A Closer Look at Brad Cooper

/in , /by

Per your request, I have spent a short period of time watching Brad Cooper talk in the video deposition that has been released online. I also couldn’t help but glance at the affidavits in the case that were listed in the sidebar near the video links. With that, I thought I would share with you my first impressions and thoughts.

Read morePlease know I did not watch any deposition in its entirety. I reviewed at a couple of segments highlighted for me, by you, my readers. Thank you for giving me time markers, it is much appreciated.

  1. The first thing I noticed about Brad Cooper is that he is what I call a classic neutral person. Classic neutral people are void of emotional expression.

    [From an earlier post]

    These people are hardest to read, because these people don’t express a lot of emotion. Neutral people tend to lack genuine enthusiasm, and most often come across as someone who is not excitable. They usually come across as mundane and monotone.

    While the majority of people who fall into the neutral category are suspicious, it does not mean that they are lying. And that is where it gets tricky. Some people just lack normal expressive emotions and instead are subdued, even when they are telling the truth.

    With that, I am left to ask, is this normal behavior for Brad, or is this notable and unusual?

    Most people are not this baseline in their emotions especially after something as traumatic as loss of your wife to murder. Most people would be devastated/angry/mad for their children that they have been robbed of a mother, at the very least. Yet I see none of this with Brad. It definitely raises my eyebrows.

    Since Brad does seem to be a reserved type of person who could repress his emotions, and he was going through a divorce, I would need to know from his friends if this is the “typical Brad” or if his behavior is notably different. If his friends told me his emotions were notably void here, it would raise a big red flag.

  2. Since we can’t depend on Brad’s emotions and body language to guide us positively or negatively, the next thing we need to look at are his words, and the facts. Is Brad consistent in what he is saying?

    The first video I zoomed into was what Brad says happened the day that Nancy disappeared. Almost immediately, I found a big inconsistency in what Brad is saying when he talks about running to the store the morning Nancy disappeared. In the deposition here (around time marker 25:00), Brad talks about how his wife Nancy was upset that they were out of detergent.

    Questioner:
    When you got home from the Harris Teeter, what did you do?

    Cooper:
    When I got home from Harris Teeter, I put the milk back in the fridge. Um..by this time, the washing machine had finished the first load that, um, we had put in earlier, and um, Nancy then indicated that we were out of laundry detergent and was upset that we were out of laundry detergent as well.

    Questioner:
    Was she upset with you about that?

    Cooper:
    Yes, she… well, she was upset that one, we ran low on milk, we ran low on laundry detergent, and um, she was gone the week prior so she kind of felt it was my fault that I hadn’t restocked with milk and laundry detergent. (Time marker 25:18).

    Questioner:
    So what does she say?

    Cooper:
    She indicated that it was kind of my fault and therefore my responsibility and hop back in the car and go to the store and pick up laundry detergent.

  3. If you compare that to what Brad said in an affidavit here, Brad’s story has changed.

    “I start to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of laundry detergent and could not do laundry, so Nancy asked me to go back out to get some laundry detergent around 6:30 A.M.”

    I find this odd and perplexing. Why is Brad not able to keep his facts straight? In one version, his wife notices they are out of laundry soap. In the other, he notices. In the deposition, he starts the laundry and does one load. In the affidavit, he says he “could not do laundry”.

    This is a notable red flag. When we are honest, we remember the basic details of what we did and who discovered what. We don’t confuse basic facts such as this.

  4. It’s also very notable (above) that Brad talks about getting ready for the girls to “get up” in the affidavit. Yet oddly, in his deposition, he talks about how Katie, his daughter, was up early and fussing because she didn’t have milk, and that he went to get her milk, came home and got a bottle of milk to give to Katie. He wasn’t home a few minutes before the laundry detergent scenario played out, and after returning with the laundry detergent he tells us he takes Katie back upstairs with him to put her down.

    What is the truth here? Was Katie up or not? Clearly, Brad is having a hard time keeping his facts straight and that begs us to question why.

  5. It’s odd, too, that when Brad Cooper went to the grocery store the first time, he knew exactly how he got there. He was sure about his route. The second time, however, he couldn’t remember which way he went, yet he said he remembered getting a phone call at a specific intersection. Why did he take a different route? How come he remembers this specific phone call, but he doesn’t remember the different route? It’s perplexing. Notice that Brad is asked why he took a different route, but he doesn’t answer the question.
  6. Brad Cooper in this deposition tells us that he cleaned out the garage on June 28th so that one car could fit into their two car garage. He explains that it was summer and hot, and that Nancy needed a cool car for the kids.

    Yet ironically, Gary Beard, of Gary’s Pest Control, says in his affidavit that he entered the garage on July 8 and that there was no way a car could be parked inside the garage due to the toys and things Brad says he supposedly removed. It’s another inconsistency, another oddity, another red flag. Why would Gary Beard lie about this? Why would Brad Cooper lie about this?

At this point, from what little I have reviewed, I think it is clear that Brad is unable to keep his facts straight, and that concerns me.
_______________________________
Update:  Brad Cooper was sentenced to life in prison May 2011 for the killing of his wife, Nancy.

The Staircase

/in /by

People have been asking me for my opinion about the Sundance documentary, The Staircase, for several months now. It wasn’t until recently that I realized while I hadn’t seen the documentary, I did know about the case! Dateline covered the story back in 2006 and I saw Michael Peterson speak extensively at that time (the show was titled: Death at the bottom of the stairs), and with that, I can tell you that I did not trust Michael Peterson when I watched him tell his story.

Unfortunately, since it has been so long, I am unable to recollect the details about why I feel the way I do, but after seeing this clip below I do remember thinking Peterson was a brilliant man–a brilliant man who got too confident in his abilities to manipulate the truth.

Read more

Peterson’s cockiness comes blaring through on this video. If you didn’t know any better, you’d think Peterson was a commenter on some event rather than on his own murder trial. His emotions and behavior are flat out-of-line with a man who is being wrongly accused.

Peterson says he understands the prosecutor wants to win.

What?

Would you understand that the prosecutor wants to win at all costs–disregarding the truth–if that meant you would spend your life behind bars?

No innocent man would ever understand others who disregard the truth at their expense. It’s plain old nonsense, and just an attempt to by Peterson to get people to “think” he is a reasonable guy. It’s pure manipulation by a man who loves to impress others by his intellect. It’s just this time, he wasn’t as smart as he thought he was.

Arrest in Nona Dirksmeyer Case

/in , /by

Thanks to a reader, Joyce Ham, for informing me that there was an arrest Friday in the Nona Dirksmeyer case. On Friday police arrested a man, Gary Dunn, who lived in Dirksmeyer’s apartment complex at the time of her murder.

I originally wrote about the case in February of this year after Kevin Jones, Dirksmeyer’s boyfriend, was tried for her murder and acquitted. Even though Jones acquitted last July, public opinion was not supportive of Jones.

“…even after being acquitted, Jones continued to face public scrutiny in Pope County. Arkansas Tech denied him admission for the fall semester, because Jones said he didn’t send in proper transcripts and the school viewed him as a safety concern. (source)”

Many people did not believe justice was served. That’s when my reader’s wrote me, and asked me for my opinion.

The police found Jones’ behavior questionable and suspicious. Watch as police interrogate Jones here.

Furthermore, Jones had failed a polygraph, and police believe they had Jones DNA on the murder weapon.

Nona’s parents also made it very clear on 48 Hours as well that they believed Jones was Dirksmeyer’s killer, too. Yet a jury didn’t find enough evidence to convict Jones.

Upon watching Jones speak on 48 Hours, I knew without a doubt he was innocent. I had no doubts about it. This case is particularly pleasing to see come to light now because Jones is a good man who does not deserve this injustice.

I will be curious to see how this case plays out. In the end, you have to wonder if the DNA on the condom wrapper in Dirksmeyer’s apartment is what finally brought Dunn into focus. Only time will reveal the details as right now as the police are keeping the details mum.

Coralrose Fullwood Case

/in , /by

Click here for an update on this case 3-03-2009

News is breaking today about a case I have reviewed: The Coralrose Fullwood case. A man named Patrick Dewayne Murphy has been arrested and charged in the death of Coralrose.

I reviewed videos of Coralrose’s father, Dale, and when I watched him, I didn’t trust him. Yet I knew that in the police investigation, the police did not find any DNA evidence of Dale on his daughter. Yet, I still couldn’t explain Dale’s behavior.

Read moreInterestingly, the Herald Tribune reports today that…

“Despite the arrest, authorities say the investigation is far from over.”

“We believe that other people are involved,” said [North Port Police Chief] Lewis, who explained that by ‘involved,’ he means people who either helped commit the crime, or who knew about it.”

I don’t think we’ve seen the entire puzzle of this case unfold yet either.

In my post last June, I wrote:

Do I trust Dale? I absolutely do not trust Dale. Do I think he killed his little girl? I cannot say. Was he involved somehow? I suspect so because he isn’t telling us all he knows. In my opinion, Dale knows more than he is admitting to, sadly — and the implications of that are a little more than I can handle thinking about…

The question is was Fullwood somehow connected to Murphy?

TampaBays10: “There is a $10,000 reward for information about Murphy. Anyone with information can call Crimestoppers at (800) 780-TIPS or the Coralrose Fullwood Hotline at (941) 429-7336.”

What do you think?


Justine and Eric Abshire: Primetime Crime

/in , /by

Last week, Primetime Crime detailed the story of Justine and Eric Abshire. Married just five months, Eric says that he and Justine had an argument early on November 3, 2006, about his mother’s ailing health at which time Justine took off in her car. It was the middle of th night. Next, according to Eric, Justine calls him to tell him that her car broke down approximately 5 miles from the house, and so Eric says he got on his motorcycle to go get her.

Eric says he drove up on what looked like an animal in the road, but then realized as he got closer, it was a person, and that person was Justine. I find this statement interesting, and unusual.

“I turn onto Taylorsville Road. I saw something in the road, which I assumed was an animal, and as I got closer, I realized it was Justine in the road.”

First, I find it odd how Eric’s tense changes from “turn” to “saw”. We usually recollecting things in past tense.

Also, what human body in the road would like look a dead animal? I’d be especially curious to know what Justine was wearing that night. Regardless, this statement is a red flag for me.

Read morePolice who have investigated this crime say that Justine had defensive wounds with her body, and if this is true, it is flat out inconsistent with what Eric wants us believe. Furthermore, and on top of that, Justine’s injuries were just not consistent with colliding with a car say investigators.

The scene of the crime also did not support a hit-and-run scenario either. There was no broken glass, no skid marks–nothing. And there was no grease, oil or other elements from a car found on Justine’s body or in the vicinity of where Justine laid.

In the interview on Primetime, Jay Schadler asks Eric if he thinks someone could have beaten up Justine, and Eric’s response to Jay also raises a red flag for me. Instead of giving the idea consideration, Eric immediately discards it. This is unusual behavior for an uninvolved person to do.

When we truly don’t know what happened to our loved one, we typically don’t rule anything out. We consider all options and all investigations because we want to get to the truth. We want to know what happened to our loved one because we want to hold the person who did this to them accountable.

Eric never seems to talk about any of this. He doesn’t seem to feel violated in anyway that someone, in one form or another, robbed him of his beloved wife. I find this a red flag as well.

Eric, instead, gives us a lousy explanation as to why he wants to believe she was hit by a car instead of having been beaten up. He says he didn’t want to believe she exited the world that way (being beaten up), or something to that effect (forgive me, but I don’t have the transcript).

This explanation as to why Eric doesn’t want to consider another theory really bothers me. Would it be any easier for you to believe your spouse was hit by a car than beaten up by a stranger? Would either one of these scenarios give you more comfort than the other? Would you not want to find the correct individual who did this, and hold them accountable? Wouldn’t finding the truth be important to you?

Why isn’t it important to Eric?

Also, when Jay Schadler tells Eric that the police drove Justine’s car away from the scene without any mechanical problems (and the car was also looked at by a certified mechanic and found to be fine), Eric’s response bothers me again. He says something to the effect that that’s what the police are saying. His response indicates that he isn’t willing to accept that.

Tell me, if your wife called you with a broken down car, and you come up to her body on the road and find her dead, and then the police tell you the car is running fine, wouldn’t you want to know that? Wouldn’t you want to find out what the heck went on? Wouldn’t you be curious about that fact? Why isn’t Eric? Does he know what went on? This troubles me, too.

Also, Justine’s family says that Eric had insurance policies on Justine that he could cash in the event this accident is truly ruled a hit-and-run worth over a million dollars. Eric says it is only a fraction of that in reality, but regardless, he is not going to cash it in. He is adamant about it.

This is perplexing to me, and again, this makes no sense. If your wife was truly a victim of what you believe is a hit-and-run, and you had a policy on her for that, and you are 100% innocent, why wouldn’t you cash it in? Isn’t that why you got the policy in the first place? Or is he not able to cash in it at this time because of legal issues? I’m curious.

Let’s hypothesis further for a minute. What if, in a fit of anger, you lost it on your wife and you accidentally killed her, would you ever want to cash in that policy? Just food for thought.

Also, according to phone records, a call came in from Justine’s cell phone at 1:19 a.m., but it wasn’t until 1:57 that a neighbor near Justine’s body was alerted by Eric to the situation and called 911.

What took Eric so long to get help? Worse case scenario is that it took Eric 15 minutes to get to Justine after the phone call, and that would put him on the scene at 1:35. Eric says he ran to several houses before he got help — all the while leaving Justine lying in the road.

How many houses did he attempt to get help at? How far apart are the houses? Were the people not home in those houses? Has that been checked? Does his time frame add up?

Also, he had a cell phone on him, but he didn’t use it. I find this perplexing. He says he forgot about it until an hour later. Did he remember it when it was convenient?

Eric also tells us that he placed his jacket over Justine, but that he didn’t move her off the road. Did Eric believe Justine was dead and could not be revived? I am curious if it was outwardly apparent that she was deceased. Police are not discussing the details of Justine’s injuries.

Also, was there an indication she couldn’t be revived? Usually loved ones hold on to ALL hope until the very end that their loved one is alive, or could be revived. They summons help immediately, and cling to the hope they will make it. But it appears Eric didn’t do this. I wonder why. Was she that visibly deceased?

“There are no words to describe it,” [Eric] said. “That’s a situation nobody, unless they’ve ever lived through it, could describe …I just held her and talked to her.”

Abshire says he was overcome with emotion.

“I [sat] there with her. I covered her up with my jacket, and when I finally came to my senses enough I went and called for help.”

All the while Eric talks, he doesn’t show a lot of emotions. I can also be pretty confident that not many people would leave their loved one lying dead in the road in the middle of the night when they went to get someone to call for help. Would you?

The idea of it is mortifying. It goes against every grain of common sense. We all know roads are dangerous places — especially at night. What if another car came barreling into his motorcycle and hit her again? Most people would instinctively move their loved one without thought to a safe place when they summoned for help. It would be a reflex response, whether that person is dead or alive, but again, this wasn’t the case for Eric.

Add to all of this that Eric has a history of physical violence against women, was seen being physical with Justine in their relationship, that Eric didn’t want to be married, that Justine was known to not go out at night alone, or have a temper (which would cause her to go out at night), and frankly, you get a picture of what likely happened here, and it isn’t pretty.

I think Eric is an intelligent man, but I am not buying his story. At a minimum, discarding all the red flags that I see, the facts just don’t add up no matter how you look at it.