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.