View Full Version : A man in my area was just framed for murder
sunshine05
19th May 2011, 09:41 AM
I watched the entire trial and it's very disturbing that the only evidence they had was a google map search of the area where his wife's body was found. The defense had evidence the files were planted while the computer was in police custody. Judge would not allow defense to present their evidence of it. He was convicted of Murder 1. Completely railroaded by police, prosecutors and judge. The time is here now that there are no longer fair trials and they can lock anyone up for anything, anywhere and there is nothing we can do about it. North Carolina almost succeeded in putting the Duke Lacrosse players away but luckily failed (after their parents spent millions defending them). But they did succeed in putting Brad Cooper away for life.
I haven't been around here much because this trial has consumed all of my time and attention and now my focus to bring this story some national attention.
Here is the article and there is a link to the defense attorney interview if anyone is interested.
Brad Cooper was framed, defense attorney says
Raleigh, N.C. — One of two defense attorneys for Brad Cooper said Friday that he firmly believes his client was framed and that he believes there is a strong chance to win an appeal on Thursday's first-degree murder conviction.
Cooper, 37, was arrested in October 2008, more than three months after his wife, Nancy Cooper, was found strangled to death 3 miles from their Cary home.
Evidence presented during the eight weeks of testimony was mostly circumstantial, with the exception of a Google Maps search that, defense attorney Howard Kurtz says, was the only piece of evidence that prosecutors had that linked Brad Cooper to the crime.
"Their case was exclusively based on this one map, and the map, in and of itself, bears several different neon signs that point ‘tampering here’ that were very difficult to find, mind you, but once found were very easy to see," he said.
The state argued that three days before Nancy Cooper’s decomposing body was found in an unfinished subdivision, Brad Cooper used his work laptop to search for the same site. Brad Cooper has said his wife went jogging and never returned home.
"There was information planted on the computer. Now, I cannot say by whom, but I can say that the files were placed on the machine," Kurtz said. "I think we can prove beyond any doubt that's what happened."
Kurtz said anyone who came into contact with the computer could have tampered with it.
"That would include all of the police," he said. "That's the first group of people who could do it, but it's not limited to the police by any means, and I'm not saying the Cary Police Department did that."
"Beyond the police, any neighbors that were living in the wireless range could easily have the capability to alter files on the computer," he added.
Jurors were never allowed to see the evidence to prove the tampering, Kurtz said, because Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner ruled that the defense's expert witness wasn't qualified in computer forensics.
A second defense expert wasn't allowed to testify, partly because prosecutors said timing didn't allow for them to prepare for adequate cross-examination.
"There was no other evidence that I heard in that courtroom that was persuasive in any way, shape or form. I think that is the only piece of evidence that (the jury) could have chosen to make a decision based upon," Kurtz said. "To me, it was devastating that we were unable to address it."
Kurt said he does not believe Gessner understood the technology being presented.
"I think when technology becomes so central to a case, as this one, we should actually have judges who are trained and who understand the intricacies of the technology they're going to be making life-altering decisions over," he said.
Cary Police Chief Pat Bazemore couldn't be reached for comment after Kurtz's interview Friday, but in an interview earlier in the day, she defended her detectives' work based on Kurtz's claims during the trial that it was dishonest and inept.
Mistakes were made, Bazemore said, but "we learn from them, and we move on."
"But there's never been a question about our detectives' integrity and their ability to investigate this case," she said.
Cooper, meanwhile, is at Central Prison in Raleigh, where he'll stay as he undergoes a diagnostic and admission process into the state prison system.
"He accepted what he heard in the courtroom," Kurtz said. "I believe he understands that the appellate process is just beginning, and I think we have a tremendously good chance at appeal."
http://www.wral.com/news/local/noteworthy/story/9563365/
ximmy
19th May 2011, 10:54 AM
the courts are designed to strip us of our liberties, pretending to be just...
Horn
19th May 2011, 11:26 AM
the fact that it was the only piece of evidence they had was a sign of their ineptness.
JJ.G0ldD0t
19th May 2011, 11:34 AM
Mistakes were made, Bazemore said, but "we cover up our mistake, we learn from them, and we move on and we validate our existence by sending somebody- anybody to jail "
wonder if that's what she was really thinking......
JDRock
19th May 2011, 12:02 PM
i wonder which one of the cops did the actual murder?? Since WHEN does ANYONE, much less a judge have an interest in HIDING crucial evidence??
sunshine05
19th May 2011, 12:45 PM
i wonder which one of the cops did the actual murder?? Since WHEN does ANYONE, much less a judge have an interest in HIDING crucial evidence??
There were suspects. A man she was having an affair with for starters. He sounded VERY suspicious during the police interviews but they never interrogated him, checked for an alibi, etc. She slept with him and 9 months later had a baby. Police never did, or at least did not release paternity test results but the kid looks like the man she had the affair with. She was also seeing him again just before she died, based on phone records. I think they suspected him from the start, thinking it HAD to be the husband and they planted the files on his computer then didn't even bother investigating any leads. It was a done deal.
I am astonished they found him guilty. The tire tracks at the dump site did not match his car, there was a footprint found, not his. There were wires found at the scene and a cigarette butt. Police never tested them for DNA. She was strangled! There was no DNA found in his vehicle, nothing at all placing him at the scene.
Just before defense was finished with their case the jury sent a note to the judge stating that "they wanted their lives back". I think they couldn't have cared less. They just wanted to go home.
I'm so disgusted with this whole thing.
gunDriller
19th May 2011, 01:34 PM
i remember the Carolina's, because when I was a kid we always used to go to Stuckey's and buy firecrackers.
Hatha Sunahara
19th May 2011, 04:49 PM
The time is here now that there are no longer fair trials and they can lock anyone up for anything, anywhere and there is nothing we can do about it.
It's like we're in a herd of sheep, and each of us can only watch as the wolves feast on other sheep. We all know that one day it will be our turn--but what can we do? We're just sheep. How many of us actually see ourselves as humans? If more of us could do that, we wouldn't be seeing this kind of thing. The people who are doing this kind of thing are not exempt from accounting for it. Withdraw all support for them, and find others who will do the same. Resistance is not futile.
Hatha
vacuum
19th May 2011, 08:31 PM
And any violence just feeds the system. "Making a point" is definitely not the answer.
silver solution
19th May 2011, 11:30 PM
Violence is the only answer.
vacuum
19th May 2011, 11:35 PM
Violence is the only answer.
Look at what tptb do
gmo food - softkill
flouride - softkill
gulf spill - softkill
nuclear accidents - softkill
cancer - softkill
drugs - softkill
silver solution
19th May 2011, 11:48 PM
Violence is all that satan's children understand.
The last book of the Old Testament states Gods followers Must Stamp Out Evil.
hoarder
20th May 2011, 05:33 AM
Judge Paul Gessner Jew Judge. I wonder what the defendant had that was inconvenient to the tribe.
mick silver
20th May 2011, 06:37 AM
we need new judges for the people and they can have there judges back
FunnyMoney
20th May 2011, 08:06 AM
Stop using their money, cut them out of the picture.
That's where it starts, anything else won't even make a dent. Taxes and money tricks have been around for thousands of years, turning the ship around will not be easy.
Hatha Sunahara
20th May 2011, 09:17 AM
Here's a link to another judicial frame-up:
http://americanfreepress.net/Supplements/Issue_21_Steele_Insert1.pdf
I'm not a big fan of Edgar Steele, but I am much less a fan of the American Criminal Justice system that is framing him.
Hatha
sunshine05
20th May 2011, 10:32 AM
Here's a link to another judicial frame-up:
http://americanfreepress.net/Supplements/Issue_21_Steele_Insert1.pdf
I'm not a big fan of Edgar Steele, but I am much less a fan of the American Criminal Justice system that is framing him.
Hatha
Thank you. The cases certainly have similarities with the suppression of defense evidence. It is becoming commonplace now and before long there won't even be trials anymore. They will just lock up anyone they want.
sunshine05
30th May 2011, 06:39 PM
Here is the attorney interview describing the frame job:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/noteworthy/video/9563382/#/vid9563382
sunshine05
1st June 2011, 05:17 AM
Letter to the Editor:
More Cooper investigation needed
Two weeks have passed since the guilty verdict in the Brad Cooper trial. Having watched the entire trial, I am still in shock at the verdict.
The state's case was weak. They called witness after witness to discuss affairs, financial information and the Cooper's separation. They tried to suggest that domestic violence was at play, but those of us who watched the trial know there was not one shred of evidence to confirm that. Does anyone buy that?
The only piece of evidence linking him to the murder was a Google Maps search found on his computer the day before she disappeared. The defense had a witness prepared to testify about the files found on the computer but the judge wouldn't allow that. The rest of us watching the trial did get to hear from him. If you watch Day 35, Giovanni Masucci testified that during the 27 hour time frame when the police had access to the computer and before it was hashed, multiple files were altered.
This testimony was the most important of the trial but the jury did not get to hear it. The suppression of this evidence resulted in a man being convicted of a crime.
I am asking residents of Wake County to demand an investigation into the mishandling of evidence by the Cary Police Department. Let them know that this is unacceptable. This is not about this man's innocence or guilt. It is bigger than that. It is about one's constitutional rights to a fair trial.
Link: http://www.carynews.com/2011/06/01/37110/more-cooper-investigation-needed.html
sunshine05
1st June 2011, 05:20 AM
Information from a juror from another forum:
I was at my neighborhood pool tonight with my oldest daughter. I was talking to her friends moms as she was playing in the pool when one of their friends walked over. I know this woman very casually (I know her name and say hi when I see her) and she was confirming to one of the moms that it was the Brad Cooper case she was a juror on. My jaw hit the floor. She sat down at the edge of the pool and I told her I was obsessed with the trial and asked if I could talk to her about it and ask her questions. She said she didn't mind. So I spent nearly 2 hours discussing the case and jury with her. It was an amazing conversation partly because I knew one of the jurors. Anyways, I asked if she minded if I posted about our discussion and she said she didn't. I told her I would not disclose anything personal about her. We went over tons of things about the prosecution team, the defense team, the evidence presented, the notes from the jury and anything else I could think of to ask her. I will post a few of the interesting (to me at least) items. Feel free to ask me about anything specific and I'll post what she said if it was something we talked about. If not, I can possibly ask her if/when I see her again.
- Initial "straw vote" when they first started deliberations were 2 guilty, 2 not-guilty, 8 undecided.
- 2nd vote at the end of Wednesday was 10 guilty, 2 not guilty
- 1 NG changed to guilty overnite Wednesday. Last vote soon changed to guilt as well
- If there wasn't the google search, she would not have voted guilty.
- The jury was very frustrated with the lack of evidence before the google search
- The jury was very frustrated with the continuous stream of people brought in to say BC had an affair
- She personally was bothered by Jessica Adam.
- The jury back in the jury room was usually very funny/laughing at jokes, etc. After the google search testimony, they were silent when they went back.
- She personally wished the defense had introduced a few character witnesses on BCs behalf.
- One of the jurors was a techie and basically dismissed the timestamp stuff (remember they didn't hear all of the "evidence" regarding this).
- After reading some of the stuff they weren't allowed to hear, she's not completely sure about the verdict. I personally told her that they made a decision based on what they were presented, and she shouldn't second guess anything now.
- She was very happy the defense didn't question Mrs. Rentz. She was disappointed in how the prosecution cross-examined Mrs. Cooper.
- Dateline is trying their best to get the jurors to discuss the case on the show. She doesn't want to. They are trying to take the jurors to dinner this week to convince them. I encouraged her to do it, but she doesn't want to.
Now for a few comments on the juror notes.
- The note about people staring at the jury was actually specifically about KL (the victim's sister). Apparently she was staring at a juror that wasn't taking notes and wouldn't stop. Made the juror feel VERY uncomfortable.
- 4 notes were sent about talking in the courtroom. All 4 were sent because of KL/HP talking/laughing. She said it was so bad at times that they couldn't hear the testimony.
- The "we want our life back" note actually ticked her off. A juror did that on their own.
- The juror dismissed right before deliberations was apparently a single mom that had to pick her child up from college and had no one else that could have done it. The juror wasn't expecting to get booted because of it.
- The issue with the Jessica Adam email to the prosecution was ridiculous. The juror in question was doing something church related. Her friend at church new she was part of a jury, but didn't know for what. But given the length, she said she thought it was the BC trial. She simply said that she wasn't allowed to talk about it, and nothing else was said. This was also the day that Gessner said that people would probably start figuring out what they were doing...but they couldn't talk about it. Anyways, her friend then mentioned to her hairdresser that she had a friend on the jury. No idea how JA got involved from their, but her friend had police show up at her house to question her about it. But the juror didn't do anything wrong because she didn't discuss the case or anything about it.
Well that's it for now....I'll be glad to share anything that I can remember (again, this is with her permission).
Link: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138330
dys
1st June 2011, 07:08 AM
As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal. As in, the jurors should be arrested for imprisoning an innocent man (I'm sorry, a google search doesn't prove squat even if the computer was not tampered with). The prosecuters should be arrested. The judge should be arrested. And the cops, most certainly the cops, should be arrested.
All those 'good' cops that some on this forum defend, where are they right now? If they existed, they would be going after these criminals.
dys
sunshine05
1st June 2011, 07:36 AM
As far as I'm concerned, this is criminal. As in, the jurors should be arrested for imprisoning an innocent man (I'm sorry, a google search doesn't prove squat even if the computer was not tampered with). The prosecuters should be arrested. The judge should be arrested. And the cops, most certainly the cops, should be arrested.
All those 'good' cops that some on this forum defend, where are they right now? If they existed, they would be going after these criminals.
dys
It sickens me. I'm pushing for an investigation into this. I attended a council meeting last week where two friends spoke up about this injustice. I followed up with an email to all of the council members and actually received a reply last night. She is going to speak to the town manager about this. I hope they do something soon.
Also, I know the majority of you hate Facebook, but if you are on there, if you could "like" this page, I would appreciate it. You won't show up on the page. The members are not listed. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Brad-Cooper/112930538791917
dys
1st June 2011, 07:58 AM
I think it was Hatha that said that the judicial system is the most corrupt part of government because it's the least accountable. I used to work right near a courthouse, and I made it a hobby of mine to go and watch trials. I saw some very disturbing things during this time.
I remember one case in particular, a 17yr old kid was framed by his xgirlfriend and former best friend who had begun dating his girl. They said that he pulled a gun on him. There were 0 witnesses, 0 evidence outside of a counselor that overheard the suspect speaking angrily about the supposed victim. A cop was brought to the stand, and he testified that he believed the suspect did it. This despite the fact that not only was the gun never found, the cop never even attempted to find it! The prosecution tried to get this kid to accept a plea, a YEAR in jail, the kid refused. Then the supposed victim went on the stand, and the defense attorney tore him apart. The kid changed his story like 5 different times, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that he was accusing his former best friend just to eliminate his competition for his new chic.
So here we have an accuser with an obvious motive to accuse, with no credibility and 5 different stories, no witnesses, no evidence, no weapon, etc. An open and shut case that never should have even gotten as far as it did, correct? Wrong. The kid lost. It really is true that there is no justice in this world.
dys
sunshine05
1st June 2011, 08:08 AM
I think it was Hatha that said that the judicial system is the most corrupt part of government because it's the least accountable. I used to work right near a courthouse, and I made it a hobby of mine to go and watch trials. I saw some very disturbing things during this time.
I remember one case in particular, a 17yr old kid was framed by his xgirlfriend and former best friend who had begun dating his girl. They said that he pulled a gun on him. There were 0 witnesses, 0 evidence outside of a counselor that overheard the suspect speaking angrily about the supposed victim. A cop was brought to the stand, and he testified that he believed the suspect did it. This despite the fact that not only was the gun never found, the cop never even attempted to find it! The prosecution tried to get this kid to accept a plea, a YEAR in jail, the kid refused. Then the supposed victim went on the stand, and the defense attorney tore him apart. The kid changed his story like 5 different times, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that he was accusing his former best friend just to eliminate his competition for his new chic.
So here we have an accuser with an obvious motive to accuse, with no credibility and 5 different stories, no witnesses, no evidence, no weapon, etc. An open and shut case that never should have even gotten as far as it did, correct? Wrong. The kid lost. It really is true that there is no justice in this world.
dys
Wow, dys. That is awful. I know there are so many cases like this out there, way too many. It is all about winning now, not truth and justice. Prosecutors are rewarded for wins but it still amazes me that anyone could be capable of putting an innocent person away. No conscience I guess. There is not amount of incentives that would ever persuade me to do that.
JDRock
1st June 2011, 08:23 AM
we need an EASY way to recall judges (but of course a judge would rule it uncontitutional)
we need to forbid ANY prosecuting atty from seeking either reelection or another public office......often they use this as a stepping stone to the governers mansion! no doubt baseing their success by their conviction rate!
dys
1st June 2011, 08:34 AM
Another case I have knowledge of:
A friend of mine was driving home from a bar with one other person late at night. They blew a tire and ended up on a median strip. Cop comes, both of them refuse to talk at all. Both of them refuse breathalyzer and field sobriety test (because they wouldn't say who was driving). Exactly what you are 'supposed' to do, right? Cop arrested them BOTH for dui. One of them took a plea, which was a dui conviction, but no jail, just a fine. The other decided to try to win the trial. The first argument was simple: the other guy already admitted he was driving and was convicted. Two people can't possibly be driving the same car, right? Wrong. He was convicted, anyway. That was a jury trial, too. Amazing.
dys
sunshine05
15th June 2011, 07:33 AM
I put together a few videos on parts of the trial the jury didn't get to see. This case has really shaken me. I can't stop working on it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKIi3AV5TKM&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
Hatha Sunahara
15th June 2011, 09:11 AM
I didn't really appreciate the extent and the depth of corruption in our 'justice' system until I read Eustace Mullins book called The Rape of Justice. I'd recommend that to anyone who wants the truth about the parasites that 'own the law'.
Also, there is a great succinct and complete description of the same beast at this web site:
http://www.intmensorg.info/corruptusacourts.htm.
Also, you can find a similar view here:
http://jahtruth.net/index.htm
Hatha
sunshine05
16th June 2011, 05:46 PM
A couple more videos, if anyone is interested in seeing how police destroyed and mishandled evidence in this case. Yet the mayor, chief of police and town manager continue to praise them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jhCco54Jlw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gAwApazny8
sunshine05
18th June 2011, 06:50 PM
New video - lead detective completely unconcerned that his detective deleted evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtCDtqMrtgI
sunshine05
2nd July 2011, 06:39 AM
This is how the police framed Brad Cooper, a 42 second Google maps search.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTEwJOTBg_8
sunshine05
21st July 2011, 11:48 AM
I started a blog about this case, if anyone is interested.
http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/
I hope you all are doing well. I'm sorry I haven't been around much. I can't pull myself away from this injustice.
Ares
21st July 2011, 12:23 PM
Keep up the good work sunshine. Don't worry about us here. Just keep us updated from time to time.
Joe King
21st July 2011, 03:26 PM
Stop using their money, cut them out of the picture.
That's where it starts, anything else won't even make a dent. Taxes and money tricks have been around for thousands of years, turning the ship around will not be easy.
No doubt.
After all it didn't get turned in the direction it's going overnight.
sunshine05
24th July 2011, 07:24 AM
In my latest video, the detective lies at the beginning right on the stand. Then later the prosecutor blames Brad's mom for not providing them with evidence. He actually says "you just made our witnesses look like liars." It is unbelievable that he was convicted.
I also updated my blog: http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/
sunshine05
24th July 2011, 07:29 AM
Sorry, here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BlgUpigzKE
sunshine05
12th August 2011, 04:25 PM
This video highlights the witch hunt that occurred. Instead of an investigation, it was an immediate prosecution. The police chief declared that "it was not a random crime" one day after the body was found and at that point there was not one shred of evidence. Well, there still isn't but they manufactured the computer evidence later on.
This story will be on Dateline next Friday, I believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_u86a5Q5Ls&feature=channel_video_title
dys
15th August 2011, 05:11 AM
I am absolutely disgusted that a jury could convict this guy. This is a disgrace.
dys
Twisted Titan
15th August 2011, 06:06 AM
Remember folks the old saying
Justice isn't blind........ITS FOR SALE
sunshine05
15th August 2011, 06:31 AM
I am absolutely disgusted that a jury could convict this guy. This is a disgrace.
dys
I agree. The little that we've heard from the jury is that they wouldn't have convicted him if they had been able to hear all the evidence. But even without hearing from them, I still don't understand how they voted "guilty".
dys
15th August 2011, 09:14 AM
I agree. The little that we've heard from the jury is that they wouldn't have convicted him if they had been able to hear all the evidence. But even without hearing from them, I still don't understand how they voted "guilty".
That excuse is pathetic. The evidence is totally irrelevant. A google search proves absolutely nothing even if happened exactly as the criminals masquarading as law enforcement said that it did. They convicted an innocent man based on nothing but accusation. Disgusting. Revolting. Shameful.
dys
sunshine05
19th August 2011, 06:30 AM
This will air on Dateline NBC tonight at 10PM Eastern. Here are the previews. I don't get the sense that they will even touch on the police, prosecutor and judicial misconduct or the fact that he was framed. Just drama, emotions, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi8oVIozgp8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mlpyxV7wFg
sunshine05
19th August 2011, 06:36 AM
At the end of the second video, you see the woman walking with two girls. That is Nancy's sister. She took them from Brad two days after Nancy's body was found. Her and her parents told him they wanted to meet somewhere to see the kids, a restaurant/play area type of place. When Brad arrived, there were cops there instead. They pried the girls from his arms. They were hysterically crying (age 2 and 4 at the time). That's the last time he saw them, three years ago. At the time, he was not a suspect. There was no evidence. There still isn't.
There are police affidavits about how the girls cried the whole time in the police car, inconsolable.
k-os
19th August 2011, 09:34 AM
At the end of the second video, you see the woman walking with two girls. That is Nancy's sister. She took them from Brad two days after Nancy's body was found. Her and her parents told him they wanted to meet somewhere to see the kids, a restaurant/play area type of place. When Brad arrived, there were cops there instead. They pried the girls from his arms. They were hysterically crying (age 2 and 4 at the time). That's the last time he saw them, three years ago. At the time, he was not a suspect. There was no evidence. There still isn't.
There are police affidavits about how the girls cried the whole time in the police car, inconsolable.
OK, that is absolutely ridiculous. How can you take children away from a father when he's not even a suspect? That's kidnapping, right?
And no, Dateline will probably not touch on the subject of corruption.
sunshine05
19th August 2011, 10:29 AM
First, welcome back K-OS!!!!! I'm not sure why you've been absent but we sure have missed you!
I agree, the whole case has been awful. Even if he is released someday, he will never be the same. And if he is able to get an appeal, he will have the same corrupt DA's. It's sickening.
k-os
19th August 2011, 10:31 AM
First, welcome back K-OS!!!!! I'm not sure why you've been absent but we sure have missed you!
Thank you. I just needed a break. Not much more interesting than that. :-)
sunshine05
19th September 2011, 12:09 PM
William L. Anderson highlighted my recent blog post about police misconduct in the Cooper case:
http://williamlanderson.blogspot.com/2011/09/lynn-blanchard-outlines-police.html
Awoke
19th September 2011, 12:38 PM
So you are Lynn?
sunshine05
19th September 2011, 01:23 PM
So you are Lynn?
Yes.
muffin
19th September 2011, 09:55 PM
Yes.
We have the coordinates. Send in the choppers; Over.
sunshine05
8th November 2011, 03:12 PM
New blog post
http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/cary-police-destroy-evidence-in-the-nancy-cooper-murder-investigation/
murder investigation
08 Nov
To some, there are still remaining questions about the destruction of evidence from Nancy Cooper’s Blackberry phone. Was the evidence intentionally destroyed or was it accidental? Detective Young admits that he wiped all of the data from Nancy Cooper’s cell phone and claims it was accidental. The defense offered testimony that indicated the evidence was intentionally destroyed. This post provides accurate details about exactly what happened, including the timeline which is important.
Brad Cooper gave Nancy’s cell phone to police the day she disappeared. The hope was that police would be able to retrieve information from the phone that could potentially help locate her, but according to discovery records they didn’t even bother to look at it while Nancy was still a missing person. There aren’t any notes or even chain of custody records on it until 7/25/08 when it was finally entered into evidence by Detective Dismukes, approximately two weeks after Nancy’s disappearance.
Interestingly, on a recorded interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_en9lMTeWjE) with Hannah Pritchard, Detective Dismukes asked Hannah if she knew the password to Nancy’s phone. Hannah asked him “Have you still not gotten into the phone?” . Detective Dismukes replied “Oh, we already got what we needed from the phone”. If this is true that they did gain access to the phone there is no record of it.
The defense attorneys sent Cary Police a Preservation letter dated July 30th, 2008. I’m unable to paste the actual letter here, but the content is as follows:
“This is a notice and demand that critical evidence in this matter exists in the form of electronic data contained in your computer systems, cellular phones, and/or Palm, Treo, Blackberry or other PDA device(s) used by Nancy Cooper / Bradley Cooper, included but not limited to any CPU, laptop, flash memory device, floppy disk, compact disc, hard drive, digital video disc, Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards or other electronic media be immediately preserved in it’s present state and that there be no spoliation or alteration of their data. This evidence must be immediately preserved and retained until further written notice of the undersigned. This request is essential, as a paper printout of text contained in computer files or SIM cards does not completely reflect all information contained within the electronic files. Additionally, the continued operation of the computer systems identified herein could likely result in the destruction of relevant evidence due to the fact that electronic evidence can be easily deleted, altered or otherwise modified. The failure to preserve and retain the electronic data outlined herein in this notice constitutes spoliation of evidence.”
One would think that after receiving this letter that careful handling of this evidence would be ordered by the detective in charge. There were options that would have ensured that evidence would be carefully preserved but Cary police chose instead to ignore this letter. Ten days after receiving that letter, Detective Young recorded in his notes that he erased ALL data from the phone while trying unsuccessfully to enter a PUK code (pin unlock key). To begin, Detective Young had no forensic training in the handling of digital evidence. Cary police have officers trained in forensics and equipped with forensic tools to retrieve the contents from cell phones. In situations where a phone is password locked, law enforcement or forensic experts use a device known as a Cellebrite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellebrite) to retrieve all data from the phone including text messages, photos, numbers called, contacts, etc. Cary police have that tool, but the phone wasn’t given to the officers trained to use it. Instead of giving the phone to them, and before receiving a search warrant, Detective Daniels tasked Detective Young with performing a “forensic preview” on the Blackberry.
Young claimed that in an attempt to do the preview, he contacted an AT&T representative and submitted a court order to retrieve a PUK code (even though a court order is not necessary since the code can be found on the website). He said he was given instructions on how to use the PUK code (once received) to unlock the phone. But there are no instructions recorded in his notes and no record of the AT&T representative’s name. It was 10 days after the conversation with the AT&T rep that the phone was allegedly wiped of all data using his memorized instructions from the unknown AT&T rep.
It’s important to note that although a PUK code will unlock the phone, Young still would have been unable to perform a “forensic preview”. The blackberry has security features to prevent a non-owner from accessing it. The only way Young would have been able to view the contents would have been through the use of a Cellebrite or other similar forensic tool. Nonetheless, Young claims he was told by the AT&T representative to enter an incorrect password multiple times until prompted to enter a PUK code. He testified that even after seeing the warning “further action will erase all data” he continued to enter an incorrect code believing he would finally be prompted to enter a PUK code.
Young’s account of the instructions is counter to what’s described on the AT&T website, which first describes how to select the screen to enter the PUK code and then provides a warning that entering the incorrect code 10 times will invalidate the SIM card. From the AT&T website:
Get Your Phone’s PUK Code Online
Go to the Phone/Device page in myAT&T. (https://www.att.com/olam/passthroughAction.myworld?actionType=MyPhoneDevice )
From the My Phone/Device screen, select the Unblock SIM Card link under Manage my phone/device.
The Unblock SIM screen will display your PUK code and will give you instructions for unblocking your SIM Card.
Once you receive your PUK code, you will need to enter it into your phone to set a new PIN code.
Note: If you enter the wrong PUK code 10 times in a row, your SIM card will be invalidated, and you will need to purchase a new SIM Card (http://www.att.com/storelocator/). The phone will display the following error: “PUK blocked call operator.”
Erasing the contents of the cell phone AND invalidating the SIM card requires two separate processes, each of which require the password to be incorrectly entered 10 times with warnings along the way that this process will result in the deletion of data. Despite the warnings, he continued. Here is Young’s account of what happened (from his letter to the defense attorney dated June 5, 2009):
“During the course of the investigation regarding the homicide of Nancy Lynn Cooper, I attempted to access the cellular telephone by obtaining a “puck code” from AT&T, which is the service provider for the cellular telephone number assigned to Nancy Cooper, to complete a ‘forensic preview’. In an attempt to execute the “puck code”, which was obtained via a court order from AT&T, which is attached to this document, I completed steps to successfully ‘unlock’ the cellular telephone and in fact ‘wiped out’ any and all information contained on the cellular telephone.
A search warrant was issued to access the cellular telephone (a copy of this search warrant is attached to this document) on September 22, 2008 and executed on September 24, 2008. An examination of the cellular telephone by Cary Police Detective T. Thomas confirmed that there was no data contained on the cellular telephone.” The letter can be found here (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2011/02/17/9132146/coopermotion.PDF), page 101.
It’s obvious that Young’s actions were inconsistent with the instructions listed on the website. It’s clear that entering an incorrect code 10 times will erase all data but that is exactly what he did. But that wasn’t the end of it. Despite receiving the preservation letter, opting to completely disregard it AND destroying what could have been exculpatory evidence, they also neglected to notify the defense attorneys that the phone was completely wiped of all data until 11 months later, on June 5th, 2009. This is important because AT&T only keeps detailed records for 9 months. Detailed records can contain photos, text messages, Facebook, calendars and more.
After receiving notification that the phone had been erased, the defense arranged for Ben Levitan (http://www.benlevitan.com/), an expert in digital evidence to examine the letter, the explanation of what happened and the phone itself. Mr. Levitan was surprised to find that not only was the phone wiped but the SIM card was also destroyed. His comments on the mishandling of this evidence can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKZLMojSqs).
Back to the search warrant for a moment. The search warrant for the phone was received on 9/22/08. Interestingly Young made no mention in the search warrant that the phone had already been erased. On 9/24 Young finally gave the phone to Detective Thomas to examine it with the Cellebrite. No data was found on the phone. According to Mr. Levitan, 9/24 was also the date that the SIM card had to have been destroyed since it was no longer updating the time and date.
To summarize:
Brad gave Cary police the phone on 7/12/08 (the day Nancy disappeared)
While Nancy was a missing person, Cary police did not attempt to get into the phone to determine Nancy’s recent contacts. (at least according to their records)
Detective Dismukes told H. Pritchard “we got what we needed from the phone”
No chain of custody recorded for the phone until it was signed into evidence on 7/25/08.
Preservation letter from the defense sent to CPD on 7/30/08
8/9/08 – Young claimed he erased all data
9/22/08 – Young receives search warrant for the phone (yet never mentions in the search warrant that he had already erased it)
9/24/08 – Young gives the phone to Thomas to do the forensic exam. No data was found.
6/5/09 – CPD finally informs the defense that they erased the phone
No investigation was ever conducted.
There was no justification for Young to touch that phone. He had the preservation letter, he had access to officers trained in performing forensic exams, RIM Blackberry has a local office and could have been contacted for assistance in accessing the data on the phone, and unlocking the phone with a PUK code wouldn’t have gained him access to the contents. I can’t think of an innocent reason for the destruction of this evidence.
The Cary police chief (Patricia Bazemore) refers to this as a “mistake”. She never ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the chain of custody of the phone, the deletion of all data without a search warrant and willfully ignoring the Preservation letter from the defense. What’s to prevent such a “mistake” from happening again? Nothing. Yet the town manager and mayor stand behind this police department and continue to praise them. They are unconcerned with the public mistrust that has resulted from this trial.
From this point forward, Cary police can eliminate any evidence that doesn’t “fit” with their theory and no one will question them on it. They were able to get away with it, even though the trial was viewed by thousands of people.
The prosecutors made a big deal of the importance of forensic expertise in examining the computer. In fact, they argued against Jay Ward testifying about his findings of tampering because he didn’t have enough forensic training. The judge went along with that. It’s interesting that forensic expertise was key to them, yet their own witnesses, the Cary police detectives completely disregarded all forensic protocols in the handling of the computer that ultimately convicted Brad Cooper. And they disregarded all forensic protocols in the handling of the cell phones. We will never know if there may have been important evidence on that phone, yet there were no repercussions to the destruction of this evidence. This is unacceptable.
Prosecutors claim that the destruction of this evidence was insignificant since they already had the phone records, but that isn’t the point. The point is that they intentionally ignored a preservation letter and with no reasonable explanation they wiped all data permanently from the phone. And it’s been discussed before that there could have been information on the phone that doesn’t appear on records. If the situation were reversed and a defendant had been accused of erasing evidence, a criminal investigation would be ordered. Since it was the police, nothing was or will be done about this.
One final note: Some suggest that maybe Brad somehow “rigged” the phone so that investigators would easily erase the data…that he somehow “set it up to erase”. This doesn’t make sense because Brad would have never been able to imagine that police would attempt to enter codes multiple times. If Brad suspected there was evidence on the phone that was somehow damaging to him, he could have easily disposed of the phone, rather than turning it over to police. If the phone had been properly handled, a copy would have been made and then the data would have been viewed with the Cellebrite and all evidence would have been properly preserved.
The mishandling of this evidence was one of many things that contributed to the unfairness of the trial. This had a big impact on my impression of the police at the conclusion of the trial, as well as the prosecutors who were perfectly willing to make excuses for this and many other items that pointed toward misconduct and unethical behavior.
More testimony about the destruction of the cell phone can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jhCco54Jlw).
dys
9th November 2011, 12:43 PM
New blog post
http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/cary-police-destroy-evidence-in-the-nancy-cooper-murder-investigation/
murder investigation
08 Nov
To some, there are still remaining questions about the destruction of evidence from Nancy Cooper’s Blackberry phone. Was the evidence intentionally destroyed or was it accidental? Detective Young admits that he wiped all of the data from Nancy Cooper’s cell phone and claims it was accidental. The defense offered testimony that indicated the evidence was intentionally destroyed. This post provides accurate details about exactly what happened, including the timeline which is important.
Brad Cooper gave Nancy’s cell phone to police the day she disappeared. The hope was that police would be able to retrieve information from the phone that could potentially help locate her, but according to discovery records they didn’t even bother to look at it while Nancy was still a missing person. There aren’t any notes or even chain of custody records on it until 7/25/08 when it was finally entered into evidence by Detective Dismukes, approximately two weeks after Nancy’s disappearance.
Interestingly, on a recorded interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_en9lMTeWjE) with Hannah Pritchard, Detective Dismukes asked Hannah if she knew the password to Nancy’s phone. Hannah asked him “Have you still not gotten into the phone?” . Detective Dismukes replied “Oh, we already got what we needed from the phone”. If this is true that they did gain access to the phone there is no record of it.
The defense attorneys sent Cary Police a Preservation letter dated July 30th, 2008. I’m unable to paste the actual letter here, but the content is as follows:
“This is a notice and demand that critical evidence in this matter exists in the form of electronic data contained in your computer systems, cellular phones, and/or Palm, Treo, Blackberry or other PDA device(s) used by Nancy Cooper / Bradley Cooper, included but not limited to any CPU, laptop, flash memory device, floppy disk, compact disc, hard drive, digital video disc, Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards or other electronic media be immediately preserved in it’s present state and that there be no spoliation or alteration of their data. This evidence must be immediately preserved and retained until further written notice of the undersigned. This request is essential, as a paper printout of text contained in computer files or SIM cards does not completely reflect all information contained within the electronic files. Additionally, the continued operation of the computer systems identified herein could likely result in the destruction of relevant evidence due to the fact that electronic evidence can be easily deleted, altered or otherwise modified. The failure to preserve and retain the electronic data outlined herein in this notice constitutes spoliation of evidence.”
One would think that after receiving this letter that careful handling of this evidence would be ordered by the detective in charge. There were options that would have ensured that evidence would be carefully preserved but Cary police chose instead to ignore this letter. Ten days after receiving that letter, Detective Young recorded in his notes that he erased ALL data from the phone while trying unsuccessfully to enter a PUK code (pin unlock key). To begin, Detective Young had no forensic training in the handling of digital evidence. Cary police have officers trained in forensics and equipped with forensic tools to retrieve the contents from cell phones. In situations where a phone is password locked, law enforcement or forensic experts use a device known as a Cellebrite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellebrite) to retrieve all data from the phone including text messages, photos, numbers called, contacts, etc. Cary police have that tool, but the phone wasn’t given to the officers trained to use it. Instead of giving the phone to them, and before receiving a search warrant, Detective Daniels tasked Detective Young with performing a “forensic preview” on the Blackberry.
Young claimed that in an attempt to do the preview, he contacted an AT&T representative and submitted a court order to retrieve a PUK code (even though a court order is not necessary since the code can be found on the website). He said he was given instructions on how to use the PUK code (once received) to unlock the phone. But there are no instructions recorded in his notes and no record of the AT&T representative’s name. It was 10 days after the conversation with the AT&T rep that the phone was allegedly wiped of all data using his memorized instructions from the unknown AT&T rep.
It’s important to note that although a PUK code will unlock the phone, Young still would have been unable to perform a “forensic preview”. The blackberry has security features to prevent a non-owner from accessing it. The only way Young would have been able to view the contents would have been through the use of a Cellebrite or other similar forensic tool. Nonetheless, Young claims he was told by the AT&T representative to enter an incorrect password multiple times until prompted to enter a PUK code. He testified that even after seeing the warning “further action will erase all data” he continued to enter an incorrect code believing he would finally be prompted to enter a PUK code.
Young’s account of the instructions is counter to what’s described on the AT&T website, which first describes how to select the screen to enter the PUK code and then provides a warning that entering the incorrect code 10 times will invalidate the SIM card. From the AT&T website:
Get Your Phone’s PUK Code Online
Go to the Phone/Device page in myAT&T. (https://www.att.com/olam/passthroughAction.myworld?actionType=MyPhoneDevice )
From the My Phone/Device screen, select the Unblock SIM Card link under Manage my phone/device.
The Unblock SIM screen will display your PUK code and will give you instructions for unblocking your SIM Card.
Once you receive your PUK code, you will need to enter it into your phone to set a new PIN code.
Note: If you enter the wrong PUK code 10 times in a row, your SIM card will be invalidated, and you will need to purchase a new SIM Card (http://www.att.com/storelocator/). The phone will display the following error: “PUK blocked call operator.”
Erasing the contents of the cell phone AND invalidating the SIM card requires two separate processes, each of which require the password to be incorrectly entered 10 times with warnings along the way that this process will result in the deletion of data. Despite the warnings, he continued. Here is Young’s account of what happened (from his letter to the defense attorney dated June 5, 2009):
“During the course of the investigation regarding the homicide of Nancy Lynn Cooper, I attempted to access the cellular telephone by obtaining a “puck code” from AT&T, which is the service provider for the cellular telephone number assigned to Nancy Cooper, to complete a ‘forensic preview’. In an attempt to execute the “puck code”, which was obtained via a court order from AT&T, which is attached to this document, I completed steps to successfully ‘unlock’ the cellular telephone and in fact ‘wiped out’ any and all information contained on the cellular telephone.
A search warrant was issued to access the cellular telephone (a copy of this search warrant is attached to this document) on September 22, 2008 and executed on September 24, 2008. An examination of the cellular telephone by Cary Police Detective T. Thomas confirmed that there was no data contained on the cellular telephone.” The letter can be found here (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2011/02/17/9132146/coopermotion.PDF), page 101.
It’s obvious that Young’s actions were inconsistent with the instructions listed on the website. It’s clear that entering an incorrect code 10 times will erase all data but that is exactly what he did. But that wasn’t the end of it. Despite receiving the preservation letter, opting to completely disregard it AND destroying what could have been exculpatory evidence, they also neglected to notify the defense attorneys that the phone was completely wiped of all data until 11 months later, on June 5th, 2009. This is important because AT&T only keeps detailed records for 9 months. Detailed records can contain photos, text messages, Facebook, calendars and more.
After receiving notification that the phone had been erased, the defense arranged for Ben Levitan (http://www.benlevitan.com/), an expert in digital evidence to examine the letter, the explanation of what happened and the phone itself. Mr. Levitan was surprised to find that not only was the phone wiped but the SIM card was also destroyed. His comments on the mishandling of this evidence can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idKZLMojSqs).
Back to the search warrant for a moment. The search warrant for the phone was received on 9/22/08. Interestingly Young made no mention in the search warrant that the phone had already been erased. On 9/24 Young finally gave the phone to Detective Thomas to examine it with the Cellebrite. No data was found on the phone. According to Mr. Levitan, 9/24 was also the date that the SIM card had to have been destroyed since it was no longer updating the time and date.
To summarize:
Brad gave Cary police the phone on 7/12/08 (the day Nancy disappeared)
While Nancy was a missing person, Cary police did not attempt to get into the phone to determine Nancy’s recent contacts. (at least according to their records)
Detective Dismukes told H. Pritchard “we got what we needed from the phone”
No chain of custody recorded for the phone until it was signed into evidence on 7/25/08.
Preservation letter from the defense sent to CPD on 7/30/08
8/9/08 – Young claimed he erased all data
9/22/08 – Young receives search warrant for the phone (yet never mentions in the search warrant that he had already erased it)
9/24/08 – Young gives the phone to Thomas to do the forensic exam. No data was found.
6/5/09 – CPD finally informs the defense that they erased the phone
No investigation was ever conducted.
There was no justification for Young to touch that phone. He had the preservation letter, he had access to officers trained in performing forensic exams, RIM Blackberry has a local office and could have been contacted for assistance in accessing the data on the phone, and unlocking the phone with a PUK code wouldn’t have gained him access to the contents. I can’t think of an innocent reason for the destruction of this evidence.
The Cary police chief (Patricia Bazemore) refers to this as a “mistake”. She never ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the chain of custody of the phone, the deletion of all data without a search warrant and willfully ignoring the Preservation letter from the defense. What’s to prevent such a “mistake” from happening again? Nothing. Yet the town manager and mayor stand behind this police department and continue to praise them. They are unconcerned with the public mistrust that has resulted from this trial.
From this point forward, Cary police can eliminate any evidence that doesn’t “fit” with their theory and no one will question them on it. They were able to get away with it, even though the trial was viewed by thousands of people.
The prosecutors made a big deal of the importance of forensic expertise in examining the computer. In fact, they argued against Jay Ward testifying about his findings of tampering because he didn’t have enough forensic training. The judge went along with that. It’s interesting that forensic expertise was key to them, yet their own witnesses, the Cary police detectives completely disregarded all forensic protocols in the handling of the computer that ultimately convicted Brad Cooper. And they disregarded all forensic protocols in the handling of the cell phones. We will never know if there may have been important evidence on that phone, yet there were no repercussions to the destruction of this evidence. This is unacceptable.
Prosecutors claim that the destruction of this evidence was insignificant since they already had the phone records, but that isn’t the point. The point is that they intentionally ignored a preservation letter and with no reasonable explanation they wiped all data permanently from the phone. And it’s been discussed before that there could have been information on the phone that doesn’t appear on records. If the situation were reversed and a defendant had been accused of erasing evidence, a criminal investigation would be ordered. Since it was the police, nothing was or will be done about this.
One final note: Some suggest that maybe Brad somehow “rigged” the phone so that investigators would easily erase the data…that he somehow “set it up to erase”. This doesn’t make sense because Brad would have never been able to imagine that police would attempt to enter codes multiple times. If Brad suspected there was evidence on the phone that was somehow damaging to him, he could have easily disposed of the phone, rather than turning it over to police. If the phone had been properly handled, a copy would have been made and then the data would have been viewed with the Cellebrite and all evidence would have been properly preserved.
The mishandling of this evidence was one of many things that contributed to the unfairness of the trial. This had a big impact on my impression of the police at the conclusion of the trial, as well as the prosecutors who were perfectly willing to make excuses for this and many other items that pointed toward misconduct and unethical behavior.
More testimony about the destruction of the cell phone can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jhCco54Jlw).
Again, if you are on the jury how in the world do you convict a guy for murder with all of this chicanery from the prosecution? Disgraceful.
dys
sunshine05
9th November 2011, 01:59 PM
Thanks, dys. I'm hoping by writing about this, someone will cover the story so people will push for an investigation into this corruption. I'm actually in contact now with someone from a local newspaper and hoping she will cover this for me.
Ares
9th November 2011, 07:02 PM
Again, if you are on the jury how in the world do you convict a guy for murder with all of this chicanery from the prosecution? Disgraceful.
dys
Because we no longer have a jury of our peers. Most people are morons beyond comprehension. A life time spent watching garbage, no desire to learn. An ego of self worth that is beyond disgusting. I would take a GSUS jury any day of the week. Even members I may not agree with, at least I would get a fair judgement then.
Awoke
14th November 2011, 11:08 AM
Because we no longer have a jury of our peers. Most people are morons beyond comprehension. A life time spent watching garbage, no desire to learn. An ego of self worth that is beyond disgusting. I would take a GSUS jury any day of the week. Even members I may not agree with, at least I would get a fair judgement then.
Here, Here! I second this post. Great pinch of truth, Ares.
sunshine05
22nd November 2011, 06:40 AM
My latest blog post: Judge supported the Withholding of Exculpatory Evidence:
Judge Supported the Withholding of Exculpatory Evidence
Despite the very lengthy 10 week trial, there was very little evidence presented in this case and none of it connected Brad to the murder. In any investigation, but especially this one, it’s crucial to explore every possible lead and to consider all information obtained, including information from children. The afternoon that Nancy disappeared, Bella Cooper (age 4 1/2 at the time) told a neighbor, Clea Morwick that she saw her mother that morning in black shorts and a white tee-shirt. The clothing description was consistent with that of many of the sixteen people who contacted police because they believed they saw Nancy that morning. They were responding to “missing” flyers posted throughout the area. The flyers had Nancy’s photo on them and many of the witnesses felt very certain that it was Nancy they saw jogging.
If the Cary police interviewed Bella, there was no record of the interview in discovery documents. If they didn’t interview Bella, what reason would possibly justify ignoring important information such as this? Clea told Detective Dismukes shortly after Nancy disappeared that Bella saw Nancy that morning. Why didn’t police follow up on this? Maybe they did but it was never disclosed.
The defense referenced this in the motion to compel (http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2011/02/17/9132146/coopermotion.PDF) in February ’11, just before the trial began. From page 11 of the document:
A defendant has a constitutional right to know the exculpatory evidence the prosecution and the police know. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 10 L.Ed. 2d 215 (1963).
The following illustrates error and potential prejudice in various rulings, but does not discuss every erroneous ruling of the trial court and does not exhaust the possibilities for prejudice that the sum of the court’s erroneous rulings have injected into the case.
1. Information Bearing On The Crucial Issue Of Whether Ms. Cooper Was Alive The Morning She Was Reported Missing.
Mr. Cooper has consistently maintained that Ms. Cooper disappeared the morning of July 12, 2008 after she left the family home to go jogging. If she went jogging, indeed, if she was alive that morning, other indisputable facts are such that Mr. Cooper could not have killed her. The trial court denied disclosure of any law enforcement interviews with the Cooper’s oldest child, Bella, who was four and a half years old at the time of her mother’s death.
Clea Morwick, a neighbor and family friend who took the Cooper children to her home the day Ms. Cooper disappeared, was interviewed by the police the evening of the same day. Ms. Morwick told the police that Bella told her that she had seen her mother that morning and that her mother had been wearing clothing consistent with a morning jog (“black shorts and a white tee shirt”).
The trial court refused to make the prosecution even to admit or deny that Bella Cooper was interviewed. If the child was interviewed, that interview is patently discoverable under G.S. 15-A-903 (a) (1). If the information gathered in that interview was consistent with what the child had said the day of her mother’s disappearance, it’s disclosure is constitutionally mandated. If the child was not interviewed, which seems inconsistent with the investigation otherwise conducted in this case, that fact in itself is exculpatory as a glaring and biased failure by investigators to interview a witness with exculpatory information. See, United States V. Bagley, 473 U. S. 667, 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985) (information that impeaches credibility of key witnesses is exculpatory under Brady v. Maryland.
The trial court ruled that the request for interviews of the child was “denied” and that information concerning a failure to interview was “not discoverable, but is the subject of cross examination.”
With all due respect, these rulings are dumbfounding. A defendant has a constitutional right to a timely disclosure of exculpatory information and to not be forced to hunt for the information in the cross-examination of witnesses at trial. See generally, Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 131 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1995). Indeed, if the prosecution at trial does not call witnesses who interviewed the child, the court’s ruling will bury the information until a court of superior jurisdiction orders it disclosed. The prosecution apparently chooses to take it’s chances on getting conviction and then arguing on appeal that the error was harmless. The court’s rulings reduce statutory and constitutionally-mandated discovery to a game of twenty questions and is completely inconsistent with North Carolina law and the prosecution’s due process obligations.
These are the prior discovery requests described above, along with the judge’s rulings (pg. 57)
1. If they did interview Bella Cooper, full disclosure as to the details of any interviews with Bella Cooper that they conducted or of which they are aware and if notes were not made that they be compelled to commit them to writing.
Judge’s ruling: The information sought is denied. (pg. 126 of motion document)
2. If the did not interview Bella Cooper, full disclosure as to the reasons why they did not interview a material witness who had relayed exculpatory information along with who participated in the decision, when it was made, and if it was not previously committed to writing for it to be so committed.
Judge’s ruling: The information sought is not discoverable, but is the subject of cross examination.
3. Documentation with respect to the Cary police department’s policies or training in the interviewing of child witnesses.
Judge’s ruling: The information sought has been provided.
So the police, prosecutors and judge worked together to keep any testimony regarding interviews of Bella Cooper out of the trial, even though it was documented that she told Clea Morwick that she saw her mother that morning. Does this sound like a fair trial? I don’t think so.
The small amount of testimony related to Bella Cooper’s account of that morning was blacked out because the detective was working undercover at the time. I have only read the media’s twitter feed and I will include it here but it was noted that the jury wasn’t present during this part of the questioning by the defense.
Defense: Cooper daughter, Bella, told adult she saw her mom that morning wearing black shorts, white shirt. Officer confirms.
Officer: “Due to the stress & trauma it could cause a 4 1/2-year-old child, I did not interview her about her missing mother.”
Undercover officer: I went with the info Brad gave us. He said Nancy left at 7 a.m. & Bella was still sleeping.
Jury out of the room during testimony about what Bella said. Judge rules that he will not allow that testimony at this point.
So that was it. The jury never got to hear that the Cooper’s daughter told a neighbor she saw her mother that morning. This reminds me of a recent exoneration in Texas. Michael Morton served 25 years for a murder he didn’t commit and was finally cleared on DNA evidence. There is mention of exculpatory evidence that was withheld. Apparently the Morton’s 3 year old son reported seeing a man attack his mother that morning. From the article (http://www.texastribune.org/texas-newspaper/texas-news/ken-anderson/):
Morton’s attorneys — John Raley of the Houston law firm Raley & Bowick and lawyers at the New York-based Innocence Project — allege that the Williamson County district attorney’s office intentionally withheld a transcript in which Christine Morton’s mother told a sheriff’s investigator that the couple’s 3-year-old son, Eric, saw a “monster” with a big mustache who was not his father brutally attack his mother.
In both of these cases, prosecutors withheld information reported by children that was favorable to the defendant. It is now being called into question in the Morton case and I hope soon that it will be in the Cooper case as well.
http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/judge-supported-the-withholding-of-exculpatory-evidence/
Ares
22nd November 2011, 09:04 AM
Thanks for the updates Sunshine. I really hope Mr. Cooper is exonerated in a higher court and he works towards having this judge removed from the bench and disbarred.
dys
22nd November 2011, 09:31 AM
Sort of off topic but sort of on. Why haven't the police arrested this judge? There is nothing more criminal than a crooked judge and they are all crooked. As far as I'm concerned, they all belong in jail.
I wonder if Solid can answer.
dys
JDRock
22nd November 2011, 10:08 AM
lets recite the pledge of allegience together... " with liberty, and justice, FOR ALL!...(who can afford it) "
sunshine05
1st August 2012, 09:28 PM
FYI - I'm still working on this case and having read part of the trial transcript, it was worse than I thought. It's such a slow process though. He's been in prison for 4 years, one year post-trial and they expect the appeal to take a year.
This post is about how the prosecution hid behind national security to secure the conviction.
http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/evidence-of-tampering-more-about-the-cursor-files/
Glass
1st August 2012, 10:06 PM
thanks for the update. I wonder what can be done about this?
The thing that I take away from this is that Windows computers keep a record of everything you do on the PC including where you move the mouse.
sunshine05
31st August 2012, 11:42 AM
This article is about my work on the Cooper case:
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/30/the-bradley-cooper-railroad-and-a-wonderful-woman-who-tempers-the-cynicism-that-has-become-american-law/
The Bradley Cooper Railroad — and a Wonderful Woman Who Tempers the Cynicism That Has Become American Law (http://www.theagitator.com/2012/08/30/the-bradley-cooper-railroad-and-a-wonderful-woman-who-tempers-the-cynicism-that-has-become-american-law/)
Thursday, August 30th, 2012 I will say as my time on this blog nears the end that I do become very discouraged with what I see in the American justice system, as it seems to produce liars and glorify the worst lies while denigrating truth. Nor does it matter if the players are atheists, Christians, or something else: the lie always seems to win. At the same time, I am heartened by the mix of people I find who stand up against lies and promote truth, even if it places a personal cost upon them. That is why I so much appreciate reading posts by people like Radley Balko, Eapen Thampy, Lenore Skenazy, and more. These are folks who have a moral compass, despite their different backgrounds, and are not afraid to stand up and be counted. And I would rather be associated these people I have mentioned than a thousand people in Washington who have a hold on power.
I don’t wear my religious beliefs on my sleeve, but I am a Christian (of the conservative variety) and take seriously the admonition of Jesus who told his disciples not to seek power over others but rather to serve and have a servant’s heart. I cannot say that I am a very good servant or could be mistaken for a true Christian servant of others, but I do wish to be like that. (And, yes, I am libertarian in my political views, and much of what Radley and others have said on this page also speaks for me.)
In closing out my posts, I wish to call attention to yet another wrongful conviction, that of Brad Cooper, but also call attention to a wonderful woman who has stood up for him, someone who is beyond special, a true hero (or heroine) for our day, Lynne Blanchard, who has defended a man she does not even know simply because she knows it is the right thing to do.
Cooper was convicted of murder in the killing of his wife in Cary, North Carolina, two years ago. The police misconduct in the case was awful from the beginning, and it was clear that Brad was the target of their investigation and that nothing — NOTHING — would get in the way of a conviction.
When I first read about the case, I had no opinion as to guilt or innocence. It would not have been the first time a husband had murdered his wife, and wrongful convictions in murders, I admit, are fairly rare, although they do happen. There were others who had doubts, however, and one of them was Lynne Blanchard, who also lives in that area. After the conviction, she set up a blog, Justice for Brad Cooper (http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/). She has set up a very impressive site that looks in detail at how police lied, manipulated evidence, and how the judge constantly did everything he could to block Brad’s attempt at a defense.
The evidence that Cooper is innocent is compelling and Lynne has done a very good job in bringing that evidence to the fore. I would urge you to take a look. She writes (http://justiceforbradcooper.wordpress.com/about/):
For starters, there were serious discovery violations. The State used National Security as a reason not to share information about how computer evidence was handled, how files were retrieved and the master file table itself. It was a clear Brady violation and Judge Gessner permitted it. They were able to hide behind national security because the computer was analyzed by the FBI and the state submitted an affidavit stating that sharing the data could jeopardize national security. This should never be allowed and it basically prevented the defense from having the ability to properly address the computer evidence.
Brad Cooper was convicted based on the computer evidence, a Google search. The Cary police did not follow proper protocols in the handling of this evidence. They left the computer on for 27 hours and during that time files were altered, passwords were changed, email archives were accessed and the computer was not hashed until several weeks later. Protocols are crucial because it preserves the evidence so that it can not be tampered with. As it turns out, the defense experts did indeed find evidence of tampering. They found several indications of tampering that could not be explained by the State witnesses. However, the judge would not allow the jury to hear from the defense witnesses. He was clearly biased throughout the trial and the defense team’s inability to address the computer evidence put them at an enormously unfair disadvantage. The alleged Google search was never verified by a 3rd party, even though the FBI told Cary police to do this. It was never proven that the search was conducted on Brad’s computer and in fact the defense experts found evidence that the files were planted.
There is more, much more, and it is worth reading. If Brad Cooper’s wrongful conviction is overturned, it will be because Lynne Blanchard cared enough to fight for someone she did not know because she knew it was the right thing to do. Yes, I wish there were more Lynne Blanchards in the world, just as I wish for more Lenore Skenazys, more Radley Balkos, and more Eapen Thampys. There are never enough, but I am thankful that these people are here, and I am thankful that Radley has permitted me to put my few inadequate words on a blog that has done so much good for so many people who had nowhere else to turn and who had no one else to fight for them. These are the people who temper my hardened views and who remind me that it really is a good thing to keep fighting, even if it really does seem that the bad guys are winning.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.