Nancy’s missing running shoes

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.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Nancy’s missing running shoes

  1. Excellent summation. Very evident again how the CPD attempted/succeeded in turning “exculpatory” evidence into misleading speculation to the uninformed jurors. Its amazing to me how many pieces of supposed “evidence” were nothing more than just manipulated misinformation presented as fact. There may be lots and lots of innocent individuals wrongly convicted of a crime – but rarely is the bulk of their cases as contrived by the investigators as in Brads case. The only criminals in his trial were the CPD detectives, DA’s office, and the judge…what a farce and blight on our judicial system.

    Like

  2. One of the things that struck me while watching this video clip, and I’ve noticed it in others previously, is how poor the detectives notes are. Why are their notes so incomplete and open to interpretation almost 3 years after the investigation? I guess that I would expect detectives to be thorough and to completely document the contents of what they investigate. I interpret his statement “no void for 3rd pair of shoes” to mean that he didn’t see a gap on the shelf where the other shoes could have been kept. But he seems to totally not understand what he meant and nowhere else did he document that there was a 3rd pair of runners, despite the lengthy investigation into whether they had been returned to the store. Does he also think to record that shoes are stored in more than one place in the Cooper’s house? I seriously wonder.
    So disappointing that this is the sort of police work that convicted Brad. I can certainly understand why the defence suggested that the police had botched the investigation, it seemed evident during the trial, and the highlights on the blog certainly make it even more apparent.

    Like

    • Yes, and this is why it’s a bad idea to talk to police. If they are dishonest, they will twist things. During direct examination, Young never mentioned anything at all about the missing Sauconys. The prosecutor clearly wanted that too, so they were both dishonest.

      Police can also “add” information to “help” their case along, such as “dress smelled like Downy” (that was added 6 months later!).

      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