Brad Cooper: Appeal info

[ncsu95]

To me, it doesn't matter what Jay said in this regard. He's not a lawyer, he's an IT guy.

I think to win appeal they have to show two things: error and damage. I have a hard time finding the damage. In the end, the defense got in all the evidence in they wanted. Kurtz went on and on in closing about the timestamps, showing the graphs, and proposing the files were planted. He did this and was not subject to cross exam. He got the best of both worlds. He presented his theory to the jury and did not have to defend it. So, I see no damage.

If there is another trial, the bogus timestamp theory won't work in court anyways. See the next thread down on "Recreating the Google Search" for why.

Good work with that thread too by the way. But regardless, I believe a jury should have been allowed to hear the evidence. If the prosecution could provide evidence explaining how it happened, then so be it. Instead, you had the "fbi" detective saying something to the effect of "I can't explain the invalid timestamps but I don't believe the computer was tampered with". So the defense couldn't present a witness to explain them, and the prosecution had their witness simply dismiss them. I didn't think it was fair at the time and don't think it is fair now.

 

[Madeleine74]

Juries get to hear evidence subject to the law, the rules of evidence, and when the rules were followed, based on the judge's decisions, which involves some discretion. It's sure not a perfect system by far.

While a judge's decision may feel unfair to a lay person, his/her ruling might not be considered a legal error when examined by appellate court judges. Or a ruling might be considered an error but the appellate court judges might not consider it a reversible error and the appeal for an overturn could be denied.

I could be wrong, but I think it's very difficult to get a conviction overturned at the appellate level.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm aware of what went down. It just shouldn't have happened until he was arrested.

Outside of the temporary emergency order, Brad did not have to voluntarily agree to hand over custody to his in-laws for the next 3 months--he could have gone through with the original hearing scheduled in July and immediately force the custody issue with the court. I don't know any parent who would agree to be separated from their children for several months and don't know why Brad did that, but there's no denying he did so willingly. I don't see him as the victim he is portrayed to be; he made choices.

 

[calgary123]

Hey all... nice to see the usual suspects chatting up the appeal!

Factually speaking, its clear Brad did search the area where he dumped his wife's body, on his work computer. He was smart but not smart enough. As he sits in his cell I'm sure he thinks everyday that he should have trashed his work computer, not just the router. Or better yet, used a computer the police never would have searched in the first place. I do wonder whether he considers that divorce was a better option.

I think there are issues to discuss before an appeal court, and he at least has more than zero chance of a new trial, but he's in an up-hill battle.

I think the defense grasped for straws in the lead up to the trial. The only thing they had, by trying to rely on Jay Ward's "expertise" because they couldn't find the proper expert to say what they wanted. Then, with all the publicity, someone who actually was an expert saw there could be a true issue, but only had a short period of time to look at the data. Masucci did not even really do a report, he just said Jay Ward's findings were correct, but admitted he wasn't finished figuring it all out. To me, Masucci did not have enough time to review all the evidence to truly figure the puzzle out, and put his reputation at risk by jumping to conclusions. In the end, his evidence was properly excluded in the circumstances as a sudden, new expert.

I'm not so happy that the FBI data relating to master file tables has been kept from the defense, on the grounds of national security. That being said, to believe there was even a possibility the data was planted on Brad's computer, would take a conspiracy theory expertly executed by so many people... it just is not plausible. There would have had to have been Cisco employees, the FBI, and the Cary PD, acting in conjunction and with pre-planning, to pull it off. They could not have known Nancy would be killed and dumped there, unless you jump to the next step and say, it was someone (actually some people) from Cisco, the FBI and the Cary PD, all of whom wanted Nancy dead and were willing to do what it takes to carry it out. It just does not happen.

I agree that there could have been some errors in evidence admissibility as the judge started shutting down the defense as the trial wore on. The ones I thought were suspect aren't even part of the appeal. As to the computer evidence, those decisions made sense in the context of what the defense was doing. Jay Ward was not an expert for what he was trying to testifying to. Masucci was a surprise witness without proper grounding in the evidence, used in an attempt to get Jay Ward's testimony into evidence.

 

[Madeleine74]

Hi Calgary! So nice to see your name pop up. Hope you are doing well up in the land of Canadia.

Good point about Mascucci's report not even being completed at the time he testified. Masucci is the forensic guy who will be called if this case ends up being retried--I heard him say that.

Masucci is loving his 15 min. He purchased a bunch of Amanda Lamb's books when her book came out last year (at least a dozen) and had her sign every one of them. Here he is getting them signed (he's the one in the suit). That stack of books in front of A.L. are ones he had just purchased. ;-D

 

[ncsu95]

Outside of the temporary emergency order, Brad did not have to voluntarily agree to hand over custody to his in-laws for the next 3 months--he could have gone through with the original hearing scheduled in July and immediately force the custody issue with the court. I don't know any parent who would agree to be separated from their children for several months and don't know why Brad did that, but there's no denying he did so willingly. I don't see him as the victim he is portrayed to be; he made choices.

I was specifically talking about the emergency hearing and how the kids were removed from him. I don't know why he agreed to temporary custody. I sure as hell wouldn't have. But I'm specifically talking about what happened the week Nancy was murdered.

 

[ncsu95]

Hey all... nice to see the usual suspects chatting up the appeal!

Factually speaking, its clear Brad did search the area where he dumped his wife's body, on his work computer. He was smart but not smart enough. As he sits in his cell I'm sure he thinks everyday that he should have trashed his work computer, not just the router. Or better yet, used a computer the police never would have searched in the first place. I do wonder whether he considers that divorce was a better option.

I think there are issues to discuss before an appeal court, and he at least has more than zero chance of a new trial, but he's in an up-hill battle.

I think the defense grasped for straws in the lead up to the trial. The only thing they had, by trying to rely on Jay Ward's "expertise" because they couldn't find the proper expert to say what they wanted. Then, with all the publicity, someone who actually was an expert saw there could be a true issue, but only had a short period of time to look at the data. Masucci did not even really do a report, he just said Jay Ward's findings were correct, but admitted he wasn't finished figuring it all out. To me, Masucci did not have enough time to review all the evidence to truly figure the puzzle out, and put his reputation at risk by jumping to conclusions. In the end, his evidence was properly excluded in the circumstances as a sudden, new expert.

I'm not so happy that the FBI data relating to master file tables has been kept from the defense, on the grounds of national security. That being said, to believe there was even a possibility the data was planted on Brad's computer, would take a conspiracy theory expertly executed by so many people... it just is not plausible. There would have had to have been Cisco employees, the FBI, and the Cary PD, acting in conjunction and with pre-planning, to pull it off. They could not have known Nancy would be killed and dumped there, unless you jump to the next step and say, it was someone (actually some people) from Cisco, the FBI and the Cary PD, all of whom wanted Nancy dead and were willing to do what it takes to carry it out. It just does not happen.

I agree that there could have been some errors in evidence admissibility as the judge started shutting down the defense as the trial wore on. The ones I thought were suspect aren't even part of the appeal. As to the computer evidence, those decisions made sense in the context of what the defense was doing. Jay Ward was not an expert for what he was trying to testifying to. Masucci was a surprise witness without proper grounding in the evidence, used in an attempt to get Jay Ward's testimony into evidence.

Welcome back. I actually miss debating the trial. The Young trial was much more tame since just about all of us agreed on his guilt. I honestly don't have an issue with him being found guilty. He's a slimeball regardless. I just despise what I witnessed in that trial on the "fairness" level. Not just from the judge, but also the prosecution. Outright lies during closing arguments, and stupid crap like trying to use facebook to discredit a witness. I would love to see this one retried. And if it can be easily shown the private browsing caused the invalid timestamps, then great...convict him and move on. But what went on in that courtroom was a circus on everyones part.

 

[cityslick]

I'm also of the opinion that the case probably deserves a re-trial based on some of the nonsense that went on the first time around. Although when I really think about it, I'm not sure the result wouldn't be the same anyway and at that point, you're just wasting taxpayer money. Until the map evidence came up, I had thought the guy was getting railroaded based on how CPD did their investigation, the 'clique' that made it their mission to bury the guy no matter what evidence there was (or was not), and the numerous holes that I saw in the prosecutions case. I think the google search is really hard to get around. I think CPD did everything in their power to botch the investigation, from handling evidence to how they interviewed witnesses. But I don't think it's enough to explain away the google search which is why at the end of the day I don't think an appeal will get by that piece of evidence.

 

[Madeleine74]

I understand the feelings of unfairness. However, I chuckle whenever I read about the "clique." In reality what was called a clique was made up of a bunch of disparate friends...some only had a passing acquaintance with each other before the murder. Some had never met before. Others did know each other and were friends before. What they all shared in common was knowing the victim. Some met her back in 2000 or 2001 when the Coopers moved to NC, and others in more recent years before the murder, and from shared children activities once the kids were born. The defense excelled at creating an impression of a group that all knew each other well and decided to railroad an innocent man. The truth is much more mundane and different than suggested. People ate it up though & never questioned it because conspiracy sells.

 

[otto]

I understand the feelings of unfairness. However, I chuckle whenever I read about the "clique." In reality what was called a clique was made up of a bunch of disparate friends...some only had a passing acquaintance with each other before the murder. Some had never met before. Others did know each other and were friends before. What they all shared in common was knowing the victim. Some met her back in 2000 or 2001 when the Coopers moved to NC, and others in more recent years before the murder, and from shared children activities once the kids were born. The defense excelled at creating an impression of a group that all knew each other well and decided to railroad an innocent man. The truth is much more mundane and different than suggested. People ate it up though & never questioned it because conspiracy sells.

Somehow, the "disparate" group of friends that was paraded through the courtroom during the first two weeks of trial all agreed with one thing: Nancy Cooper never removed her necklace. It's strange that they all agreed on something that was simply not true, as we know that in the video of Nancy Cooper taken after she had been at the pool with some of these friends, she was not wearing that necklace.

What could have been going on that caused all of these disparate people to unanimously agree with the same untrue statement?

 

[otto]

Hey all... nice to see the usual suspects chatting up the appeal!

Factually speaking, its clear Brad did search the area where he dumped his wife's body, on his work computer. He was smart but not smart enough. As he sits in his cell I'm sure he thinks everyday that he should have trashed his work computer, not just the router. Or better yet, used a computer the police never would have searched in the first place. I do wonder whether he considers that divorce was a better option.

I think there are issues to discuss before an appeal court, and he at least has more than zero chance of a new trial, but he's in an up-hill battle.

I think the defense grasped for straws in the lead up to the trial. The only thing they had, by trying to rely on Jay Ward's "expertise" because they couldn't find the proper expert to say what they wanted. Then, with all the publicity, someone who actually was an expert saw there could be a true issue, but only had a short period of time to look at the data. Masucci did not even really do a report, he just said Jay Ward's findings were correct, but admitted he wasn't finished figuring it all out. To me, Masucci did not have enough time to review all the evidence to truly figure the puzzle out, and put his reputation at risk by jumping to conclusions. In the end, his evidence was properly excluded in the circumstances as a sudden, new expert.

I'm not so happy that the FBI data relating to master file tables has been kept from the defense, on the grounds of national security. That being said, to believe there was even a possibility the data was planted on Brad's computer, would take a conspiracy theory expertly executed by so many people... it just is not plausible. There would have had to have been Cisco employees, the FBI, and the Cary PD, acting in conjunction and with pre-planning, to pull it off. They could not have known Nancy would be killed and dumped there, unless you jump to the next step and say, it was someone (actually some people) from Cisco, the FBI and the Cary PD, all of whom wanted Nancy dead and were willing to do what it takes to carry it out. It just does not happen.

I agree that there could have been some errors in evidence admissibility as the judge started shutting down the defense as the trial wore on. The ones I thought were suspect aren't even part of the appeal. As to the computer evidence, those decisions made sense in the context of what the defense was doing. Jay Ward was not an expert for what he was trying to testifying to. Masucci was a surprise witness without proper grounding in the evidence, used in an attempt to get Jay Ward's testimony into evidence.

It only requires on person to plant the files ... and we know that one officer was not entirely above board, particularly in how he wiped Nancy's phone and then withheld that information.

 

[Madeleine74]

Otto, what most testified to is that they never saw her without her necklace once she got it. If that's what each personally saw/witnessed, then that's the truth of what each saw. One friend/witness (HP) did say "it never came off; she never took it off." She also said the same thing about the diamond earrings.

Further, NC's family (mom & twin sister) also testified that NC did not remove her necklace or her earrings--not when showering, not when swimming (and pics were shown of her last vacation a week before the murder where she is wearing her necklace in the pool), didn't remove it when running, didn't remove it when out and about. Testimony was that NC was seen wearing the necklace and her earrings that last Fri @ the pool. Testimony was also elicited from at least 2 people that NC was wearing the necklace & earrings @ the BBQ across the street.

You can choose to believe what you want, of course, but the testimony was the testimony. The fact that each witness on the stand was asked some similar questions and each person told what they remembered about seeing NC in her jewelry after being asked is not a conspiracy. That they remember NC wearing her jewelry when they saw her is also not a conspiracy.

 

[Madeleine74]

It only requires on person to plant the files ... and we know that one officer was not entirely above board, particularly in how he wiped Nancy's phone and then withheld that information.

This planting files thing is so laughable and ridiculous. MacD and a couple others covered this in detail. It was a ludicrous theory and shows just how gullible people can be.

As for the phone no one "hid" the wiping of the phone--testimony was elicited on who the Detective told right after it happened. He told 2 others including the lead detective. CPD was slow in disclosing the wiped phone status to the defense, which was a bad move, and the defense played it for all it was worth, which was smart of them. I would have done the same thing if I were a defense attorney.

There were also at least 2 search warrants obtained for that phone. First one so they could have the phone, even though it was given to them voluntarily, and turn it on to look at it (that warrant was written, signed, sent to AT&T before the Det. attempted to use the AT&T credentials given), then a 2nd warrant was written to get legal permission to do a more in-depth examination of the phone and file system and use some software to attempt data recovery--that happened after the phone was wiped.

This is all in testimony, btw.

 

[otto]

Otto, what most testified to is that they never saw her without her necklace once she got it. If that's what each personally saw/witnessed, then that's the truth of what each saw. One friend/witness (HP) did say "it never came off; she never took it off." She also said the same thing about the diamond earrings.

Further, NC's family (mom & twin sister) also testified that NC did not remove her necklace or her earrings--not when showering, not when swimming (and pics were shown of her last vacation a week before the murder where she is wearing her necklace in the pool), didn't remove it when running, didn't remove it when out and about. Testimony was that NC was seen wearing the necklace and her earrings that last Fri @ the pool. Testimony was also elicited from at least 2 people that NC was wearing the necklace & earrings @ the BBQ across the street.

You can choose to believe what you want, of course, but the testimony was the testimony. The fact that each witness on the stand was asked some similar questions and each person told what they remembered about seeing NC in her jewelry after being asked is not a conspiracy. That they remember NC wearing her jewelry when they saw her is also not a conspiracy.

Amanda Lamb specifically mentions that confusion in her book, pointing out that although all the friends insisted that Nancy always wore her necklace, even at the pool on the Friday of the party, the video of her in the store - taken when she was on the way home from the pool - showed that she was not wearing her necklace on that day. Friends that saw her at the pool insisted that she was wearing it at the pool, and they were wrong. However, by insisting that she was wearing it, everyone was supposed to conclude that Brad murdered Nancy, removed the necklace and put it in a drawer after murdering her.

 

[otto]

This planting files thing is so laughable and ridiculous. MacD and a couple others covered this in detail. It was a ludicrous theory and shows just how gullible people can be.

As for the phone no one "hid" the wiping of the phone--testimony was elicited on who the Detective told right after it happened. He told 2 others including the lead detective. CPD was slow in disclosing the wiped phone status to the defense, which was a bad move, and the defense played it for all it was worth, which was smart of them. I would have done the same thing if I were a defense attorney.

There were also at least 2 search warrants obtained for that phone. First one so they could have the phone, even though it was given to them voluntarily, and turn it on to look at it (that warrant was written, signed, sent to AT&T before the Det. attempted to use the AT&T credentials given), then a 2nd warrant was written to get legal permission to do a more in-depth examination of the phone and file system and use some software to attempt data recovery--that happened after the phone was wiped.

This is all in testimony, btw.

There is no excuse for erasing everything from Nancy's phone. It should not have happened, and the fact that it did happen opens the door for asking: why and how could it happen? If the only answer is that the investigators are incompetent, then everything they did comes into question.

 

[Madeleine74]

Amanda Lamb specifically mentions that confusion in her book, pointing out that although all the friends insisted that Nancy always wore her necklace, even at the pool on the Friday of the party, the video of her in the store - taken when she was on the way home from the pool - showed that she was not wearing her necklace on that day. Friends that saw her at the pool insisted that she was wearing it at the pool, and they were wrong. However, by insisting that she was wearing it, everyone was supposed to conclude that Brad murdered Nancy, removed the necklace and put it in a drawer after murdering her.

Amanda Lamb's book is not evidence and is not official testimony. She's writing from one perspective--hers. Her book represents her opinion. You made an assertion that there was some kind of group effort to say the same things during testimony...and specifically relating to the jewelry. That isn't true. On top of that, some things that have been attributed to A.L's book have been misstated and twisted.

None of these things being dredged up, btw, are part of the appeal.

 

[Madeleine74]

There is no excuse for erasing everything from Nancy's phone. It should not have happened, and the fact that it did happen opens the door for asking: why and how could it happen? If the only answer is that the investigators are incompetent, then everything they did comes into question.

I think I know how it happened and I'm sure it involves incompetency by the AT&T customer service dept in addition to the mistakes made by CPD. There is a PUK code and a PIN code. PUK is for the SIM card and the PIN is a lock set by the user for their phone. They are not the same thing. CPD wanted to get past the phone security code (i.e. the PIN) to be able to access the phone. That's what the first warrant was for. The AT&T rep gave incorrect directions--they gave instructions for inputting a PUK code which affects the SIM card. Those directions AT&T gave, when followed, result in erasure of the phone. It's a miscommunication from customer service combined with the CPD detective's not knowing the difference. A bad combination for sure. That's how these things happen--and they can and do happen. If you think cell phone carrier customer service depts aren't rife with misinformation and incompetence, think again. I know this first-hand. Never blame on conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer incompetence.

BTW, all calls made from that phone or received by that phone are known as those are contained in the carrier log files. Those logs were presented as evidence. All texts sent and received are logged (the phone #, not the actual message). The AT&T rep testified that NC's phone was last used Fri 7/11/08 right before 11pm on an incoming phone call. NC never used that phone to make or receive a call or txt again. NC did not use Facebook--she had exactly 2 friends on her list. All Facebook activity is server-based.

 

[macd]

There is no excuse for erasing everything from Nancy's phone. It should not have happened, and the fact that it did happen opens the door for asking: why and how could it happen? If the only answer is that the investigators are incompetent, then everything they did comes into question.

Surely, there is an excuse. The detective thought he was better using cell phones than he was. Using one every day can cause someone to overestimate their skill. But, following the instructions from AT&T to press some buttons seems easy enough. Personally, I believe that Brad was the one who erased the phone. All it takes is 10 wrong guesses of the PIN. Had he guessed right, he could have texted another notch in his alibi. But, he guessed wrong. I'm sure he did not predict that the detective would have mistakenly assumed that the phone had been wiped in police custody and help bolster the defense. Lucky him!

But, if the investigators were incompetent, especially with electronics, how on earth did they plant over 300 files related to the map search, all time-date stamped with a time Brad was known to be on the computer? And accomplish this while the computer was password locked and connected to Brad's office via secure VPN. That's either impossible or a job for a world class hacker. Not a job for "shady" "incompetent" local investigator.

 

[macd]

Somehow, the "disparate" group of friends that was paraded through the courtroom during the first two weeks of trial all agreed with one thing: Nancy Cooper never removed her necklace. It's strange that they all agreed on something that was simply not true, as we know that in the video of Nancy Cooper taken after she had been at the pool with some of these friends, she was not wearing that necklace.

What could have been going on that caused all of these disparate people to unanimously agree with the same untrue statement?

Lucky for the defense that the group was not coached to not use words like "always" and "never", because all it takes is one unusual circumstance to prove it "wrong".

All they needed to say to prevent this evidence is "she usually wore it running".

It is odd indeed if two very unusual things happen at the same time.
She went running without her necklace.
She never came back.

The suggestion that this special piece of jewelry, that she was almost never separated from, was left careless lying on the foyer table is unbelievable.

 

[macd]

Did anyone else see the latest news about Casey Anthony? Apparently, the detectives in that case missed some Google Searches that (must have been planted) or (implicates Casey).

Whoever conducted the Google search looked for the term "fool-proof suffication (sic)" and then clicked on an article about suicide that discussed taking poison and putting a bag over one's head, the station reported.

Wasn't there a bookmark or some other record on Brad's computer that linked to a suicide website? I believe the judge did not allow it to be presented.

Interesting parallel. Maybe this will become a trend. Giovanni will become a busy man.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57554167-504083/casey-anthony-update-jose-baez-former-anthony-attorney-told-crimesider-about-buried-computer-searches/