RSS

Obstacles surrounding the computer evidence

jfb_scales_fullI’ve been thinking about what Ann Peterson said during oral arguments, how the defense was thwarted again and again at trial and how no one seemed interested in getting to the Truth.  I thought it might be interesting to create a list of all the obstacles faced along the way, beginning long before the trial ever started.

  • The computer evidence was allegedly found by investigators in 10/08.  Several months went by and the defense still didn’t have a copy of the hard drive.  When they asked Agent Johnson in May ’09 if he was finished with it, he told Brad’s attorneys that they could pick up the hard drive that afternoon.  Hours later Detective Daniels contacted his attorneys and informed them that ADA Cummings would not approve the release of the hard drive.  No reason was given, no timing was given.
  • By the time the Defense received a copy, Google’s Privacy policy had expired.  At such time, Google will no longer release information about searches, such as when a search was performed, what IP address it came from, and subsequent searches. Thus the defense wasn’t able to determine who did the search and when….details that could have proven that Brad had nothing to do with it.
  • Agent Johnson testified that he told the Cary Police Department to 3rd party verify the search.  This could have been verified with Google OR by looking at Cisco’s servers since the alleged search occurred at the Cisco office; neither were done, even though it’s known that all searches must be verified if they’re to hold any weight.
  • Then the State submitted an affidavit from FBI Agent Durie to the court. The affidavit basically stated that the FBI’s procedures if shared with anyone could jeopardize the national security of the United States because they could fall into the wrong hands.  This is unprecedented but Judge Gessner accepted it and the defense not only were forbidden to receive the procedures used and the FBI’s notes, they were not even given a copy of the data, or the Master File Table as it’s called. Please read this post for more details.
  • The Cary police did not have to hire the FBI to investigate the computer.  They could have used their own forensic experts OR they could have used the State Bureau of Investigation OR they could have hired a private firm.  They chose the only option that allowed them to avoid sharing discovery … on the only evidence that implicated Brad.
  • Since the Defense didn’t have this discovery, they did the best they could.  Their expert (Jay Ward) had to guess which forensic tools the FBI may have used so that he could extract the files from the hard drive and do the best he could to duplicate exactly what the FBI had done.  As it turned out, the number of files Jay got precisely matched those of the FBI so clearly he did the extraction correctly.  This was a key subject of the appeal – whether or not Ward was qualified to extract the files since he didn’t have a “forensic” certificate.  What I’ll say is that he wouldn’t have needed to extract them if the State had provided the proper discovery in the first place, or he certainly wouldn’t have had to guess which tools were used. But the fact that his data matched the FBI’s should have negated any concerns about his qualifications to extract the files.  But that was not the case – this would turn out to be a huge obstacle to the defense case as Judge Gessner refused to allow Ward to testify about anything he found on Brad’s computer.
  • The Defense finally received a copy of the master file table during the trial and was hoping to question Jay about the FBI’s files since the judge wouldn’t let him testify about his own. No.  The judge said he wasn’t qualified because he wasn’t a “forensic” analyst, never mind the fact that Ward does this work routinely, far more often than any of the State experts who testified.
  • Believe it or not, there’s more.  The defense had one more shot to prove that Brad did not do the Google search that they alleged – the search of Fielding Drive at 1:14PM the day before Nancy disappeared. Howard Kurtz called Agent Johnson to the stand and questioned him about the cursor files.  The cursor files showed identical time stamps which should have been impossible.  The judge first refused to allow the defense to see Agent Johnson’s cursor file data when he duplicated the search, stating it could jeopardize national security, and then he refused to allow a test to be conducted right then and there in the court room to answer the question once and for all.  Imagine what Brad must have been thinking while all of this was happening … it’s painful to imagine.
  • After all that, another expert contacted Brad’s attorneys after watching this debacle and volunteered his time to help with the case.  Giovanni Masucci was a forensic analyst so he had the title the judge was demanding.  Guess what?  He was barred from testifying because he wasn’t on the original witness list and the State said they wouldn’t have enough time to prepare to cross examine him…even though he completely concurred with Jay Ward’s findings in his report.  There would have been no surprises.

If after all of that anyone still doubts the lengths that the prosecutors and judge went through to prevent the truth from getting out, then nothing will convince them.  It is astounding and a complete obstruction of justice.  There were many more obstacles thrown out there aside from the computer evidence but I wanted to focus on this for now because it was the only evidence that linked Brad to the murder.  All of the other “mountains of circumstantial evidence” was 100% refuted at trial.  Every single bit of it. And we know from the jury foreman that Brad was convicted based on the Google search.  I hope this gives you a better understanding of what went on here and how unfair it all was.

 

Tags: , ,

Oral Arguments: Brad’s Appeal

Brad5Finally, there is progress!  We’ve all been anxiously awaiting this. The trial was two years ago and we finally got to hear oral arguments on the appeal. Here is the video of the arguments and it is well worth the time to watch this.  I thought it went really well.  I was very impressed with how well prepared the judges were and their questions were very poised and direct. Of course we don’t know what the decision will be, but I believe that the core issues were properly and thoroughly addressed and Brad’s attorney, Ann Peterson made very strong arguments.

There were 3 issues addressed:

appeal questions

cursor filesI had planned to summarize my thoughts on each item but I can’t easily do that without getting pretty technical so I will just encourage you to listen to the arguments yourself.  It is very interesting and it’s only an hour long.  It goes straight to the core issues from the very lengthy trial.  Although I have no law background, it was my impression that the State had a difficult time justifying the judge’s rulings about both the expert’s qualifications to testify as an expert and the national security ruling that completely blocked the defense’ ability to address the alleged Google map search.

In addition to these issues, some of the circumstantial evidence was briefly discussed.  Brad’s attorney had to address these items because the State’s appeal brief was filled with misleading statements that were listed as facts.  All of these things were completely disputed at trial, yet they continue to present lies as facts.  While there wasn’t time to discuss each item, the alleged spoofed call, the autopsy report and Nancy’s running shoes were briefly addressed.  The State clearly misrepresented the evidence and we have all the testimony to prove it.

Here are a few videos that support the truth, which is what everyone should be seeking.

Nancy’s 3rd pair of running shoes:

No evidence of spoofed call:

Summary:

Watching the oral arguments brought back a lot of feelings, horrible memories from the trial. I think at this point, I need to have faith that this will finally be corrected, that Brad will hopefully get the fair trial that he deserves and that the truth will finally be revealed to all.

I believe it typically takes an average of three months for the judges to render a decision.  I will definitely post an update as soon as it’s available.

 
 

Tags:

My response to the State’s appeal brief

To begin, I want people who may not be familiar with the specifics of this case (but can sense that something is seriously wrong here) to understand this:cooper-patel-cases-to-be-updated-in-court

 In a nutshell, Brad Cooper was convicted because Judge Gessner allowed evidence into the trial that was improperly collected and handled (and therefore subject to potential tampering and manipulation), then forbid the defense any opportunity to respond to it.  That’s what happened.  Everything else presented at trial was based entirely on fabricated circumstantial evidence.  Quite simply, the State had NO evidence whatsoever that Brad Cooper murdered his wife.

I’m going to go through some of the State’s appeal brief now because I simply can’t let the lies sit out there. I understand that at this point in the process it doesn’t matter.  All of these points can’t be discussed in court now as this appeal is only about judicial rulings, but I must address them and will continue to do so until Brad Cooper is free.

appeal text1

1. “his attempts to misdirect police”  – This is simply untrue.  Brad did nothing to misdirect police.  In fact, he allowed them into his home, allowed them to look around, allowed them to snap photos of the house with no resistance whatsoever.

2. “his many lies to police on numerous matters” – I watched the entire trial and while I saw a couple of minor details that Brad had wrong at his deposition (3 months after the murder), they were completely irrelevant to the case and anyone would certainly have some details wrong.  This was already months after the dates in question!  It is ridiculous to suggest that these things had anything to do with an attempt to cover up a murder.

3. “simple pieces of circumstantial evidence such as the changes to his garage and car trunk” – This was completely manufactured by the State.  Jessica Adam testified that it was discussed days before Nancy’s disappearance that Brad had organized the garage but that Nancy still couldn’t fit her car in there.  There is no evidence whatsoever that Brad put his car in the garage that morning.   There were NO changes to the garage!

The trunk – Detective Daniels testified that it was showroom clean.  SBI witnesses testified that there was dirt and debris in the trunk.  The reason the trunk didn’t have much in it is because Brad cleaned it out weeks prior when some gas accidentally spilled in it. It was NOT showroom clean though.  The important fact here is that there was absolutely NO evidence that a body was in the trunk.  No hair, no bodily fluids, no fibers that matched rugs from the house.  Nothing.  So the focus on the trunk was completely irrelevant… fabricated evidence.

4. “his manipulation of telephones to support his story” This was a huge piece of fabricated evidence. The State called all kinds of witnesses to discuss all the ways a phone call can be spoofed but they failed to prove that it occurred.  Period.  Therefore it must be discarded.  One can suggest just about anything if you think about it.  This was a murder trial.  A man’s future is at stake here.  We must never entertain completely fabricated evidence like this.

5. “evidence of his computer activity at various times” – Again, the evidence of his computer activity is meaningless because the evidence was improperly collected and therefore subject to tampering and manipulation.  Period.  This should require no further discussion but a very biased judge allowed the evidence into the trial.

Wake county prosecutors

Wake county prosecutors

All of these things demonstrated the unethical character of Wake county prosecutors.  It has left a permanent impression on me and forever changed the way I view our judicial system. Shame on them.

I’ll be covering more of the very lengthy appeal brief a little bit at a time.

 
11 Comments

Posted by on March 25, 2013 in Brad Cooper Trial

 

Tags:

State’s Response to The Appeal (2/8/13)

I read through it very quickly but I will be writing my thoughts on it when I have time to go through it more closely.  I was instantly shocked that they continue to throw things out there that were 100% refuted by the Defense at trial.  How can they print statements that have no factual basis?

We have to hope that the judges will be objective and will follow the rule of law and grant Brad a new trial.  The State’s rebuttal is extremely weak.  It’s absolutely clear that Brad’s constitutional rights were violated.  I’ll post more comments about this soon.

http://www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=135423

 
 

The State Filed For A Second Extension On The Appeal

The most recent document was posted today on the Appeals website.  The State has requested a second extension and their response will now be due on 2/8/13.  I will post it here as soon as it is available. Until then, please continue to write to Brad.  I’m sure he would really appreciate it.

Bradley G. Cooper DOC# 1264179
1300 Western Boulevard
Raleigh, NC 27606
USA

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 9, 2013 in Brad Cooper Trial

 

Tags:

The Defense Appeal Brief Has Finally Been Filed (11-5-12)!

You can read the entire brief here. I am very hopeful that this unjust conviction will be overturned. Brad’s attorney did an excellent job describing all of the unconstitutional rulings from the court.  I will be discussing this case tomorrow night (11-7-12) on The Other Side of Justice.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on November 6, 2012 in Brad Cooper Trial

 

Tags: , ,

Case Summary Video

 
7 Comments

Posted by on September 25, 2012 in Brad Cooper Trial, police misconduct

 

Tags:

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 427 other followers

%d bloggers like this: