The De Soto County news. [volume] (Arcadia, Fla.) 1898-1924, 1906-03-30
MR.. BRADY TALKS.
ives Out Statement Regarding
Cooper Case.
:om pnrtow CourIdr-Informant

rom BARLOW OouIlol -iuloIlnhul
Col. J. w. Brady, counsel for
-ooper, was in the city few hours
Today, and while here wrote the
following communication and re-
1uested its publication in the
#Times:
Tampa, Fla, March II.
To the Editor ofthe Times.
l am very much surprised to
notice in today's Tribune a labor
s ed effort to take away from Cooper
the victory he had before the De-
Soto county grand jury last week,
and for which he has waited so
long.
! say surprised, because while
the Tribune has been persstently
niisrepresenting everything in CON
nection with the Cooper case,
against him and to his injury,
did not think it wouldNbave the
gall to try to pervert this inyesti-
CATION as it has. 49,
In town for three hours on bust
ness between trains, cannot go
into a lengthy statement of the
Tribune's many perversions. The
grand jury reported that "they left
the matter where they found it, "
which shows conclusively that
there is too much doubt about
Cooper's guilt for the grand jury
to recommend anything to the
pardoning board. This result came
in this way; A detective last fall
reported to the governor that he
thought two other people were
guilty with Cooper. This was
old to all of us who were familiar
with the case, but the governor
wanted it investigated The first
week Of court, the grand jury
had ne defettXe,ss.--- .Esssib4.
with the affidavits taken by
him (not by me- before them and
investigated. They reported no
bill and added that there was moth
ing brought before them to "eXcul-
pate Cooper" this was on Friday
of the first week. l objected to
the language going into the report
for the reason that Cooper's side
had not been before the grand jury
at all, but to the reverse, they had
been trying to secure evidence
against him. The court then in
structed the grand jury, i'll desir-
ed it, to sit the second week and
gather all the evidence il could, |
agreeing that l would furnish lists
of witnesses and all data before the
pardoning board. Immediately
after this was arranged, the states
attorney jumped in and put-ac-
cording to the Tribunes own
showing-forty-eight witnesses be-
fore the grand jury, whose testi-
nony was not permitted to hear,
and according to the Tribune 5
own showing, only twenty-five OF
the forty-eight witnesses l SUM
moned appeared but l got my
affidavits there from the pardoning
board, that was the main thing; |
furnished them to the grand jury
they did not furnish them to me,
as the Tribune had it, and on those
nine aflidavits the grand jury say,
after looking into the matter, that
they desire to leave it where they
found it. Replying further to the
the Tribune, l can say that am
satisfied with the action of the
grand jury, although some of them
were witnesses for the state in the
trial of Cooper, and although the
state retired the case before it, be-
fore l was allowed to go in, and
when the true record is written Of
that investigation l expect it to be
another evidence before the par
doning board that Cooper's SEN
tence should be committed.
Respectfully,
J. w. BRADY.