Thursday, July 7, 2011

Bradley Cooper and the case narrative

On July 12, 2008, Nancy Cooper, a middle-class wife and mother of two young children living in Cary, North Carolina, was declared missing. Two days later, her body was found in Wake County and the affluent community (where many people are employed in high-paying jobs at the Research Triangle or at the nearby University of North Carolina) was stunned.

The police investigation almost immediately centered on Nancy's husband, Brad. In their investigation, police found that the couple, which had moved to Cary from Canada, was on the verge of divorcing. This was not going to be an amicable divorce, from what people who knew the couple were saying, and in these kinds of cases, the estranged spouse almost always is going to be the prime suspect.

Almost immediately, police locked in on Brad Cooper, and at that point, to be honest, they decided that he would be the one they would investigate. Pat Bazemore, Cary's chief of police, declared that it was "not a random crime," which meant that whoever killed Nancy Cooper meant to kill her. What is important to remember is that from that point on, the police would interpret ALL information as pointing to Brad's guilt, rather than trying to use the information they found as a roadmap to finding a suspect. (He was arrested in October of that year and charged with Nancy's murder.)

This hardly is unusual with police these days, and this is one of the biggest criticisms that defense attorneys and people like Radley Balko (one of the most accurate and important journalistic commentators on the law today) have of police investigations. All too often, police decide beforehand who is guilty and then tailor their investigation toward proving what they already believe to be true.

To put it mildly, this is a recipe for disaster, and it is the single worst cause of innocent people being framed. What starts out as a flawed investigation ultimately turns into police putting together a house of dishonest cards, and that is what happened in the Brad Cooper case.

Police and prosecutors claimed that Bradley strangled his wife to death the night of July 11, put her body into the trunk of the car, drove her to the place where he had found in a Google search, and dumped her there. Brad, on the other hand, claimed that she had gone out jogging that morning and had called him on her cellphone at about 6:40 a.m.

Obviously, if she was out jogging and calling her husband instead of lying dead in a drainage ditch, the police/prosecution narrative made no sense and there was a killer on the loose. Making matters worse for the law enforcement narrative, a number of people told police that they had seen her jogging that morning. Obviously, there would be a huge collision course between competing streams of "evidence."

As readers know, houses of cards fall apart, and this one did, too. However, when prosecutors AND judges decide that they are going to do their best to prop up a bad case, then it really does not matter whether or not the charges have a foundation. If a jury goes along with what the judge and prosecutors want, then the defendant is doomed, and innocence means nothing.

There are a number of things that did not make sense in this prosecution, led by Assistant District Attorney Howard J. Cummings and ADAs Boz Zellinger and Amy Fitzhugh, and as I will point out in future posts, it is clear that the police, prosecutors, and the judge decided to find a way to deal with the red flags of the investigation. They include:
  • Police destruction of the cell-phone data in Nancy Cooper's cellphone. Police claim it was accidental, but the defense was able to raise some important questions about it. By destroying the material and not notifying the defense for nine months about it, one gets the sense that something more than just carelessness is at work.
  • The Google search of the area where Nancy Cooper's body was discovered was found on Brad Cooper's computer, and jurors said afterward that this was the key piece of evidence that led them to convict Cooper. The defense had an expert who was going to testify that this particular bit of "evidence" had been planted, but Judge Paul Gessner, an ex-cop and prosecutor whose rulings and demeanor clearly favored the prosecution (a reminder of "judge" brian out-house in the Tonya Craft trial), declared that the expert could not testify because, in Gessner's words, he was "not qualified." Thus, the jurors were not permitted to hear contrary evidence, and future posts not only will go into the expert's findings, but also will take a hard look to see whether he was unqualified or not;
  • The witnesses who claimed to have seen Nancy Cooper that morning jogging. Since more than a dozen people made that claim, one would think that the police and prosecution would have been interested in their story. Think again. Police and prosecutors clearly did not want to have their narrative distracted and ignored these witnesses.
There is more to the trial and investigation (or the lack of an investigation), and I will cover it over time. I end this post with a timeline prepared for me by one of Brad's supporters:

• On Friday evening, July 11th, 2008, Brad, Nancy and their two daughters attended a neighborhood barbecue. Brad took the children home at approximately 8PM while Nancy stayed at the party until approximately midnight.

• At approximately 4AM, Brad woke up to his younger daughter (just under age 2) crying for a bottle of milk. He was trying to calm her down and shortly after, Nancy woke up too. They were trying to wean her off the bottles of milk so they were trying to find other ways to calm her down, plus they were out of milk.

• The two of them started some laundry and it was typical for this family to be awake early in the morning since Nancy often went running early in the morning. Finally, shortly after 6AM, Brad decided to go to the Harris Teeter to buy some milk.

• He returned home with the milk and Nancy gave their daughter the bottle and they realized they were out of laundry detergent so Brad went back to the store to buy some. The store was approximately 2 miles from the home. While en route to the store, Nancy called Brad and asked him to also pick up some green juice for their older daughter. This phone call was received at 6:40 AM, just before Brad is seen entering the Harris Teeter Supermarket.

• Brad returned home and took his daughter upstairs to the home office so she could finish her bottle while he got some work done. He heard Nancy leave to go jogging at approximately 7AM.

• Brad received phone calls from two of Nancy’s friends that morning and he told them that he thought she may have gone jogging with a friend, Carey Clarke but that she hadn’t returned yet.

• Brad had made plans to play tennis the prior evening with a friend for 9:30AM. When Nancy hadn’t returned home by then he called his friend, Mike Hiller to cancel.

• As it got later, Brad became worried and called Nancy’s friend, Jessica Adam to see if she had Carey Clarke’s phone number. She didn’t. Brad told Jessica he was going to put the girls in the car and drive around to look for Nancy.

• At 2:15PM, Jessica Adam called police. Attached is the audio of the phone call: http://www.wral.com/news/local/audio/3250012/

• In the phone call, Jessica implicated that Brad may have had something to do with Nancy’s disappearance.

• Over the next 2 days, police questioned Brad repeatedly and he fully cooperated with them. They also had police follow him and claimed it was to protect him, yet they didn’t put a police trail on the children.

• Nancy’s body was found in the evening of July 14th in a drainage pond in a new construction area 3 miles from the Cooper home. The autopsy report would later indicate that she was strangled.

• Police took possession of the Cooper home on July 15th as part of the investigation.

• On July 16th, Nancy’s parents filed for temporary custody of the children and the judge granted them custody.

• In early October, Brad agreed to undergo a custody deposition in order to regain custody of his children. It was 7 hours long and was more of an interrogation than a deposition. Very specific questions about the events leading up to and following Nancy’s disappearance were asked. It was evident the police supplied questions to the custody attorney.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for taking an interest in the the sanctity of our basic human liberties as delineated in our Bill of Rights.

Please don't stop with your revelation of this injustice. This needs to make it to the mainstream media where people will be forced to hear this story.

kbp said...

Destroying evidence is obstruction of justice - a CRIME. Immunity does not sheild the prosecutor or officers from a CRIME.

Not that the courts care ...but!

Anonymous said...

"Did she make any calls on that phone when she was out jogging?"
The phone was found at the house, not with the body. The phone records would have shown if there was a call. Really, what exculpatory data is expected to be found on a phone that was not found with the body?
Personally, I think the phone was erased before the police got it, but since even the police haven't offered that as a possibility, I don't expect to find many who agree with me on this one.

Anonymous said...

The theory of the planted data was based on the LastAccessed timestamp being equal to the Create timestamp. What the rejected defense witness didn't realize was that Microsoft disabled the use of the LastAccessed timestamp in Vista. Search on "microsoft vista last access digital forensics". You'll find lots of articles describing this.

Anonymous said...

The police admitted during trial that they erased the phone data. And the SIM card, for good measure.

There were two defense witnesses regarding the timestamps. The second one is a well-known witness for PROSECUTORS, and he has substantial credentials. But even he was not allowed to testify because the prosecution "didn't have time" to get their own witness after they successfully managed to deny the first witness.

This is exactly the kind of nonsense that convicted Brad, and for which an upcoming Web page will address in detail.

Anonymous said...

The second expert witness never finished his investigation or report. During his offer of proof, he only said he wanted to investigate more. He never said there was evidence of planting. I'd be interested to hear what he has to say now.

Anonymous said...

"Over the next 2 days, police questioned Brad repeatedly and he fully cooperated with them."
"It was evident the police supplied questions to the custody attorney."
If Brad was really fully cooperating with the police, what's the big deal about about having these questions asked at the custody hearing.?

Anonymous said...

"If Brad was really fully cooperating with the police, what's the big deal about about having these questions asked at the custody hearing.?"

Really???

First, these are seperate issues and a criminal investigation and suspicious cops have no business nosing around in a custody matter. (lazy bastards can do their own investigative work and ask questions on their own time)

Second, I would have encouraged Mr. Cooper to NOT cooperate with the police without consel, ever.

I encourage you to watch this:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Anonymous said...

"counsel"
sorry for the misspelling

Anonymous said...

I agree. Brad didn't cooperate with police. He was not fully interviewed. He never went to the police station. That was his right. No problem there. Just please (to whomever), don't claim he did (or did not) fully cooperate as though that is proof anything. Also, it was foolish for him and his lawyers to choose do that deposition.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it was police chief Pat Bazemore who issued the press conference stating Brad was fully cooperating with the investigation.

Hundreds of witnesses were interviewed at their homes, why should Brad, as a non-suspect at the time, be any different?

Anonymous said...

"The second expert witness never finished his investigation or report. During his offer of proof, he only said he wanted to investigate more. He never said there was evidence of planting. I'd be interested to hear what he has to say now."

The 2nd witness did say that there was evidence of "spoilation" of the data, which he did equate to tampering. I'd also be interested to hear what he had to say, and if he was allowed to fully examine Brad Cooper's computer.

Charles Everett said...

Police destruction of the data in Nancy Cooper's cellphone? A very chilling similarity to what went on at the News of the World, the British paper that's being shut down amid its own phone hacking scandal.

Anonymous said...

The spoilation was that the computer was left turned on, but locked, connected to a network inside the Cooper home protected as a crime scene for 27 hours. During the 27 hours, some automated updates occurred. The second witness said he would choose the word for this as 'spoilation' over Kurtz's suggested word of tampering, but considered them equal. This is the 27 hour window for the "planted evidence". Neither the 2nd witness, nor Kurtz, the defense lawyer, suggest that the police planted this evidence. They just talked semantics around the regular scheduled software update.

Anonymous said...

Brad deleted two call records from his cell phone. Two calls, ("test calls") from his house number to his cell phone that happened before 6:40am. He left the 6:40am "alibi" call in his phone's call history. Unfortunately for him, all three calls records turned up on his phone bill. Is it OK for him to attempt to destroy evidence?

The police were attempting to get info from the locked phone. To unlock a phone you enter the wrong password 8 times, get prompted for a PUK code, enter the PUK code, and you're in. Det. Young said he was never prompted for a PUK code. Do you know when a phone doesn't prompt for a PUK code? When it has already been deleted.

Kelly Blades said...

Mr. Anderson,

Nancy Cooper called her husband at 6:40 am from their home land line phone. Brad Cooper gave the Cary Police Dept her cell phone the day she was reported missing. The Cary Police Dept never attempted to unlock her phone during the time she was reported missing. Ben Levitan, a renowned cell phone expert testified he was appalled they did not search her phone and was even more aghast when they actually succeeded in completely destroying the data on her phone and SIM card. The Cary Police Dept left her phone lying around in a desk drawer and conveniently ignored a certified letter from Howard Kurtz asking they preserve data. Some 9 months later, they admit their "oops" we erased the data. Too late to get that info from the cell phone carrier.

Also, Ben Levitan noted the Cary Police Department did not request, nor provide complete forensic cell phone records for Nancy Cooper, however they did get the complete records for Brad Cooper.

As you delve further into this case, you will discover Prosecutors brought in witness after witness that offered little or no relevance to Nancy Coopers case. They did a superb job in wearing down the jury with a lot of gossip, hearsay, and detectives claiming Brad "could have done this that and the other" conjecture without actual proof.

Anonymous said...

"The theory of the planted data was based on the LastAccessed timestamp being equal to the Create timestamp. What the rejected defense witness didn't realize was that Microsoft disabled the use of the LastAccessed timestamp in Vista. Search on "microsoft vista last access digital forensics". You'll find lots of articles describing this."

It was not disabled on Brad Cooper's computer, as evidenced by multiple other files that have an updated Last Access timestamp. This all came out in testimony, which apparently you missed.

And I don't think you can fairly say the tampering "theory" was based on that one item, when both defense witnesses testified to several oddities on the computer that indicated those files were planted. Oddities that the FBI witnesses could not account for.

Anonymous said...

"Brad deleted two call records from his cell phone. Two calls, ("test calls") from his house number to his cell phone that happened before 6:40am. He left the 6:40am "alibi" call in his phone's call history. Unfortunately for him, all three calls records turned up on his phone bill. Is it OK for him to attempt to destroy evidence?"

This is not true. A 0 second phone call from the house will not show up on a cell phone. A call directly to voicemail won't show up on a cell phone. Not a SINGLE witness (even the lying cops) got up there and said Brad deleted this calls from his cell phone call log.

Anonymous said...

"The spoilation was that the computer was left turned on...snipped...the regular scheduled software update."

-It's spoliation, not spoilation.
-There is no 27 hour window. The computer could have been tampered with at any point until the computer was hashed, which I believe the FBI testified was late July.
-The spoliation was not just the botched way in which the computer was handled, it included over 690 files that were changed after the computer was in police custody.
-The defense witnesses and the prosecution witnesses testified to these file changes. Prosecution couldn't explain them. The defense witness testified that the "regularly schedule update" didn't even apply to Brad Cooper's computer.
-And I believe Mr. Kurtz stated he didn't know who planted the files, it could have been the police, it could have been a neighbor, or it could have been someone hired by the custody attorney.

Anonymous said...

"It was not disabled on Brad Cooper's computer, as evidenced by multiple other files that have an updated Last Access timestamp. This all came out in testimony, which apparently you missed."
The computer was upgraded from XP to Vista at some point. Perhaps June 23rd, which was the day where the witness said the timestamp anomalies started. The files from XP would have XP timestamps, and the ones after the upgrade would have Vista timestamps.
If only the google search files had the anomalies, that would be interesting. Since practically all files starting on June 23rd had the anomalies, the problem must have been systemic.

Anonymous said...

"conveniently ignored a certified letter from Howard Kurtz asking they preserve data."
How amazing. The one piece of evidence that Kurtz wrote a letter about was the one piece of evidence that turn up blank. What did Kurtz know before the fact?

Anonymous said...

"How amazing. The one piece of evidence that Kurtz wrote a letter about was the one piece of evidence that turn up blank. What did Kurtz know before the fact?"

Maybe you need to go back through the documents where you can read the actual letter. It is common practice to issue a preservation letter when digital evidence is involved. The attorneys requested the careful handling of ALL electronic equipment, not just the phone.

It is baffling that anyone would defend a cop who destroyed evidence before even obtaining a search warrant and then failed to even notify the defense attorneys until it was too late to request the detailed records. Yet no investigation was ever done. He is still working there and the police chief and mayor are fine with that. That is incredible.

C said...

I have tried to post several times, and none of my comments are showing up. Why is this?

Briefly
-XP was not installed on BC's computer. It was only ever Vista. It was not an upgrade.
-Your amount of files tampered with are incorrect. It was 2% over the life of the computer. 85% after the July 11 (tampered files), and 100% during that one specific google search. That doesn't scream systemic to me.

Anonymous said...

It was stated that a "Google search" was the "EVIDENCE" which convicted BRAD COOPER...and this EVIDENCE was NOT EVEN PROVED to be
done by BRAD COOPER....so very sad...that 12 people allowed something like this to CONVICT a man for MURDER...in 1st degree...no doubt...(as I still DO NOT GET HOW THIS HAPPENED ANYWAY)...perhaps the jurors DID NOT UNDERSTAND what they needed to do? Could this be? The head detective stated "he thought that Brad just snapped"...well...I DO NOT THINK...that BRAD COOPER murdered Nancy Cooper...and that the Killer(s) is still on the loose...yes...someone is out there and they know that BRAD COOPER got a life sentence for doing something that HE DID NOT DO...
I hope someone can explain to me...(perhaps one of the jurors) how the verdict of 1st degree murder was reached...I do understand that the "google search" was the so-called EVIDENCE...and this was NOT linked at all as proof that the google search was made by BRAD COOPER...but heaven help us....as a man was CONVICTED and sentenced to life in prison, without parole...and one can only hope and pray that the NC JUDICIAL SYSTEM will do what is right and reverse the conviction.....I guess time will tell....hopefully sooner than later...as there are 2 little ones who really need their daddy....MiMi

Anonymous said...

"-XP was not installed on BC's computer. It was only ever Vista. It was not an upgrade.
-Your amount of files tampered with are incorrect. It was 2% over the life of the computer. 85% after the July 11 (tampered files), and 100% during that one specific google search. That doesn't scream systemic to me."
Both of these are wrong.
June 23rd is the date the timestamp anomalies began. Brad's computer came with XP installed originally. Vista was never distributed as default install at Cisco.

C said...

Brad did not have a default install at Cisco, he was an alpha tester. This has been covered time and time again through all of the testimony.

June 23 had a spike in timestamp errors. There were no other timestamp errors up until the week Nancy went missing.

Again, please post where you're getting your incorrect information. Maybe you should go read the computer reports on file in the court house?

Anonymous said...

"June 23 had a spike in timestamp errors."
Were the June 23rd files planted?

C said...

Who knows if the June 23 files were planted? Or a test run for planting the July 11 files? Your FBI agents never investigated that, did they?

Anonymous said...

Actually, I do not think ANYONE did anything RIGHT in preparing for the BRAD COOPER MURDER TRIAL...to be honest with you...I am still trying to figure out how the GRAND JURY indicted this man...I think that the GRAND JURY is being "abused" by those who are in charge of it...and it should be done away with in North Carolina...there are a lot of states who NO LONGER USE THE GRAND JURY...and I can NOW understand why...if used properly...it would be a "valuable tool" to the court system that could rule out "costly trials" that have no business being in court to begin with...when there is NO EVIDENCE to begin with...I think prosecutors "pretend" that they have "EVIDENCE" so that that can "indict" a person for whatever crime they are working...and then "using this method" as a way to "force a plea deal" on the accused person...so one has to wonder...HOW LEGAL AND LAWFUL IS THIS? Sounds like "they" are taking advantage of "their power" and the system also...

NO ONE...and I repeat...NO ONE who is not guilty of what they are being charged with should ever take a plea...but I know how the "attorneys" threaten clients that "this is the best that you will get"....better take it and save yourself from a longer jail term....Attorneys DO TAKE AN OATH...and I do not think that providing threats was a part of the oath that they take...

Taking a plea though...is a GOOD THING for the Prosecutors...they have a "WIN" under their belt...and they did NOT have to do much for it...(not much expense for anyone)...

THIS IS HOW THE NORTH CAROLINA JUDICIAL SYSTEM WORKS...trust me...when I say...I have been put in a situation where I have "heard and seen" just how it works...and this SHOULD BE A CRIME ITSELF...

Jerri Lynn Ward said...

Anon at 6:45,

It is not the purpose of the grand jury to "rule out costly trials", nor is anyone supposed to be "in charge" of it. It is supposed to be a bulwark of justice checking injustice perpetrated by the government. It should not be abolished. It should be released from bondage to the prosecutor. It should be used to ferret out governmental abuses as it once was.

Jon Roland at the Constitutional Society has done good and extensive research on the history of the Grand Jury, even going to source documents in the archives.

http://constitution.org/jury/gj/gj-us.htm

Anonymous said...

"Required by the Constitution as a check on judicial and prosecutorial abuse, it has often been used as a tool of abuse against political dissidents. Most grand juries are mere "rubber stamps" for prosecutors, but others become "runaway" grand juries, taking the lead in investigations of official corruption and abuse."


The above information is copied from the link that you provided...
I guess this pretty much explains the GRAND JURY...

I guess what IT IS SUPPOSED to do is a bit different from HOW IT IS USED or perhaps I should say ABUSED...

Thanks for sharing...

Anonymous said...

"The phone records would have shown if there was a call."
Yes, they would have done that. The problem is that the police didn't tell the defense attorneys that the phone had been erased, and they didn't turn the phone over to the defense until a few days after the phone company would have deleted the records, so the defense had no way to know they needed to subpoena the phone records.

Oddly enough, the prosecution did a similar thing with Brad's computer, not letting the defense know about certain evidence they planned to use nor giving them access to the computer until shortly after Google would delete records relating to the supposed Google Maps search.

Those two things are entirely too coincidental to have been by chance.

Also, the original post says that Nancy called Brad at the store from her cell phone, but I thought the call was made from the home phone, as much of the prosecution's "case" revolved around the possibility that Brad faked the phone call and made it look like she called from the home phone.

Anonymous said...

"If Brad was really fully cooperating with the police, what's the big deal about about having these questions asked at the custody hearing?"
Do you know anything about the Constitution? Have you heard about the 5th Amendment? You know, the one that gives you the right to remain silent? Brad Cooper was compelled to testify for the civil case, because he had to if he wanted to have any chance at keeping his children. The prosecutors and police knew this. They also knew that he probably wouldn't testify in the criminal case so they colluded with the attorneys in the civil case to effectively get him to "testify". Plus, the rights afforded in a civil case are vastly different than the ones afforded in a criminal case. Specific, pointed questions were asked in the custody deposition that had NOTHING to do with the custody hearing, and some of the questions used information privy only to someone involved in the murder investigation. Thus, you had collusion to deprive the defendant of his Constitutionally protected rights and put him in a Catch-22 situation.

And you see nothing wrong with this? Honestly?

Anonymous said...

OK, I rescind my comment about the police helping with the deposition. I just found it odd that "Brad answered all police questions" and "The police supplied questions" were on the same list. But it is certainly well within his right not to incriminate himself. In hindsight, his lawyers really messed up by letting him do this deposition.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Anderson,

Is there anything that we can do to entice someone to look into this "so called trisl" that North Carolina had which railroaded this man? Again I did not understand the conviction of 1st degree murder...and the judge who conducted the trial was truly not the kind of judge a person would expect...I did not know if you could share anything at all that we, the public, could do in an effort to help this person...I think it is sad when the judicial system allows such as this to take place...this is AMERICA...and we should know better..

Thanks for sharing your views...

Anonymous said...

sorry.....I should have proofread my comment...it should be trial..

Anonymous said...

It seems like "someone" has a conscience...and wanted to "share" with others on something that might pan out to be "IMPORTANT" in the BRAD COOPER MURDER TRIAL...
this was on the internet and someone shared it with me...



"I'm closely connected to the BC murder trial, from the prosecution side. I can honestly say the following:

1. The reason why the prosecution took so long with its case was to wear down the jury so that they would be too exhausted to really pay attention.

2. A portion of the prosecution does not think he did it but were directed to win this case at all cost in order to save face for the police department.

3. The google maps defense didn't stand a chance. The prosecution understood that, in today's climate, jurors, especially black jurors, are likely to believe in setups by the police department. This counter-evidence didn't have a chance of getting admitted.

4. In jury selection the defense had a lot of people they liked but the prosecution asked questions about if they could participate in a "extensively lengthy trial" and this forced those that the defense liked to step down. Had the defense not excused the ones they did the jury would have had 0 men and would have been a mixture of poor black women and very wealthy white women.

5. The defense's expert who was on the witness list and had spent thousands of dollars and countless hours trying to find the same evidence as the prosecution's expert couldn't find the google maps. He was under contract with Raleigh Police Department on some other cases and was told if he was to present said non-evidence as exculpatory then he would lose his livelihood. "

mlc2005 said...

Just wanted to point out one minor flaw in your description (otherwise completely and totally brilliant, btw). Anyone watching that trial could see the blatant bias in the judges' decisions; I was very upset about it, and I had no personal stake in this case at all.

Anyway, the defense produced one expert who was going to say the google map "evidence" was planted, and the judge said he was not qualified (as you said). THEN, the defense got another witness to come and tell the court (with the jury out of court) that the maps were planted. This time, the judge ruled the guy WAS an expert, BUT that he could not testify b/c the defense did not give the prosecution enough time to prepare.

This really bothered me, as a man's life is at stake, and finding the truth should always be the goal. Instead, the judge came up with every excuse not to allow the defense to present tampering evidence.

Love your blog, btw.

Anonymous said...

North Carolina did it again....want to view it....go to WRAL.COM and search for JASON YOUNG....I am sure that WAKE COUNTY COURTS are the subject of many LAW SCHOOLS these days....I would like to know exactly what the professors are saying about the 2nd trial of Jason Young....the state tossed out another "illusion"....the doll fantasy play....well...12 jurors fell for this....although a couple of the jurors allowed interviews....you will NOT believe what they had to say....please listen to them as they are on the WRAL site...

Mary Few said...

I know this is an old post and don't know if you will see this. However, I wanted to know if you were aware that Amy Fitzhugh has a string of cases in Durham NC where she started her prosecutorial career, that were overturned and the suspects found to be innocent b/c of her misconduct. The first case was in 2000 just a year after she became an attorney and prosecutor. A young man was wrongfully convicted of a robbery his name was Erick Daniels. He spent 7 years in prison. Ms. Fitzhugh is no longer a prosecutor but the lead attorney for the NC Board of nursing where she continues to dispense her own personal type of justice.

Anonymous said...

I just wanted to let you know that there is a good book which
has been just released on the Brad Cooper case. Perhaps you already know about it. I would love to read your comments and input on it if and when you read it.

Anonymous said...

*FRAMED with GOOGLE MAPS* is the name of the book. Sorry I did not include this in the previous post. You can find it on AMAZON.