WTH Are Brad's Lawyers Up To Now????

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mom have you seen these by chance??
 
All it proves to me is that he was wearing a jacket when the temperature was at the lowest, 68 degrees on that date (according to history on weather underground).

Also, I smell something funny when the attorneys keep releasing things to the public.
 
Well I guess that refutes the 4:00 am HT trip that people on here keep stating as fact.
 
All it proves to me is that he was wearing a jacket when the temperature was at the lowest, 68 degrees on that date (according to history on weather underground).

Also, I smell something funny when the attorneys keep releasing things to the public.

I don't see a jacket, something similar to a pull over or sweatshirt but no jacket.

Yes, the attorneys are up to something.
 
Must've been those two times Mom had eye contact with BC at the store yesterday... he couldn't take it anymore...
 
Well I guess that refutes the 4:00 am HT trip that people on here keep stating as fact.

I don't see how this refutes the 4am trip in anyway. Even though I don't really think there was one.
 
I don't see how this refutes the 4am trip in anyway. Even though I don't really think there was one.


His lawyers state there was not an earlier trip. Given the amount of video footage of the 2 trips he said he did, I doubt very seriously the lawyers would say it never happened unless they were sure it never happened. It would be too easy to disprove. In addition, mt3k has said he purchased detergent during that trip. He obviously purchased detergent during the 6:40 trip as verified by the receipt and video footage. So I would say this refutes it.
 
Me neither RC - He still could have gone at 4 and he thinks he got away with it - if LE has that tape he's screwed. I still say huey phewy - his lawyers act like teenagers throwing stuff back and forth.
 
I guess I am looking at it a little differently. I think that lawyering has got to change with the times.

K&B's job is to represent Brad Cooper. With the odds and sites like this - never before has it been so easy to try him publicly without him ever being charged. So - how do you combat that? How do you keep reasonable doubt all within the potential jury pool should your client be arrested.

It's also pretty benign to remind people that we really have NOT seen any evidence yet - just speculation, second hand info, and our own hypotheses.

I've had my own misgivings about the picture that Nancy paints, the "controlling", etc. All her friends got a very one sided picture of the relationship and I suggest things were exaggerated.

So - all in all - they need to keep Brad's name in the news and keep people's minds as open as they can - all without looking overly defensive. Not an easy thing to do. but - if you let the court of public opinion go too far - it would be VERY hard to rein that back in.
 
Wow.

Here are photos taken of Brad's neck on 7/17/08 at 8:02 p.m., five days after Detective Daniels stated that he saw scratches or red marks on Brad's neck and the very day after the affidavit for the search warrant was signed. The photos reveal that if any marks were present on 7/12/08 when Det. Daniels noted them, that they were so insignificant as to be entirely gone a mere five days later.

Scratches do not have to be deep or persistent in order to be connected to the crime. They were observed and noted. CPD did not receive an explanation of said marks at the time they noted it. That's a fact. Whether these scratches were connected to the crime and made by Nancy is up for debate. The point is, they were noted on 7/12 by the police detective. How about some pix of those neck scratches on 7/12? Now that would be helpful. I bet none exist, unfortunately.

"... is fine for people who are simply providing emotional support and comfort to a friend, but it would be a terrible way to run a murder investigation or to decide a legal issue."
I agree with this statement, actually. However, there are legal documents signed by many affiants and those affiants' personal knowledge *may* be accurate and connected to the case. Therefore such statements cannot be wholly dismissed with no further investigation. Those statements become part of the record of the case, like it or not. Such statements should be verified. However, going after the personal lives of the affiants, when what is being asked for is not connected to the murder and/or the custody issue is way out of bounds, and frankly, tacky. Very OJ/Faye Resnick of you!! (shame/shame!) Absolutely attack the statements instead of trying to subvert the focus and going after the individuals especially in areas that simply have no bearing on either case. If you have confidence in your case and in the facts of your case then focus on the facts and discredit the statements pertaining to the custody and murder cases.

Some in Jessica Adam's Cary clique have boldly sworn that they believe he is guilty. We cannot allow the slanderous assertions against Brad Cooper to continue without redress.
BELIEFS & OPINIONS are not slanderous. Slander is verbal, libel is written, and defamation is an untrue statement about a person (but is protected by 'privilege' in legal/court/witness proceedings). And from what I read in the affidavits, they offered their opinions/beliefs. Troubling/upsetting for a POI/suspect? Absolutely, you betcha. I'd be very upset if someone thought that of me. Is it evidence? Well no, those opinions are not evidence either. But SLANDEROUS? Hmmm...not so much. Those are opinions & beliefs in an affidavit, not offered as statement of facts. I read them as opinions, not facts.

As is clear from Brad's affidavit, he and Nancy awakened shortly after 4:00 a.m. He did not go the store until after 6:00 a.m.

To set the record straight and diminish the mounting baseless prejudice against him, we are posting the actual Harris Teeter surveillance videos from the morning of July 12, 2008. These were Brad's only trips to any store that morning.
Hmmmm....interesting. So Kurtz & Blum are saying there was absolutely NO HT visit prior to 6:22am on 7/12/08. Is that true there was no (4am to 6am) visit? This is a very bold assertion; for their client's sake I hope it's true.
 
I guess I am looking at it a little differently. I think that lawyering has got to change with the times.

K&B's job is to represent Brad Cooper. With the odds and sites like this - never before has it been so easy to try him publicly without him ever being charged. So - how do you combat that? How do you keep reasonable doubt all within the potential jury pool should your client be arrested.

It's also pretty benign to remind people that we really have NOT seen any evidence yet - just speculation, second hand info, and our own hypotheses.

I've had my own misgivings about the picture that Nancy paints, the "controlling", etc. All her friends got a very one sided picture of the relationship and I suggest things were exaggerated.

So - all in all - they need to keep Brad's name in the news and keep people's minds as open as they can - all without looking overly defensive. Not an easy thing to do. but - if you let the court of public opinion go too far - it would be VERY hard to rein that back in.

I think keeping his name in the news has one goal - if he is charged and brought to trial, the lawyers will be seeking a change of venue, even though they would be part of the reason for it. I don't buy the attempt to show him as innocent - it is inherently more difficult to prove ones self innocent than it is to prove one guilty. Smoke and mirrors and I don't buy this tainted jury pool garbage either - there are processes in place to see that whoever is charged receives a fair trial regardless of the press and so called websites like this.
 
His lawyers state there was not an earlier trip. Given the amount of video footage of the 2 trips he said he did, I doubt very seriously the lawyers would say it never happened unless they were sure it never happened. It would be too easy to disprove. In addition, mt3k has said he purchased detergent during that trip. He obviously purchased detergent during the 6:40 trip as verified by the receipt and video footage. So I would say this refutes it.

Then his lawyers could have refuted the 4 am claim by posting that video, but they didn't. What is shown at 622 and 644 am has nothing to do with what is visible at 4 am and vice versa.
 
Hmmmm....interesting. So Kurtz & Blum are saying there was absolutely NO HT visit prior to 6:22am on 7/12/08. Is that true there was no (4am to 6am) visit? This is a very bold assertion; for their client's sake I hope it's true.


This is my point...considering it would be easily proven if he had gone to HT before 6:00, I don't think they would make this statement unless he never went before 6:00. His lawyers aren't stupid. So it is possible that mt3k is just wrong about the 4:20 am visit to HT? It's been posted on here many times as if it were factual and proven...but I highly doubt it occurred given what the lawyers put out today. Just way to easy to refute if they are lying.
 
Respectfully Snipped .......
Smoke and mirrors and I don't buy this tainted jury pool garbage either - there are processes in place to see that whoever is charged receives a fair trail regardless of the press and so called websites like this.

I agree. Besides 99% of Wake County could give a ratz butt about this case (sad as that is). I seriuosly doubt anyof us here would be picked for jury duty and I seriously doubt his clowns can successfully argue change of venue.
 
Well, I'd like to see those cell phone records. I see no reason for them to mention that supposed call from Nancy right before he went into the store the 2nd time. (They are trying to justify juice? Not needed.) What I understood (didn't his affidavit say this?) was that he received a call from Nancy so he went BACK to the store. This makes it sound like he went back on his own and she called to add to the list.

So, when did NC call him??
 
I guess I am looking at it a little differently. I think that lawyering has got to change with the times.

K&B's job is to represent Brad Cooper. With the odds and sites like this - never before has it been so easy to try him publicly without him ever being charged. So - how do you combat that? How do you keep reasonable doubt all within the potential jury pool should your client be arrested.

I agree. The Internet is merely a tool and information can be disseminated to millions of people quite easily. And lots of inaccurate info is out there on the Internet. No reason for a defense attorney not to use the same tool(s) everyone else uses. I have no problem with this. The only pertinent legal facts are the ones presented in a court of law or through sworn testimony/depositions and subject to cross examination anyway. People will believe what they want to believe and that has always been the case...long before (Al Gore invented) the Internet! :wink:
 
This is my point...considering it would be easily proven if he had gone to HT before 6:00, I don't think they would make this statement unless he never went before 6:00. His lawyers aren't stupid. So it is possible that mt3k is just wrong about the 4:20 am visit to HT? It's been posted on here many times as if it were factual and proven...but I highly doubt it occurred given what the lawyers put out today. Just way to easy to refute if they are lying.

Showing the 2 HT visits at 6:22 and 6:40 has no bearing on an alleged 4am-ish visit to HT if such a thing exists. I need to hear what evidence the CPD has on this--I'd like to hear them deny they have any evidence about a 4am visit to HT (or any other store for that matter). I remain on the fence until I get more (definitive) information.
 
oh GAWD I have GOT to leave the GoLo boards - I just told a "reverend" to go back to her God Blessing and preaching and leave me alone -
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
173
Guests online
2,206
Total visitors
2,379

Forum statistics

Threads
589,970
Messages
17,928,523
Members
228,026
Latest member
CSIFLGIRL46
Back
Top