Justice for Brad

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

  1. Why did Brad say the dress was blue and then black? The dress was teal and Brad referred to it as blue. Others referred to it as blue/green. The reference to it being black came from Diana Duncan. Brad never said the dress was black. Detective Young looked in the laundry basket and should have picked it up and asked Brad if it was the dress Nancy was wearing. According to his notes, he found no dress of any color. Brad never tried to hide the dress even though police and prosecutors tried to suggest that he did. Testimony proves it. Please watch The Dress Deception in the video section of this site.

  2. Why did Brad tell detectives he washed the dress? He didn’t. Detective Daniels’ notes from 7/13 make no mention of Brad saying the dress was washed. They only say that the dress was found in the bedroom hamper. SBI testified about finding a grease-like stain and deodorant streaks on the dress. The idea of the “washed dress” suddenly appeared when Daniels post-added that comment to his notes 6 months later. There are several instances of Detective Daniels “updating” his case narratives for the same date.

  3. Why did Brad clean the floor? Nancy told several people how upset she was returning from her trip with her family and seeing the house so dirty. When Nancy went jogging that morning, Brad did laundry and cleaned the house, including the floor because he was trying to make her happy.

  4. Why was the trunk “showroom clean”? Detective Daniels and Detective Young both testified that the trunk was showroom clean, but SBI agents testified that dirt and debris were found in the trunk. Detective Daniels had no explanation for the inconsistency and testified that the dirt must have been placed there after he saw the condition of the trunk on the 12th, but of course that makes no sense.

  5. Why are Brad’s shoes (from the Harris Teeter video) missing? Throughout the trial, prosecutors tried to suggest that the shoes were “missing” but when asked, Detective Young said he never asked Brad for the shoes and according to his notes, he never even looked for them. Additionally, the Fielding Drive location where the body was found was very muddy. If Brad had been there, his shoes would have been covered in dirt. It’s obvious from the video that Brad’s shoes were clean. Please watch the video “Missing shoes”.

  6. Why were Nancy’s running shoes in the home if she supposedly went jogging? According to Detective Young’s notes, Brad told him that Nancy had three pairs of running shoes (two pair of Sauconys and a pair of Avias) and only two were in the home.

    Nancy alternated her shoes each day between two similar looking pairs of Sauconys. One pair was never located. The police found the receipt for the shoes and tried to determine if they were returned but the store had no record of any return. They even checked credit card records hoping to find that she’d returned them at a different Athlete’s Foot store, but they never found evidence of a return.

  7. What about the two right shoes that were found? Prosecutors suggested that police found two left shoes and that this must mean that Brad “mistakenly” grabbed them by mistake in an attempt to dispose of Nancy’s shoes. The problem is, they were different sizes and types and they were not even found in the house. They were located on a garage shelf and the entire house had many, many pairs of shoes. This “evidence” was completely irrelevant. It is true however that police were never able to locate a pair of Nancy’s Saucony running shoes.

  8. Why is it stated that Brad didn’t cooperate with police? Brad spent hours answering every question of the police. The one thing he did not agree to was going to the police station to answer questions, and leave his girls in the wake of their mother’s disappearance. Because of his refusal to go to the station, Daniels wrote in his affidavit that Brad was uncooperative. He later testified that indeed Brad answered all of their questions and was within his rights to stay home rather than going to the station.

  9. Why did Brad withhold Nancy’s allowance? Earlier that week, Nancy had received $240 from Jessica Adam for the painting work. $150 of that was reimbursement for the paint and the rest was for labor. Normally Brad would give Nancy her cash allowance on Friday mornings but he forgot to that week. She called and asked him for it later that afternoon and he offered to bring it to her while she was at the pool but she told him not to worry about it. She did however complain to Diana Duncan about it at the party. The State highlighted this detail because they wanted the jury to think that Nancy being upset over this precipitated an argument later that night that led to her murder. There is nothing to indicate that was the case. Nancy talked to several people at the party that evening and the allowance was not even discussed.

  10. Why did prosecutors say that Brad was “controlling”? Many of Nancy’s friends testified and wrote in their affidavits that Brad removed Nancy from the credit cards and bank accounts. This is true, but it was Brad’s only way to get a handle on their finances. They began working on the budget together in January and February. It was suggested during the trial that Brad put Nancy on a budget after seeing the separation agreement but the cash allowance actually began months prior to that. Nancy was given a generous allowance of $300/week for food, gas and other items. This allowance amounted to 80% of the cash leftover after all bills were paid. Nancy didn’t like this budget because she was used to charging everything she wanted so she complained to all of her new friends, giving them the idea that she was being “controlled”.

    Brad told Nancy to open a bank account so he could deposit cash directly to it, but she never did. Some said she couldn’t because she didn’t have a social security number, but that isn’t true. She could have opened an account without one.

  11. Why did prosecutors and the media call this a domestic violence case? They tried to suggest that the financial “control” was abusive but clearly Nancy had a generous allowance of $300/week. Nancy was out with friends all the time, took trips with friends and family and Brad gave her plenty of cash for all of it, in addition to the allowance.

    All of Nancy’s friends testified that she was not afraid of Brad and that he had never hurt her and never even raised his voice to her. One witness, Theresa Hackling testified that Nancy slept with her jeans on and keys in pocket with the children and the door locked but that seems very unlikely. If this were true, it is very doubtful that Nancy would have allowed Brad to watch the kids many evenings while she was out with friends. It just doesn’t fit. She never told anyone else that she did that, no other friends or family.

  12. What about the missing router? There is no proof that there’s a missing router because Cisco doesn’t keep inventory logs of equipment. This was thrown in at the end of the trial to try to suggest that there “may” be a missing router so Brad could have faked the 6:40AM phone call. But in reality, the router is irrelevant because the State’s expert witness testified that using the test call generator, the maximum amount of time the call duration can last is 23 seconds. The 6:40AM call from the Cooper’s landline phone to Brad’s phone (Nancy’s call to Brad) was 32 seconds long.

    Additionally, the FBI agent tested the computers for evidence of an automated call and nothing was found. There is no evidence whatsoever of an automated call that morning.

  13. What about the Google Map search? If the jury heard evidence and convicted Brad based on that search, why should we doubt that? The jury didn’t get to hear from the two defense experts. Both of them confirmed independently that tampering occurred on Brad’s computer and there were anomalies with the files associated with the Google search. There was no cookie found, even though cookies for all other searches were found.

    The police had an opportunity to prove that the “search” originated on Brad’s computer but they didn’t. That is suspicious because the FBI told the police to subpoena Google for the cookie information. That would have provided browsing history, even cookies from searches after the Map search would have provided the origin of the computer used. Why didn’t Cary police get those records? They were dealing with Google on other issues.

    The police could have verified the search through Cisco logs too, but didn’t bother to do it. It is sad that the jury convicted Brad on this evidence when the search was never even authenticated. Please read the summaries on the computer evidence: http://www.justiceforbrad.com/evidence/computer/.

  14. Why did Brad say he was asleep the night of 7/11 when computer activity was evident? Detective Daniels wrote in his notes that Brad told him he put the girls to bed at around 9 PM. No further detail was written. Three months later, during the custody deposition he had forgotten about being on the computer that night and when asked, he said he fell asleep with the girls. If he had remembered being on the computer, surely he would have mentioned it, because at that point police had his computer.

    Detective Daniels “updated” his narrative for 7/12 to reflect that Brad said he fell asleep with the girls. He changed his notes after seeing the deposition video.

  15. Is it true that Brad purchased bleach at 4AM the morning Nancy disappeared? No. The police knew on July 12th that Brad purchased only Tide detergent, milk and Green juice that morning. Bleach was not purchased but it continues to be a rumor from this trial. It’s unfortunate that Chief Bazemore didn’t clarify this when asked about it at the July 16th press conference, even though she corrected other errors at that time.

  16. What about the scratch marks on Brad’s neck? The scratch marks were never photographed by any of the investigators. Detective Daniels and Dismukes claimed to see rub marks/scratch marks on the back of Brad’s neck on July 12th but it doesn’t make any sense that they wouldn’t have photographed them. They took several photos inside the house that day.

    When Brad heard the rumor about the scratch marks, he had a private investigator photograph the back of his neck on July 16th and photos indicated there were no marks present. Further, Brad attended a press conference on July 13th and no scratch marks were observed by anyone.

  17. Why didn’t Brad attend the memorial for Nancy? Brad was well aware that Jessica Adam accused him of harming Nancy to all the friends and neighbors the very morning that she disappeared in his own front lawn. Later, when Hannah told Nancy’s sister that Nancy was missing she called Brad and yelled at him on the phone “What have you done?” and then hung up the phone. Prior to that both Hannah and Jessica were blaming and accusing Brad of harming Nancy so it’s certain they put that idea in Krista’s head. I think it’s understandable that he opted not to subject himself to more whispers and finger pointing. He grieved privately with his immediate family.

  18. Why didn’t Brad call police to report Nancy missing? Not enough time had passed since it is standard to report a person missing if they have been gone for 24 hours. Jessica Adam called police without informing Brad that she planned to, even though she had just spoken to him. Brad went out searching for Nancy after calling Nancy’s friends and being unable to locate Carey Clark’s phone number. Brad thought Nancy may have gone running with Carey since she had been running with her a lot the past week since they were training for an upcoming marathon.

  19. What about Nancy’s bed not looking “slept in”? It is apparent from the photographs that the bed did look slept in. Detective Daniels had it written in his notes, “the bed does not appear to have been slept in.” He testified at the trial that he sat in the bed and that is the reason it looked wrinkled/slept in. That fact does not appear in any of his notes. The bedding was sent to SBI to analyze for bodily fluids and fibers. Daniels didn’t inform anyone that he had contaminated the evidence by sitting on the bed.

  20. Why did Brad lie about purchasing a drop cloth on Friday morning (7/11)? Brad was questioned about what he did Friday morning and he said he watched the kids that morning and mentioned that he was late for work. Police learned that Brad had also stopped at Lowe’s that morning and since Brad forgot to mention it, they tried to suggest that he lied. The drop cloth was likely purchased because he knew Nancy had spilled some paint on the floor at Jessica’s earlier that week. The drop cloth was found unopened in the garage. The receipt was found on the floor board of Brad’s car. If he was planning to use the drop cloth as part of a criminal act, it’s unlikely he would have carelessly left the receipt in the car.

  21. Is it true that the Cary police erased Nancy’s blackberry cell phone AND destroyed the SIM card? Yes. They actually erased two cell phones; the blackberry and Nancy’s old cell phone. Ben Levitan testified that he had never seen police destroy digital evidence like this in all the many cases he has worked on in the past decade. It is impossible for this to be accidental since it is a 10 step process times two (the phone itself and the SIM card) and several warning prompts appear before the data is completely wiped from the phone.

  22. What was the significance of Brad’s affair to this case? Even though the affair had ended years prior, it was a contributing factor in Nancy’s decision to pursue separation and divorce. Although divorce can put stress on any marriage, the Coopers had resigned themselves to the reality of it but in the meantime, they were living together and still doing things together as a family. Some have suggested that Nancy’s unreasonable separation draft precipitated the tension that led to her murder but that isn’t true. The separation agreement was drafted two months earlier and it was understood that the terms would be negotiated. The Coopers even had plans for the 12th to have another couple to their home to play Sequence and they had attended a Barbecue together the previous evening.

  23. What evidence is there to support the claim that Brad Cooper killed his wife? None.

    • The map search can’t be trusted due to clear evidence of tampering

    • No DNA

    • No fiber evidence

    • No soil found in the car, no muddy shoes

    • Tire tracks at the scene didn’t match the Cooper’s vehicles

    • No scratches or were found on Nancy’s body

    • No evidence of a struggle in the home

    • From the autopsy, Nancy’s blood alcohol level was only .06. Witnesses stated that she drank anywhere from 4-6 drinks or more. To compare, 4 drinks for a 120 pound woman would yield a BAC level of 0.15. If Nancy died shortly after midnight as prosecutors suggest, the BAC should have been considerably higher. In addition to alcohol consumed, decomposition in the heat would likely yield an even higher BAC. So with 4 drinks consumed and decomposition, the BAC should have been closer to .21 to fit the prosecution’s theory.

      The low BAC is consistent with her sleeping all night and metabolizing the drinks from the party. The medical examiner wrote that .06 is “consistent with decomposition”. That means that the .06 doesn’t even account for the drinks she consumed at the party.

    • The stomach was empty, indicating she had time to digest all the food that she ate that evening.

    • Caffeine was found in her system, indicating she drank coffee that morning before jogging.

    • 16 witnesses contacted police to report seeing a woman matching Nancy’s description that morning.