This was another misleading part of the trial – Nancy’s running shoes. The prosecutors presented two pairs of her running shoes found in the home: an old pair of Asics and a newer pair of Sauconys. They wanted the jurors to believe that since her old and new pair of shoes were in the house, that must mean that Nancy left the home without her shoes and was therefore murdered in the home. But there was another pair of Saucony shoes, purchased in ’06 that were never found. If you pay close attention to Detective Young’s testimony, he stated under cross examination that he had written in his notes, “no void for wife’s 3rd pair of running shoes”, in quotes to indicate that Brad made the statement to him about the 3rd pair of shoes. Brad also stated during his deposition that Nancy had two pairs of Saucony shoes that she alternated.
Detective Young actually visited the shoe store where Nancy purchased her running shoes and determined that she had purchased a pair of Saucony shoes in 9/06. He tried unsuccessfully to find that pair of shoes in the Cooper home. He then tried to determine if Nancy may have returned the shoes. The original store was able to verify that the shoes were not returned to that store. Then he went through several credit card statements trying to find evidence that the shoes had possibly been returned to another store location….nothing. The most logical conclusion regarding the missing shoes is that Nancy was wearing them the morning she disappeared. It supports Brad’s statements about the shoes and it supports what Young had written in his notes when he asked Brad about her running shoes, yet prosecutors chose again to mislead the jury by completely disregarding this missing pair of shoes. It didn’t fit their theory (that Nancy never left the house that morning) so they pretended the missing shoes was a non issue.
For some reason, the State chose to make shoes a focal point of the case and none of what they presented was accurate at all. First they suggested over and over that Brad’s shoes were “never found” while we know from the trial that police never asked for them and never looked for them, and then they completely ignored the fact that Nancy’s shoes really were missing – a very important part of the case since it supported Brad’s claim that Nancy went running that morning. I won’t even go into the “two left shoes” that Young alleged to have found in the garage but that was more misleading shoe evidence from the trial.
Police investigators and prosecutors are supposed to seek the truth in solving a case. Whether the evidence supports their theory or not, they are supposed to acknowledge that it exists and maybe even question that their theory could be wrong. Instead they ignored it, downplayed it, and misstated it over and over. I hope by now that it is obvious just how dishonest and unethical this investigation and prosecution were. Something needs to be done. We shouldn’t just accept this.
This short video highlights the deception from police and prosecutors about Nancy’s running shoes.