not pointed out in trial. There just wouldn't be enough time. Certainly these facts didn't make it into the appeal brief. The prosecution actually chose not to call witnesses who would verify some of those lies, but there were witnesses given subpoenas who were ready to do so if asked. The reasons he lied about those people are probably slightly sensational, but telling. Its not direct evidence, but he really didn't want certain things to be known by the prosecutors.

There are enough lies in his deposition testimony that my view is he took the risk. I believe his thinking was he would beat the system and felt that public backlash against him not submitting to a deposition (i.e. defending the custody of his daughters) would be worse than taking the risk of lying. He knew he would have a jury trial. He needed a jury that might believe in him. And I don't think he appreciated the breadth of questions that would be asked of him, including his past relationships. In that regard, I also don't think he had any idea about the depth of the investigation against him and figured vague responses would win the day. He certainly didn't know the CPD already knew he had been surfing the net while he claimed to be asleep.

Submitting to the deposition was a massive mistake, legally and factually. He never should have participated in that deposition, and his own lawyers never should have let him. Give Kurtz all the credit you guys want, this was the single biggest mistake they made... why in the hell would they allow Brad to be civilly questioned while one of their own civil attorneys IN THE SAME FIRM sat by? I guess they themselves believed him, but still, look at the resources on the internet about why you should never speak with the police, then consider that what Brad did was the effective equivalent. ProTip: If your client is a murder suspect, DON'T LET HIM TESTIFY IN THE CIVIL ACTION!

I don't think Brad appreciated the level of resources that would come after him and figured that his lies which in many cases were not related to the events of the day, would never be checked out. I also think the Kurtz group believed Brad and well.... there it went. Your client may say he didn't do it.... but don't expose him!

Once the authorities started checking the lies from the deposition out it only fueled the fire for pursing a criminal case that he did it. And I think they were right.

For those that want to forgive Brad's lies because he may have been stressed on the day due to his missing wife, or the stress of the police being there, how about the fact he prepared and submitted to questioning in the civil matter? Did his memory also temporarily fail him at those moments such that he couldn't remember his own past and lengthy history? He knew he was a suspect! What was the motivation for his lies during the deposition?

Anyway, he'll get a new trial. He'll be convicted again. And there will be a segment which still will say it was someone else that killed Nancy. And they'll be wrong.

Although I disagree with your assessment about Brad's reasoning for doing the deposition, I actually agree with much of this post. Kurtz definitely believed and believes that Brad is innocent, and that is why they allowed Brad to do the deposition. I also agree that this is exactly the reason why you should never talk to law enforcement, because an error in memory can be misrepresented as a lie.

 

[oenophile]

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.

One glaring factual error in this post: Brad did not win me over. The evidence won me over, period. I went into the trial without an opinion but presuming him innocent.

 

[oenophile]

Some want to paint BC's ex-girlfriends as bitter, jealous ex's, hellbent on revenge, even though this murder occurred 9 years after any of them had to deal with Cooper.

Who wants to do this?

 

[ncsu95]

I think it's sad that because someone lives and serves in the county of Durham in a LE position they are automatically painted with broad brush strokes of "fake agent" and other adjectives, and are not judged for their own merits, their own deeds, and their own character. Perhaps no one from Durham can ever be considered good enough for the FBI to partner with in their field office operations to the satisfaction of a community member. Any oath they take must mean nothing since they're from Durham. Apparently the word "agent" is so special that the use of it by and for other partnering LE folks (who yes, are in fact called agents by other FBI folk) brings derision. Apparently only agents working for the FBI in Quantico, VA and paid solely by federal monies can be considered 'real' agents. Anyone else is an imposter, certainly not "real."

The CART guys testified they didn't know why there were invalid timestamps. Frankly neither does the defense know why. The defense is postulating a theory, but they don't have proof of exactly what happened. They've sung the planting/conspiracy song and lots of people believe it. MacD showed how he was able to duplicate the same outcome of invalid timestamps and also posted several times, through his research, what can innocently cause timestamp anomalies. He further showed proof that MS Vista had one of the access times turned off by default as a way to make the OS faster, the result of which makes it appear just like what was seen on the Cooper laptop which was also running MS Vista. That's a setting by Microsoft.

Can you jump to any more conclusions? By fake agent, I meant exactly that. He was a member of the Durham PD working on a task force with the FBI. He was not an FBI agent. That says absolutely nothing about his qualifications, him as a person, Durham, my thoughts of him, my thoughts of Durham, etc. He was presented as an FBI agent and he wasn't. That's what I mean by fake agent. And I believe he was presented as an FBI agent because that apparently gives him more credibility than a Durham police officer. Am I wrong on that? I will say that as a Durham police officer, he has more credibility than the main Cary police officers that worked this case.

 

[Just the Fax]

He was presented as an FBI agent and he wasn't. That's what I mean by fake agent. And I believe he was presented as an FBI agent because that apparently gives him more credibility than a Durham police officer. Am I wrong on that? I will say that as a Durham police officer, he has more credibility than the main Cary police officers that worked this case.

Chris Chappell was presented in court as a Durham police detective assigned to the FBI's Cyber Task Force.....NOT an FBI agent.

 

[ncsu95]

Chris Chappell was presented in court as a Durham police detective assigned to the FBI's Cyber Task Force.....NOT an FBI agent.

That's not true. Just google FBI agent Chris Chappell and you will find plenty of news articles that refer to him exactly as that. Here is one.

http://triangle.news14.com/content/news/triangle/639527/agent--cooper-searched-for-photos-of-site-where-wife-s-body-located

So I certainly didn't make that up.

 

[Madeleine74]

Can you jump to any more conclusions? By fake agent, I meant exactly that. He was a member of the Durham PD working on a task force with the FBI. He was not an FBI agent. That says absolutely nothing about his qualifications, him as a person, Durham, my thoughts of him, my thoughts of Durham, etc. He was presented as an FBI agent and he wasn't. That's what I mean by fake agent. And I believe he was presented as an FBI agent because that apparently gives him more credibility than a Durham police officer. Am I wrong on that? I will say that as a Durham police officer, he has more credibility than the main Cary police officers that worked this case.

You've made disparaging comments about these CART guys before. Were you there when they were testifying about their backgrounds, who they work for, what affiliations they hold, how they got involved in the task force, and how it connects to the FBI? That testimony was blacked-out so unless you were in the courtroom or have obtained a copy of the court transcript, you're probably working from media reports or someone else's interpretation. I was in the courtroom for one day of their testimony and heard them go through who they are and how they came to this case. They have credibility to the court, to their FBI counterparts, and to their task force. The jury obviously found them credible as well.

 

[ncsu95]

You've made disparaging comments about these CART guys before. Were you there when they were testifying about their backgrounds, who they work for, what affiliations they hold, how they got involved in the task force, and how it connects to the FBI? That testimony was blacked-out so unless you were in the courtroom or have obtained a copy of the court transcript, you're probably working from media reports or someone else's interpretation. I was in the courtroom for one day of their testimony and heard them go through who they are and how they came to this case. They have credibility to the court, to their FBI counterparts, and to their task force. The jury obviously found them credible as well.

Show me 1 single disparaging comment I have made. I'm sure he is an excellent detective to be assigned to an FBI task force. But he isn't an FBI agent.

 

[Just the Fax]

That's not true. Just google FBI agent Chris Chappell and you will find plenty of news articles that refer to him exactly as that. Here is one.

http://triangle.news14.com/content/news/triangle/639527/agent--cooper-searched-for-photos-of-site-where-wife-s-body-located

So I certainly didn't make that up.

Yes it is true.
I said PRESENTED IN COURT (and jury), not media outlets

 

[ncsu95]

Yes it is true.
I said PRESENTED IN COURT (and jury), not media outlets

Touche. And obviously his testimony wasn't broadcast. But all the news outlets referred to him as an FBI agent.