Top 100 things wrong about the Cooper case

  1. Chief Bazemore made a public statement “this is not a random crime” before the investigation even began.
  2. Someone started an unfounded rumor that Brad purchased bleach at 4AM and even the media latched onto it.  It was untrue, yet some still believe it.
  3. Chief Bazemore knew Brad never purchased bleach early on, but wouldn’t admit it during the press conference when asked specifically about it.  She let the rumor persist.
  4. Police began following Brad from the beginning, but refused to say they considered him a suspect.  They said it was “for his safety”.
  5. Diana Duncan said that Brad told her the dress was black, but during the trial Detective Young testified that Brad asked the Duncans what color the dress was in his presence and Diana answered “black”.
  6. Detectives Young and Daniels both said that the dress smelled like Downy, but Daniels’ original notes never mentioned that.  He post-added that information 6 months later because they needed to show the dress was washed by Brad.
  7. Ivy McMillan (SBI) testified the dress had a food stain and deodorant streaks.  It was never washed, clearly but prosecutors still ran with “the dress was washed” story.
  8. Ivy McMillan testified that Detective Young told her not to test the grease-like stain found on the dress, but she did anyhow and it was not blood or bodily fluids but consistent with a food stain.
  9. Detectives described the trunk as “showroom clean” but SBI testified there was normal dirt and debris in the trunk.
  10. NO evidence was found that there was a body in that trunk – no hair, fibers, or DNA found.
  11. No dirt or mud found in the car that matched dirt from Fielding Drive, and it was very muddy there, according to photos.
  12. No mud visible on the floor via the store cameras when Brad entered the store store.
  13. Prosecutors made the claim that Brad’s shoes from that morning were missing, but Detective Young testified that he never even asked him for the shoes.
  14. The shoes were not even listed in the initial search warrant, not until 3 months later after Brad’s arrest.
  15. Nancy’s Saucony shoes purchased in ’06 were never found.
  16. Brad did tell Young that she switched out her shoes between the two newest pairs.  Police tried to prove that Nancy returned that pair of shoes (the Sauconys) but they could not.
  17. Police took two mismatched, different sized shoes (both right shoes) from a garage shelf and tried to suggest that Brad accidentally grabbed two left shoes and disposed of them. (fabricated evidence)
  18. Prosecutors went along with the “two left missing shoes” ridiculous story.
  19. No evidence of a struggle and no sign of a murder was found in the house and police said “that’s what’s so unique about this case”.
  20. Detective Young had a story about Brad’s route to Harris Teeter for years before the trial and then changed his story in the middle of the trial as if it was no big deal.  The original story was used to cast suspicion on Brad and it was false!
  21. Brad purchased milk, green juice and Tide the morning of 7/12.
  22. Jessica Adam told police the Coopers used All detergent and they believed her instead of Brad. False.
  23. Jessica told police Nancy always ran with her keys and phone and Young actually put that in his affidavit.  False.
  24. Jessica and others told police Bella didn’t drink green juice.  False.
  25. Many friends told police Nancy never removed her necklace.  False.
  26. Hannah told police Nancy’s earrings were screw-back.  False.
  27. Jessica said there were decorative ducks missing from the foyer.  False.
  28. Detective Daniels testified that when Brad was told a body was found he said “black and red sports bra” then stopped.  He later testified that Brad actually listed several items that Nancy may have been wearing that morning since he did not see her leave the house.
  29. Police allege a call was “spoofed” when Nancy called Brad at 6:40 that morning.  They never proved it.
  30. Prosecutors claim that because Brad was capable of spoofing a phone call meant he likely did.  No proof.
  31. A spoofed call with the use of a computer and router can only be a max of 23 seconds long.  The call from Nancy to Brad that morning was 32 seconds.
  32. Prosecutors allege there was a missing router, but never proved it.  Even IF all of the equipment capable of spoofing a call was in the house, the State must still prove that he did it!
  33. Police ignored 16 witnesses who believed they saw Nancy that morning and deny that but testimony confirms that none of them were followed up with until 3 months later.  Many were never contacted.
  34. Four witnesses saw a strange van in the area around the time that Nancy went missing.
  35. One of the witnesses believed they saw it turn around and follow a jogger he believed to be Nancy Cooper.
  36. That witness contacted police while she was still missing, but they didn’t call him back until 3 months later.
  37. Detective Daniels wrote “long sleeves” to describe what Brad was wearing that day instead of “short” and when shown a picture of Brad in short sleeves, he called it a typo, yet never corrected it in his report.
  38. Bella Cooper told a neighbor that she saw her mother that morning in black shorts and a white tee-shirt.
  39. In a motion to compel, the defense asked if Bella was questioned and never received a response.
  40. Judge Gessner wouldn’t order prosecutors to turn over evidence about whether Bella Cooper was questioned about seeing Nancy that morning.
  41. Judge Gessner wouldn’t even allow the defense to question police about Bella’s comments in front of the jury.
  42. Judge Gessner allowed prosecutors to use “national security” as an excuse not to share discovery with defense – all of the methods, procedures and notes involved in the computer analysis that convicted Brad Cooper.
  43. Judge Gessner wouldn’t allow the defense expert witnesses to testify about their findings on the computer – the evidence of tampering.
  44. Judge Gessner wouldn’t allow a change of venue, even though this case had already been tried by the media.
  45. Tire tracks at the scene were never cast and analyzed, though it’s clear it was not the Cooper vehicles.
  46. Footprints right near the body were not cast and analyzed.  (they were too small to be Brad’s)
  47. FBI told Cary police to verify the Google “search” with Google themselves.  They didn’t.
  48. Police gave the defense access to the computer after the Google privacy policy expired so they couldn’t verify the “search” was not done by their client.
  49. Cary police ignored a preservation letter from the defense attorneys specific to electronic evidence.
  50. Detective Young erased all data from Nancy’s cell phone and destroyed the SIM card 10 days after the letter was received.
  51. Cary police didn’t notify the defense until 11 months later – again past the privacy policy to obtain records from AT&T.
  52. Cary police didn’t follow proper forensic protocols while seizing the computers from the Cooper home.
  53. Brad’s computer was left on for 27 hours.
  54. During that 27 hours, hundreds of files were changed, not all automatic updates.
  55. All of the temporary internet files were altered.
  56. Email archives were accessed.
  57. Passwords were changed, including the administrative password.
  58. The computer had 100% invalid timestamps the day of the “search” that convicted Brad Cooper.
  59. The computer had 8% invalid timestamps over the life time of the computer.
  60. Computer wasn’t hashed until a month later.
  61. Poor chain of custody was followed and the computer was left in a lab for 2 weeks with several people having access to it.
  62. Exculpatory evidence was revealed during the trial – FBI witness stated there was NO evidence of a spoofed call found on the computers.  That was not given to the defense in discovery.
  63. Prosecutors played part of the deposition for the jury that was supposed to be deleted, the ONE part that the judge ordered to be removed.
  64. Autopsy evidence was mishandled – bugs from the body were left in a locker for 2 weeks instead of properly preserved so they had little left to test.  A more accurate TOD could have been determined.
  65. The blood alcohol level could have been more accurately determined if a more accurate test had been run.  Again, it could have given a more accurate time of death.
  66. A cigarette butt was found at the scene but not tested for DNA until 2 years later.
  67. The “friends” had affidavit meetings/parties to make sure they had their stories straight. The friends sent the message – “you are either of the belief that Brad Did It, or you are no longer in the circle.”
  68. Prosecutors suggested that Brad has a 32 digit password on his phone but he did not.  Cisco locked the phone automatically after so much time passed and the password was required to unlock it.
  69. Prosecutor made the claim in closing that there was a pink nail found in the garage.  It was NOT a nail.  It was a piece of plastic, probably from one of the kids toys.
  70. Police tested Brad’s shoes for soil composition to compare it to samples from Fielding Drive – the shoes he wore while out searching for Nancy through trails.  It was meaningless and a waste of tax dollars.
  71. Prosecutors claim that Brad was one of 152 CCIE VoIP engineers.  False – there are currently over a thousand specific to voice and there were several hundred in 2008.
  72. Detective Daniels said Nancy’s bed “didn’t look slept in”.  It did.
  73. He never photographed his observation.
  74. Then he claimed he sat in Nancy’s bed to “show what a slept in bed should look like”.
  75. Then he claimed he photographed it.
  76. Then he sent the bedding to SBI for fiber and body fluid evaluations and didn’t inform them that he contaminated the evidence by sitting on it.
  77. Detective Young said it was fine for investigators to drink diet coke at an investigation scene “if they are thirsty”.
  78. No booties were worn over shoes while police were in and out of the Cooper home and an alleged piece of hay was found by police in the home on July 16th.  It was not photographed, it was not collected as evidence, or reported to the lead detective….it appeared in the officer’s notes two years later and the officer testified at the trial.
  79. Police ignored an alternate suspect.
  80. The alternate suspect lied during the first interview.
  81. The alternate suspect knew Nancy’s jogging route.
  82. The alternate suspect had a sexual encounter with the victim.
  83. The alternate suspect is possibly the father of one of the Cooper children.
  84. The alternate suspect was never investigated and ruled out.
  85. SBI told Cary police to obtain DNA on the Cooper children.  They didn’t.
  86. Paternity of the child is still unknown.
  87. Three witnesses from the party the night before Nancy’s disappearance said she had plans to jog the next morning.
  88. Not one person said she had plans to paint.
  89. Ricardo Lopez changed his initial story – he told police Nancy said she was going jogging the next morning and was very convincing.  The next day he went back and changed his story because “he didn’t want to jeopardize the investigation”.
  90. Police believed the paint story and disregarded the jog story because it came from Brad.
  91. Nancy knew that Brad had plans to play tennis at 9:30 that morning and would not have made paint plans because she had to watch the children.
  92. Jessica originally said she made the plans with Nancy to paint by phone, but it wasn’t on the phone records.
  93. Then Jessica said she made the plans at Nancy’s home that Friday afternoon.  Police didn’t question this discrepancy.  Was she even there that day?
  94. The State presented a lot of non-evidence to waste the court’s time.  They presented a rug for example, that had no DNA on it and meant nothing to the case. This is one of many examples.
  95. Prosecutors tried to make the case that Brad straightened the garage so he could get a car in there the night of the murder.  Brad straightened the garage the prior week and there is no evidence a car was ever in that garage.  Even Nancy told Jessica she still couldn’t get her car in there the Tuesday before she disappeared.
  96. Hannah sent an email to friends asking for pictures only with Nancy wearing the necklace and police were copied on it.
  97. The mayor and town manager praise the police for a job well done in the handling of the investigation.
  98. The mayor and town council still aren’t pushing for an investigation into the clear mishandling of the Cooper case, even though public mistrust has resulted.
  99. Part way through the defense case, the jury sent a note to the judge stating “we want our lives back”.  We want this to be over”.
  100. The jury foreman, after the trial said the computer evidence was the main deciding factor in the guilty verdict.  This was the only evidence the defense was not permitted to defend against and the judge and prosecutors made sure it never happened.
Advertisements

29 thoughts on “Top 100 things wrong about the Cooper case

    • Mark – It was so confusing (intentionally), but she testified that Brad went to her house and said “Can you help me look for the dress. It was black, right?”. But what really happened was he told police it was blue. They said “are you sure?” He said “Yes” and then he went to get the Duncans to verify. When they entered the house, Young has in his notes that Brad asked them what she was wearing and Diana said “a black dress”. She had already told Dismukes by that time that it was a blue/green dress per her conversation with RT.

      Like

      • Yeah, it was confusing, and I didn’t remember it correctly. I also didn’t read #5 correctly the first time and misinterpreted what you were saying.

        Like

  1. I both watched this case on a local news site feed and I have had dealings with the Cary Police.

    Wake County, NC, specifically the city of Cary is not the place to ever get a fair trial. Everything there is just…off.

    Thanks for the list!

    Like

  2. When a person really “needs” help with something….and it appears, without even asking for it,
    IT MUST BE A SIGN THAT GOD LISTENS…..and PROVIDES….as I stated to you….YOU ARE AN ANGEL….because I needed some help with something….and before I could even ask you about it….this appeared…..OMG…..something good is going to happen with this….Thanks so much…

    Like

  3. Because of this outstanding post, I have just reviewed parts of the trial involving testimony by the Cary Police that was instrumental in Brad Cooper’s trial. As children, we are taught that a policeman is “our friend” and that police are there to “serve and protect”. It is deep within the American conscience that our police are inherently trustworthy. It is on this premise that almost all convictions in the US for any offence are made. For example, you may go to traffic court and argue that you did come to a complete stop at that intersection, but the policeman’s word is going to trump yours every time. Juries are no different. They are going to believe policeman, it is deep within their subconscious to do so. One of the motivating factors is the concept “why would a policeman lie?” He has no horse in the race, no dog in the hunt. He is merely doing his job and is surely only motivated by truth, justice and the American way.

    Well, it is time that folks in our society recognize that their fantasy about police being honest is completely false. The fact is that police (along with nearly all others in today’s legal system) are almost without exception dishonest because of the environment in which they work. Theirs is a difficult job, working among the bad guys and the good guys. Their world is not as black and white as ours. They operate in “the grey areas of life”. In addition, they also operate in the real world under pressures to earn their living, support their families, trying to get ahead in their careers and finances all while trying to stay safe in the streets where they are making enemies in their everyday work. Please take a look at what happens for example when a suspect (or a jailed person) resists arrest or their authority. In some cases the suspect leaves the scenario in a coma, or badly beaten up. In almost all of these situations, one officer (or jailer) has let his emotions get out of hand. In almost all cases, every officer who witnessed the events will “back up” their fellow officer and to do that he will lie. It is the unwritten code of the police officer. It is us “the good guys” versus them “the bad guys”. I think we all understand this and to some extent actually condone it. Again , we don’t want policemen to be hurt “just doing their jobs”. The important thing to realize is that in the culture in which police work in, they actually are forced to be MORE dishonest than ordinary citizens. The nature of their work actually demands it. They work among liars so they learn to be “better liars”.

    In the circumstance where officers are trying to further their careers and or keep the jobs they have worked so very hard to attain such as “supervisor” or “detective” or “police chief” the pressures are even greater. The level of involvement in more serious crime, with more serious bad guys (often with bigger wallets and more well-paid and aggressive defence attorneys) is even more treacherous. These are officers “for example like our friend Judge Gessner, who have big aspirations. They work hard on their educations and even look at political futures especially in a closely knit legal community like Wake County. It is very important for officers who have advanced and / or who want to advance to make proper connections and friends along the way. It is therefore not difficult to see how a well practised liar as a policeman can be a very cooperative witness in a high profile murder case, especially when his cooperation with the authorities will ensure security in his career. In this context, please take a look at the testimony of “policemen” in the Cooper case.

    Perhaps the most obvious evidence of a lying policeman is that of Detective Daniels on the stand in the Cooper trial. To watch his testimony is simply laughable, were it not so tragic in its effect on convicting Mr. Cooper. Please look at it. He says that in an effort to show a fellow officer what a “slept in” bed looks like compared to a “non slept in ” bed, he sat down upon it. This, as a lead detective at a crime scene. It is only too obvious that he is either lying or he must be the stupidest detective on the planet and that he thought the officer he was “demonstrating to” was even more stupid. I won’t go into any other details, it is all there. There are so many instances in this trial where lies were being told (and not stopped by prosecution friendly, ex-policeman judge Gessner that I personally find it embarrassing to say this is my community.

    There is a term for officers giving witness testimony and it is familiar to all who have first hand knowledge of the legal system. It is called “testilying”. The sad thing is, belief in our police and their honesty is a good thing, however all educated Americans must know by now that the police are most often corrupt and complicit in making sure American’s constitutional rights are usurped on a daily basis. We truly now live in a police state where the power of ordinary citizens is lost to the government. No longer can an ordinary citizen of the country claim to be living “in the land of the free”.

    Like

    • Thank you for the informative post. This case opened my eyes to this. I always heard that “testilying” was common, but this is the first time I had the opportunity to see it first hand. The best examples I came across were the bed, the dress deception (there is a series of videos on that), the confirmation by Young that Nancy’s shoes weren’t returned (that is in Trial summary part 1 or 2) and the destroyed cell phone testimony. The prosecutors then took the lies and fed them to the jury as if they were fact (even though the testimony proved they were lies). So unbelievable! So dishonest and misleading. I hope this case will become a case study for law students one day so they can see all the things that can go wrong in a trial. This is a classic example of an unfair trial and many played a role in it – police, prosecutors and the judge. I will never forget it.

      Like

  4. This video has the hay, the bed, the diet coke, the lying about confirmation about Nancy’s shoes not being returned and the chain of custody for the computer.

    The bed testimony is quite funny, especially when you have the mayor calling them the best police department in the state. I would hate to see the worst department:).

    Like

  5. Trust me,
    I am so glad that I read this ! So thankful the “Top 100 Reasons” were kept up with. I sadly BELIEVE this. People are SO UNAWARE of what does happen in police investigations. I personally SEEN with my own eyes how things REALLY work. It is no secret, although I am SURE would be denied, that local police, (not just Cary) dislike the sherriffs dept., FBI, RPD, SBI or any other dept. helping with their case. All of the depts. dislike the other depts. Why? It is NOT about who really did it. It is ALL about getting the credit for “our dept. solved the crime” to SATISFY the public that their ” DEPARTMENT” is GOOD !!! I have seen it, I have literally HEARD it with my own ears !! Until you have personally been around or involved, you always believe ” the police are right” I am not a “cop hater” I am thankful we do have them. But, I am KNOW what I have said to be true. The public is SO UNAWARE of this and how the system REALLY WORKS. It is sad, discusting, alarming of what really goes on, this real truth, the facts. A “PLEA DEAL” is offered in EVERY SINGLE CRIME of ANY nature. Why ? Not for the truth, but for the sake of SAYING, THEY SOLVED THE CRIME !!!!!!! We live in a very POLITICAL WORLD ! If I had not seen or heard this with my own eyes and ears, I wouldn’t believe it. Thank you for paying attention to the at least 100 ERRORS !

    Like

  6. Thank you for posting this video Lynne! Again, Detective Daniels is shown to be quite laughable in his completely implausible explanation of the bed. It appears that the fact that the bed did appear to be slept in supporting Brad’s claim was problematic to the prosecution. Can this whole scenario be contemplated as anything other than an outright lie? I don’t thinks so. Other instances shown in this video illustrate the great lengths the Cary Police went to make the evidence fit their theory. Whatever happened to just presenting the evidence as it actually was and letting a jury decide? The answer is all of us want to believe that the fate of the accused is decided by 12 jurors of one’s peers. In actual fact, guilt is pre-determined by the select few, police, prosecutors and judge who are willing to bend what it is that jurors get as evidence. This is a clear example of how 12 people can be manipulated by experts to achieve the goal. The same method was used to convince the general public to convict Brad in the court of public opinion. This is not how the “presumption of innocence” paradigm is supposed to work.

    Like

    • Clearly to prosecutors the WIN was much more important than the truth. I wonder how things may have turned out had they done a proper investigation. We will likely never know what really happened.

      One thing is clear – putting the wrong person away was not justice for Nancy. Exposing the truth about this case is as much out of respect for Nancy as it is for Brad and the kids and their families and the entire community. Nancy Cooper deserved an honest and thorough investigation. They failed her.

      Like

  7. I have tried to compile a list of circumstances or attributes that existed and attributed to the guilty verdict in a trial with scant factual evidence. I recognize that many will be dismissed as insignificant and some will be considered biased or politically incorrect.
    1.Gossipy neighborhood with husbands ruled by the wives.I probably shouldn’t have started off with this one.
    2.Social butterfly for a wife.Nancy was well known in the neighborhood and Brad was “oh, that’s Nancy’s husband”.
    3.Nancy was an exaggerator and a good story teller. Friends and neighbors biased by Nancy’s colorfull stories about Brad which led to influencing police investigators.
    4.Although they were both from Canada I believe some would still perceive Brad (charged with murder) as being an outsider.
    5.Brad’s a male. People find it much easier to believe a man is capable of murder and I know that its supported statistically by a wide margin.
    6.Media photo representation.The media used one photo consistently of Brad that he indeed looked like an unbalanced individual who had just been caught in the act of mass murder. This certainly influenced me in the beginning when I felt sure he was guilty.
    7. Brad’s withdrawn personality. This probably hurt his case as much as anything. people didn’t know him, didn’t understand him and Brad didn’t share personal information or talk about his family life.It was easier to take Nancy’s depictions of the marriage at face value.
    8.Cary, a town with a large and growing upper middle class that wanted to project an image of stability and safety to sustain growth.
    9. Cary police Department investigators. No explanation needed.
    10.Chief of police was female. I expect flack on this one. It may not be PC, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a factor. I’m not referring to her abilities or qualifications as a woman.It just may have made it easier for her to dismiss the possibility that a female could have been involved on some level.
    11.They were going through a divorce. No explanation needed.
    12. Nancy had a close supportive family and a twin sister.I’m running out of characters, but will explain this if questioned.
    13.Brad was in a technical field and considered intelligent. I think most of us already know why I listed this.
    14.Jury selection. I don’t have ideas about how to improve jury selection, but I do believe that sometimes trial cases are won or lost due to fortunate picks. Strong jury personalities can influence the weaker personalities.
    15.Duration of trial. No explanation needed for most of us.
    16.Judge that was a former police officer and pro prosecution. He had likely faced some tough defense lawyers in the past.
    17.Amanda Lamb and WRAL. Amanda’s destiny is a position with Fox News. I do commend WRAL for broadcasting the trial and making the videos available on the internet.Yeah, I know it was mostly to gain viewership. I also recognize that the broadcast and videos played a huge role in garnering support for Brad.
    18.I think the investigators were reluctant to dig into Nancy’s affairs due to pressure from her friends and the simple fact that they were afraid to appear unsympathetic to her demise.

    Like

    • Excellent list. I would probably add the influence of Tharrington-Smith, one of the most powerful law firms in the state. They were involved from the beginning and the custody case as well as the deposition definitely impacted people’s belief that Brad was guilty. He certainly had a lot stacked against him.

      Like

  8. I have been reading the case narrative and other evidence in the case of Jason Payne in Texas who appears to have been convicted with manipulated evidence as well. I have become convinced that trial by jury just does not work. I think we can all recite at least a couple of cases where juries have found what most would consider “guilty” people innocent. But more importantly there are many going to prison wrongfully after being found guilty by a jury of peers. What is going on in this nation when people can convict someone to life imprisonment or even death so cavalierly? Even as the case was presented in Brad Cooper’s case, I believe there should have been enough doubt in each and every juror’s mind NOT TO CONVICT. What makes it so easy to believe prosecutors who are clearly shown to have failed in the Cooper case and have been clearly shown to be complicit in their lies and manipulation of evidence that a jury cannot honestly say to them selves “I just don’t trust this prosecution? I have read many of the letters to the media where the average joe simply convicts in EVERY case. Is this some sort of misguided attempt by folks to “protect society” from monsters? Can someone please explain to me?

    Like

    • It seems they don’t understand what reasonable doubt means. I think in the Cooper case, the jurors picked up on the judge’s clear bias against the defense and that influenced them.

      Since this case, I’ve seen several other cases like this (Jason Payne’s included). It’s very disturbing and it’s as if there is no trial at all. Once someone is accused, you can almost count on a guilty verdict even with little to no evidence. I think some of it is psychological tactics too. I’ve noticed in closing that many prosecutors say “use your common sense” as you look at the evidence. It’s almost to say “if you don’t vote guilty, you have no common sense” and it seems to work.

      Like

  9. What is most bothersome about the Cooper case is that time and again, you want to throw up your hands at the evidence by the state because it is ,plain and simple, faulty. And it is obviously filled with lies and deception on the part of the police.which also had to be obvious to most of the jurors. I fail to understand how 12 intelligent people could not see that, guilty or not, this man was being convicted on very bad evidence. What I find very hard to believe is that ordinary people are now so gullible and so cowardly that they cannot stand up for themselves. I know there had to be people on that jury who were saying “:I have reasonable doubt”. The reasonable doubt was that there was zero physical evidence connecting him to Nancy’s murder. The reasonable doubt was from actual eyewitnesses. Real people with zero self interest to lie. Surely a reasonable juror would think, there has to be something concrete in order for me to convict.. I have a major problem that the prosecutors were able to bring this to trial knowing what they know. They know that the google search was planted somehow. They know that the spoofed call could not have happened. They know that there was exculpatory evidence on Nancy’s cell phone (probably information that there was no painting plans or other such stuff that showed the prosecution theory to be wrong).They know that the quality and quantity of eyewitnesses destroyed the theory that Brad killed her. 12 jurors somehow found 16 people were wrong. This is what I am dumbfounded by. It wasn’t witnesses who claimed they saw Nancy Cooper after the fact. Some of these witnesses had reported to the police even before the body was found. It is simply dumbfounding to me.

    I applaud Judge Orlando Hudson for his courage in striking down convictions based on faulty evidence. I know that I could not serve on a jury now. When asked I would have to say that I do not trust the government.

    Like

    • It is dumbfounding. The initial vote was 1-guilty, 1-NG, 10-undecided. How is it possible that every one of them was convinced to vote guilty? It makes no sense and we have never heard from the jurors to explain how they were convinced. This is why I can’t let go of this case. I don’t think I have ever been so shocked about anything in my life as this verdict.

      Like

    • No Jim..You HAVE to do jury duty! We informed people are the only ones who can make a difference! And I can guarantee that I would never be swayed by other jurors.

      Like

  10. This is the real; educational value of Brad Cooper’s conviction. Simply put, you should be able to depend on the independent intelligent deliberations of 12 people to come up with a proper verdict. Prosecutors throughout the U.S. now know that it is more likely for Americans to convict than acquit. Anyone, innocent or not, is advised under this system to accept a plea bargain.

    Like

  11. What about the google files format? It was my understanding that if Brad had googled the spot, it would have been saved as a .bmp file…not the .png file that the Police had.

    Like

    • It actually was saved as a .bmp file but should have appeared as a .cur file, as that is what Google maps used in ’08 and still uses currently.

      Around the 30 second mark it is discussed:

      Like

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s