National Press Release
August 26, 2011
CONTACT: Justice for Brad, LLC email@example.com
Justice for Brad, LLC responds to Dateline NBC’s “The Day She Disappeared”
It is our opinion that several key points about the case were mischaracterized during the Dateline coverage and Justice for Brad would like to set the record straight. The inaccuracies and omission of key facts left a distorted impression with the viewers that does not reflect the realities of the trial testimony.
While the initial coverage of the ignored witnesses was accurate, ADA Howard Cummings stated that, contrary to Defense claims, Cary police did follow up with all of the witnesses. That is inaccurate. The trial testimony revealed that police never followed up with some of the witnesses at all and the people who were followed up with weren’t contacted until three months later. Police chose to ignore them during the early part of the investigation when critical details could have been provided and important leads could have surfaced. In fact, Detective Dismukes testified during the trial that memories do not fade over time, and there was no downside to interviewing witnesses three months after they saw Nancy Cooper jogging. Failure to follow up with the witnesses who saw a van in the area was particularly concerning and inexcusable.
Police and prosecutors claimed that the deletion of data and destruction of the SIM card in Nancy Cooper’s Blackberry phone were accidental. It is our belief based on Ben Levitan’s expert opinion that the destruction of this evidence was intentional. To listen to testimony on the Blackberry deletion, please visit the Justice for Brad website.
One of the claims made by ADA Cummings is that the deletion of the Blackberry was inconsequential, because they had obtained all of the phone records and knew all of Nancy’s friends. This answer does not contemplate the full level of what is available on a Blackberry. While call details and cell tower points were available, AT&T could not provide photos on the phone, the contents of text messages, calendar appointments, or Blackberry applications, like Facebook.
The coverage of the router was misleading. It insinuated that Brad Cooper was guilty, not because of evidence, but because he was a VoIP engineer. Not only is there no evidence that the router was in the home at the time the alleged automated call took place, it is pointless to even discuss the “missing” router because the State’s expert testified that the maximum amount of time that a call can be automated using a router is 23 seconds. The 6:40AM call lasted 32 seconds and therefore could not have been generated with a router. The photograph of the dusty cabinet is not from Brad’s desk, or even capable of housing a Cisco 3825 router. Nevertheless, this was the picture shown to imply that a router once sat in that place. Further, FBI Agent Johnson testified that he tested the Cooper computers for an automated call and never found any semblance of evidence to support the claim. Detective Daniels testified that there was no evidence of an automated call and “that’s what makes this case so unique.” They never proved that an automated call took place because Nancy called Brad at 6:40AM the morning of July 12th, 2008.
For more information, please visit www.JusticeforBrad.com
# # #