Jessica Adam's affidavit is first on this pdf, many follow

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/IMG_0001.pdf

Jessica Adam's #6-E it doesn't even make sense to me




[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 8:48 PM. Reason : page 143!]

5/17/2011 8:43:06 PM

When is Gessner up for reelection?

5/17/2011 9:29:44 PM

Four years I think. It is my goal to keep this thread active until then.

5/17/2011 9:31:58 PM

^^^ I mean shes allowed to think whatever she wants, the problem is the conjecture from lay people like her seemed to take precedence over the actual experts who testified there was no evidence he was doing what they hypothesized.

5/17/2011 9:46:07 PM

What do y'all think of the Jason Young case? He was in alledgedly in Virginia the night of the murder and contacted is alledged lover the night before and morning after the murder was committed. He had also contacted his lover 500 times the month before and after.

Will he get Gessner'ed or actually get a fair trial?

5/18/2011 10:37:31 PM

i heard that the evidence on him was pretty overwhelming...but...then again thats just rumor and we saw what little evidence the BC case had.

5/18/2011 10:38:31 PM

Yeah--if what I've heard is true, it looks pretty bad. But none of what we heard was true for BC, and I no longer believe our court system is about justice, so who the hell knows.

Same prosecutor--Howard Cummings. Different Judge--Stephens. He's just as biased as Gessner, but much smarter, so if he screws the defense, it'll be in such a way that it won't really matter for appeal purposes.

[Edited on May 18, 2011 at 10:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/18/2011 10:41:09 PM

If someone could just get me one last piece of information I could leave this all alone. Need county level vehicle tax access or DMV record access.

5/18/2011 10:44:36 PM

Oh that's all

5/18/2011 10:47:14 PM

yap.

5/18/2011 10:49:48 PM

Lol wat

5/19/2011 11:19:42 AM

If one could get you that info. What would it prove?

5/19/2011 11:34:51 AM

dude hasn't owned a car for awhile, you'll need records from years back

5/19/2011 11:39:04 AM

So whats the consensus on Young? The interwebs doesn't think he did it either?


http://www.wral.com/news/local/page/4090063/
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/news_briefs/2010/01/04/6739176/Dec._30_2009_search_warrant_for_Jason_Young_s_text_messages.pdf

5/19/2011 3:44:45 PM

I bet Brad killed Jason Young's Wife and Jason Killed NC. 48 hours hard evidence: Wife Swap.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 3:55 PM. Reason : Jason not Jim ]

5/19/2011 3:55:12 PM

^I think there was a Bones episode like that.

5/19/2011 7:42:16 PM

there was a law and order episode like that, except it was the wives killing the husbands.

5/19/2011 8:02:46 PM

so she's still missing, huh

5/19/2011 8:05:23 PM

Well, I'm not sure the prosecution proved that the woman they found was actually Nancy Cooper. They lost the dental records right? And her body was cremated... so how did they ID her??

5/19/2011 8:09:32 PM

Hah I think that's a bit of a reach and I think CCBI would of handled that in Wake County so the SBI issues would most likely be irrelevant. And at least they know who the mother of the kid is though, she'll just have to wonder if her father is the one in prison or the sheisty creep from Halloween.

5/19/2011 8:38:36 PM

I think SBI was practically perfect in this case... and obviously I was being facetious about the whole not identifying the body thing. But it is amazing how little the prosecution actually PROVED in their case.

5/19/2011 8:39:52 PM

They proved a heck of a motive and that laser pointers look suspiciously like ink pens but that's about it.

5/19/2011 8:41:51 PM

They proved an inept police department, a bumbling detective and an unethical ADA along with a clueless judge can put a guy in jail for life with no real evidence.

5/19/2011 8:45:29 PM

It's been really interesting to follow this thread and see the perspective of people who are younger than me (I dub thee, honorably, the "CSI generation.")

As in this case, sometimes someone dies a violent death without a smoking gun. They may be drowned, pushed down a flight of stairs, smothered, strangled, etc.

For the CSI generation, evidence includes sophisticated scientific methods such as DNA or fibers linking the murderer to the crime scene or murder weapon, if there is one, post-mortem toxicological profiles proving that the victim was poisoned or drugged, or a youtube quality video of the murder itself or the murderer dumping of the body. It is understandable that you would consider the lack of these things "a complete lack of evidence."

Scroll your mind back 40-50 years now to your Grandparents, who I am going to say are not baby boomers or GenX'ers but rather are the "Columbo generation" or the "Agatha Christie generation." For many members of the Columbo generation, all this newfangled CSI fancy pants stuff is suspicious. Grandma and Grandpa are as shrewd as you are, but MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY are primarily important. That standard convicted the right person most of the time 50 years ago before everyone could catch criminals on hidden cameras or cell phone cams, and DNA evidence, what's that? For these folks, If you were having "trouble" with the victim before their untimely death, then you better have a steel clad alibi, because if you had a strong motive and opportunity and there is no other reasonable explanation, then they are likely to believe you did it beyond a reasonable doubt. Did people get wrongly convicted with this standard? Once in a while, yes, but people still get wrongly convicted sometimes thanks to crime lab screw ups, so that problem hasn't really gone away.

I watched only a couple of days of testimony (right around the time that NC's Mom and a few neighbors took the stand, and then the medical examiner.) The medical examiner was great, by the way, but what a crumby job; I hope he gets paid a lot. That was all I needed to see. Part of the reason I couldn't watch anymore was the DA, but by day 2 of my viewing I was convinced he was either a totally bumbling idiot or completely brilliant in his manner because his repetition and confusion reminded me of Columbo. Then I followed the rest of the trial through the news and tww posts, which certainly proved to have a fair few suggestions of possible alternative explanations, include other possible people who might have a motive, but not one of these lines of thought seems plausible to me.

He did it. There is no other plausible explanation for why she turned up the way she did: violently strangled to the point where a bone in her neck was broken and practically naked but NOT sexually assaulted and with one of her diamond earrings intact. Medical examiners are very good now at detecting sexual assault, so those last two things are vital to my lack of doubt. I have no doubt that he did it, and I would have voted guilty. This puts me closer to the Columbo generation than the CSI generation, although truly I fall into the "Dukes of Hazzard" generation, aka "The Knight Rider" generation; we didn't really have crime shows because we were distracted by souped up cars.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:02 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2011 11:02:09 PM

^Not an accurate summary of facts.

There is no proof she was or was not sexually assaulted. It could not be ruled in or out. The entomologist stated it was likely because of the infestation of her genitalia.

What forensic evidence rules out a random attack while jogging?

Also, both earrings were in tact, so I'm not sure why that matters at all.

And if you had voted guilty on this evidence, you are an idiot. When did this happen? Where was she killed? How? With what? What was used to transport her body? Do you actually understand the meaning of reasonable doubt? Or like you said, are you basing your views on the obviously misleading news reports and not actually having watched the trial aside from emotion testimony and one medical examiner.

5/19/2011 11:20:25 PM

ok discredit this much then.

numerous people saw her jogging that morning...
her own daughter saw her and was never interviewed.
SOMEONE called brad from the house that morning she went missing

and finally...

the files on his computer were planted AFTER it was in police custody.

thanks.

5/19/2011 11:20:54 PM

^^^that may be the most ridiculous thing i have ever read on this site

Everyone on here is now dumber for having read that. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:22 PM. Reason : your generation thing is ghey]

5/19/2011 11:21:55 PM

^^WAT?

5/19/2011 11:22:42 PM

While I'm not saying there was anything wrong with this particular case with respect to the medical examiner, I would be hesitant to base an opinion of his guilt only on their testimony. Someone probably could watch only the computer forensic testimony (esp. that which was withheld from the jury) and say he was not guilty. Frontline did a thing on death investigations, most of it focuses on the problem with elected coroners but it still has some relevance here. Interesting look at how misinterpretation of forensic evidence by MEs and coroners can effect criminal trials.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/post-mortem/

I'm also not sure where the idea that since there was no sexual assault, the husband must have done it comes from. The operative word being must. Sounds more like you're going by a gut feeling and one that can be made to fit the evidence.

5/19/2011 11:27:35 PM

i second watching that frontline episode. it is really, really interesting (in my opinion anyway) but will likely make people mad (more stories of botched crim cases). hard to watch...but worth watching

5/19/2011 11:38:12 PM

Quote :

"It is understandable that you would consider the lack of these things "a complete lack of evidence.""

It's definitely understandable, because by all means it appears to be the case.

5/19/2011 11:46:12 PM

Quote :

"There is no proof she was or was not sexually assaulted. It could not be ruled in or out. The entomologist stated it was likely because of the infestation of her genitalia."

She had "insect damage" in various points over her body because she'd been outside dead and exposed for a couple of days. There was NO evidence that she was sexually assaulted, no damage the the coroner could deduce other than the fact that she was strangled. There could have been other injuries that were covered up by insect damage, and this was acknowledged, but there were no other clear injuries. Saying "can't rule it out" is not nearly as convincing as "definitely rule it in" (he was sure she was strangled; that's it.)

Quote :

"What forensic evidence rules out a random attack while jogging?"

What random attacker strangles his/her victim? Seriously. Blunt force trauma to the head, knifing, shooting, that's what random attackers are known for. If she was running along, how's someone going to get a hold of her to strangle her without her falling and getting scraped up more (see above that she didn't have any other clear injury, aside from the "insect damage might have masked it" BS.)

Quote :

"Also, both earrings were in tact, so I'm not sure why that matters at all."

It matters because if it was a "random attack" like some sort of mugging (I'm not saying every attack is a muuging), then the criminal certainly would have taken her diamond earrings. Everyone I know who has been mugged has lost all visible diamond jewelry in the transaction.

Quote :

"numerous people saw her jogging that morning... her own daughter saw her and was never interviewed. SOMEONE called brad from the house that morning she went missing "

Yes, and BC couldn't remember what color her outfit was. I don't blame him for that because people have faulty memories. Maybe they saw her. Maybe they saw someone else instead. Lots of ladies jogging in Cary on a Saturday morning, that is certain. How often are they "randomly attacked?" She's not in an area that's prone to homeless vagrants.

Children's testimony is not reliable, and if you had children, then you'd understand this. At the age of those children, the concept of yesterday could be yesterday or last week. Trust me on this. Maybe BC had the children dial him? My children had a solid grasp of "let's play a game, you call me on this phone, okay, but wait until I'm gone, okay? Just push this redial button, okay? Good girl! Don't call too soon!" Long before they understood that yesterday is really yesterday and not last week, last month, or even last year.

Quote :

" and finally... the files on his computer were planted AFTER it was in police custody."

Ah, he was framed. Classic defense.

I don't think you are getting my point. Cell phone records and computer files are CSI stuff, not Agatha Christie or Columbo stuff. Either way, none of what you are saying is making me doubt myself. Sorry.

5/19/2011 11:46:51 PM

^You are an idiot, and clearly not listening to anyone, so why bother?

What part of "no way to rule in or out sexual assault" do you not understand. SBI testified it was just as likely that she was assaulted as it is likely that she was not. So how can that possibly factor into your decision.

And are you seriously saying that there's no way a random attack would include strangulation? Or that the motive had to have been theft? Seriously?

I get it. It makes the most sense that it was the husband. So it had to have been him. Ignore all other evidence. Ignore all other possibilities. Do you work for CPD by the way? That seemed to have been their tactic.

I will respond to this:

Quote :

"Yes, and BC couldn't remember what color her outfit was."

How the hell was he supposed to know the color of her outfit that morning when he didn't see her leave to run? Just heard her? Or are you referring to the teal colored dress that he said was blue, and is really a greenish blue? The one he saw her in for less than an hour the night before, that multiple neighbors missed, and was sitting in a laundry basket that in the house that detective Young stated contained "no dresses of ANY color."

And it doesn't matter if you doubt yourself. We can all come up with a story that would make him guilty. But it wasn't proven. That's the point.

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on May 19, 2011 at 11:53 PM. Reason : ]

5/19/2011 11:50:46 PM

omg. i can't even read this anymore it makes my blood pressure go WAY up.

i mean. seriously???

Quote :

"it matters because if it was a "random attack" like some sort of mugging (I'm not saying every attack is a muuging), then the criminal certainly would have taken her diamond earrings. Everyone I know who has been mugged has lost all visible diamond jewelry in the transaction."

wow. this is probably the same type of fantastic logic the jurors applied in the case, too.

5/19/2011 11:54:09 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "It is understandable that you would consider the lack of these things "a complete lack of evidence."" It's definitely understandable, because by all means it appears to be the case. "

There was evidence that he had both a strong motive and opportunity. No one else really had a strong motive (putting aside some really tangential theories that don't seem plausible.)

Motive, opportunity, murder weapon. Oh, yeah, there was no murder weapon. That leaves us with the first two.

5/19/2011 11:54:17 PM

Then it's a FANTASTIC thing that motive and opportunity aren't elements of first degree murder.

You are an idiot.

5/19/2011 11:55:04 PM

THEY SEE ME TROLLIN......



God I really hope this is a troll and you're not that retarded.

5/19/2011 11:57:59 PM

it has to be a troll

or the earth's dumbest human

one of the two

5/19/2011 11:58:47 PM

Judging by her quote, I think she's serious : "Imagination is more important than knowledge"

5/19/2011 11:59:09 PM

Quote :

"And are you seriously saying that there's no way a random attack would include strangulation? "

I'm suggesting that the percent of fatal random attacks that involve strangulation is likely extremely small (of an awake and fit target, no less, not someone who is sleeping in their bed.) I'm just using common sense. I'm sure you could look up the stats if you care that much.

Saying there is "no way" is not the same as recognizing that it is very unlikely or extremely implausible.

5/20/2011 12:01:02 AM

Quote :

"No one else really had a strong motive"

Ah, good old "convict whoever seems the most convenient", a true gem.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:03 AM. Reason : f]

5/20/2011 12:02:40 AM

And really--no one else had motive? Not the wives of the men she was sleeping with? Or the potential father of her child she was hitting up for child support?

5/20/2011 12:03:44 AM

That was a lot of words to say "I'm going ignoring the evidence and going with my gut"

5/20/2011 12:05:12 AM

"Beyond a reasonable doubt. . .It has been described as, in negative terms, as a proof having been met if there is no plausible reason to believe otherwise.

If there is a real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case, then the level of proof has not been met.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution is that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty."

Yes, I just committed the sin of quoting wikipedia. The bolding is my own.

I have no real doubt. Maybe I am an idiot. But I am just one of the many tax-paying, voting idiots in the world. Pray I am not on the jury when you are accused.

Quote :

"Judging by her quote, I think she's serious : "Imagination is more important than knowledge""

5/20/2011 12:08:57 AM

In NC, the standard for reasonable doubt is "entirely convinced and fully satisfied."

And dear god--everyone in this society should hope you are not on the jury when they are wrongfully accused of something. And you would do well to hope no one like you is ever on your jury. I would hope our society demanded the ability to follow a legal standard. But clearly, it doesn't.


And you quoted this yourself, right here:

Quote :

"no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime"

No other logical explanation? The facts point to others more than towards Brad Cooper. Jogging sighters, mysterious van, tire tracks that don't match, footprints that don't match, no DNA match, no fiber match, missing running shoes and clothes for Nancy, daughter saw her that morning, phone call that they can't show was spoofed.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

5/20/2011 12:10:08 AM

5/20/2011 12:11:45 AM

By the way, I don't always think "the husband did it." But this husband did do it.

Y'all are easy to stir up.

Quote :

"In NC, the standard for reasonable doubt is "entirely convinced and fully satisfied." "

Yes, I am both of those. Guilty.



[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 12:12:41 AM

There are certain threads we don't tolerate stupid. This may just be one of them.

5/20/2011 12:13:44 AM

^Well, 12 people agreed with me.

You must be smarter than all 13 of us.

5/20/2011 12:15:15 AM

I am, thanks. But I think most people are, so I'm not sure that gets me bragging rights.

5/20/2011 12:16:28 AM