"BC is innocent" or "I'm not convinced yet" Discussion

[jmflu]

I'm not seeking an acceptable definition of abuse. I'm merely stating an opinion and yes perhaps it is true that I am not familiar with the more relaxed and subtle form of controlled abuse in the form of you can do whatever you want and stay out as late as you want and I will keep the kids while you party with your friends and train for your marathon and I will give you $1200 cash each month for food and clothes and I will pay for everything else kind of abuse. I'm sorry, I will say it for the tenth time, I may very well be wrong and she may have been abused while not participating in the above mentioned activities. I just don't think if he was that horrible that as an abused woman and mother that I would have ever left my children in his care for fear his abusive nature would cause him to hurt the most precious part of my life nor would I have agreed to in the 2nd draft of the separation papers allowed that kind of visitation or called my abuser a "fit father" if it were not true.

Maybe... perhaps when you read Krista Lista's affidavit, you will feel differently...

 

[mahmoo]

I'm not seeking an acceptable definition of abuse. I'm merely stating an opinion and yes perhaps it is true that I am not familiar with the more relaxed and subtle form of controlled abuse in the form of you can do whatever you want and stay out as late as you want and I will keep the kids while you party with your friends and train for your marathon and I will give you $1200 cash each month for food and clothes and I will pay for everything else kind of abuse. I'm sorry, I will say it for the tenth time, I may very well be wrong and she may have been abused while not participating in the above mentioned activities. I just don't think if he was that horrible that as an abused woman and mother that I would have ever left my children in his care for fear his abusive nature would cause him to hurt the most precious part of my life nor would I have agreed to in the 2nd draft of the separation papers allowed that kind of visitation or called my abuser a "fit father" if it were not true.

Thing is...............she's dead............she was murdered.

 

[rwesafe]

Thing is...............she's dead............she was murdered.

That does not mean he is the murderer.

 

[rwesafe]

I understand what you're saying rwesafe.......thing is, and this is just the impression I've gotten.......it wasn't like he cheated on her one time and humiliated her.......it sounds like (although not verified) he "messed around" on her more than once.

I wonder if those "affair type things" get around Cary pretty good......I mean.....through the "grapevine"

OOoh yeah, those type of things travel faster than the concord, especially in Lochmere. It only took about 24 hours past the mention of an affair for HM to pointed out. I suspect, had there been others, they would have been outted by now too.

 

[mahmoo]

That does not mean he is the murderer.

Well.....it was a guy that murdered her........a female didn't do it.

 

[rwesafe]

Well.....it was a guy that murdered her........a female didn't do it.

How do you know that?

 

[mahmoo]

How do you know that?

I don't.......I'm assuming

I'm a big girl myself......like NC. I don't wanna over-rate my capabilities but.......another female is not gonna take me down unless she has a gun, knife, some other type of weapon. Now.....a man....yeah, he may be able to take me down but he's gonna have a vicious fight on his hands.

 

[rwesafe]

I don't.......I'm assuming

I'm a big girl myself......like NC. I don't wanna over-rate my capabilities but.......another female is not gonna take me down unless she has a gun, knife, some other type of weapon. Now.....a man....yeah, he may be able to take me down but he's gonna have a vicious fight on his hands.

But like they said, caught off guard it only takes 15 seconds.

 

[mahmoo]

But like they said, caught off guard it only takes 15 seconds.

You gonna let someone (anyone) take you down in 15 seconds without putting up a fight ?

 

[rwesafe]

You gonna let someone (anyone) take you down in 15 seconds without putting up a fight ?

Apparently, attacked from behind it only takes 15 seconds to render someone unconcious. So, based on that, choice may not be an option.

 

[rwesafe]

Maybe... perhaps when you read Krista Lista's affidavit, you will feel differently...

I don't feel differently. In fact, I find it consistent behavior with a man who is up to his eyeballs in debt and probably bitter that his wife is leaving. Also, she is fighting for custody of his kids, I don't expect her to paint a rosy picture of him.

I also find it curious that she refused any help from KL for fear that BC would become angry...IIRC...she stated that she and Brad were in "hate mode" because he was angry about her painting for money. I believe he stated that they had an argument about it. Which, I can't imagine that there is a man alive that would not be a bit embarrassed by this.....it kind of an ego blow for a man.

But, that being said....so she would not take help from her sister to prevent any additional tensions in the house.....but she was going to go paint for JA knowing that it was already an issue? That just doesn't make sense.

It does not sound like MH and BC were best friends or anything....so I can't see why he would potentially sacrifice is livelyhood and well being on BC's behalf, so I tend to believe he is telling the truth...

I think there is someone in that circle of friends that has yet to come forward with something they know....but I guess like BC's lawyer said, it will become clear as things move forward...

 

[runr]

I do believe that there was a dysfunctional dynamic of tit-for-tat, perhaps "pushing each other's button," and maybe more, in this relationship, but it does not preclude the possibility of SODDI, esp. if more details about the tangled web of their personal lives is revealed. That being said, it is logical, normal, and necessary that BC be fully investigated to exclude him as much as include him as the perp.

I absolutely do not know whodunnit. I do know that there are indicators of 2 people who were unhappy being together. Does that mean he did it? I do not know.

 

[ncsu95]

I'm in the "not convinced by the preponderance of evidence yet category" for the following reasons:

What we do know:

Nancy Cooper was murdered sometime after 12 midnight on July 12th.
Nancy Cooper's body was found by a passerby on the July 14th.
Nancy & Brad Cooper had a troubled and dysfunctional marriage. They were in some financial difficulty. Nancy did want a divorce. It appears that Brad did not want a divorce; at least not on the terms that Nancy's lawyer had proposed.
Brad Cooper went to Harris Teeter twice after 6:00 AM on the morning of the 12th.
Brad Cooper had a tennis date for 9:30 AM on the morning of the 12th. This was confirmed by MH, and OK'ed by Nancy herself, according to MH.
Brad Cooper did go out in the late morning/early afternoon of July 12th to allegedly look for his wife Nancy, and he did take his kids along.
I think we do know that Brad received a call from Nancy's cell sometime after 6:00 AM on the 12th. What we don't know is who made that call; Nancy herself, Brad to himself, or an accomplice of Brad.
We do know that Nancy did spend a fair amount of time going out with friends without Brad. We know this because her friends said so first hand. If Nancy is often out with her friends, doing their girly thing, who watches the kids? Brad, that's who. That fact has been buried by all the noise about how "bad" a husband Brad was. How he never had time for Nancy, or the kids. How he was only interested in himself. Brad worked full time, Nancy did not work outside the home. Who had more time to spend with the children?
Brad was a lousy husband, but in reading between the lines, he was trying to make an effort to improve, and "save" the marriage.
I find no mention by anybody that Nancy did anything to improve or save their marriage. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that to Nancy their marriage was over, finished, and unrecoverable.


What is speculated:

Since 80% of all murders are committed by a perp known to the victim which is true, it must be that Nancy was killed by Brad, which is speculation.
Cary PD has said it is not a "random crime", therefore they must know who the killer is, but cannot prove it yet. Which is interesting speculation by the Cary PD because if you cannot prove something is true, how do you know it is true???? Therefore, if the Cary PD is not just blowing smoke, they must have some circumstantial evidence that points to a killer and /or killers. If so they have not released this evidence to the public. Nor have they named a suspect, nor have they named a "person of interest".
Brad "never cleans and is a total slob". Therefore Brad's cleaning on the morning of the 12th is only because he is covering up the crime. How do we know this is true or untrue?
Everything written in a supporting Nancy Coopers friend affidavit is "true", because Nancy told the person that it was true, whereas everything a Brad friend said in an affidavit is untrue because "those" affidavits are "self serving to Brad" and since Nancy cannot defend herself and Brad " really did it"; his supporting affidavits must be untrue. Truly speculative circular logic.

Look anyone who really reads the affidavits closely will notice two things:

1) Nancy's friends affidavits are based mainly on what she told them. They are rife with statements of "Nancy told me" and "Nancy said". Do we really know those statements by Nancy to her friends to be a true and accurate picture or snapshot of the Cooper's marriage? Could Nancy have been exaggerating? Could Nancy be looking for sympathy from her friends? Was Nancy trying to play the victim? I don't know, and neither does anybody else.

2) Brad's affidavits are mainly what the writer of the affidavit observed "first hand". Can "first hand" observations be colored by the perceptions and prejudices of the observer? Of course they can, and should be taken with a grain of salt. But "first hand" observations are far stronger evidence than second hand regurgitations of what "Nancy said".


In summary, Brad in all probability did the crime, because the odds always favor guilt of someone who is close to the victim. But probability is not evidence, and there is scant actual evidence heretofore presented that Brad is in fact guilty. Brad Cooper was of course a poor husband, with few social graces, stuck in a dysfunctional marriage with Nancy who wants out of the marriage with terms most favorable to herself. That's motive in itself. Brad is also the last know person to see her alive. Never a good thing for a guilty or innocent party. Brad may be "innocent until found guilty" in a court of law, but he must "prove" himself innocent before a murder trial in order to get his children back, and clear his name in the court of public opinion.

That is a big hurtle he has yet to clear.


Shadow722

Excellent post. This is pretty much how I feel as well. He likely did it...but nothing put out to date comes close to proving it. I agree with your assessment of the affidavits as well.

 

[ncnative]

I have a question. Is there actual proof that Brad rec'd a call from Nancy's cell during the Harris Teeter escapades? If so, then...the recent legal docs showed that Nancy's cell was "locked" when LE got it. They purposely left out the PIN # for her phone on one part of a doc, but it's there on another, I noticed BTW.
Anyway, if Nancy had it on "lock" and she died prior to the HT trips, how could BC say that he got a call from her cell (except for documented phone records). Or did he say he got a call from her on the house phone?

Or, do you think that BC knew what the PIN was for NC's cell phone, from snooping around and finding it somehow? I'm confused about this.

 

[Star12]

I have a question. Is there actual proof that Brad rec'd a call from Nancy's cell during the Harris Teeter escapades? If so, then...the recent legal docs showed that Nancy's cell was "locked" when LE got it. They purposely left out the PIN # for her phone on one part of a doc, but it's there on another, I noticed BTW.
Anyway, if Nancy had it on "lock" and she died prior to the HT trips, how could BC say that he got a call from her cell (except for documented phone records). Or did he say he got a call from her on the house phone?

Or, do you think that BC knew what the PIN was for NC's cell phone, from snooping around and finding it somehow? I'm confused about this.

The only "proof" that we have seen is that BC said so, and his lawyers said so, and LE is apparantly investigating Nancy's phone use.

He said in his afffidavit that Nancy called him from home. He did not say from the home phone, and he did not say from her cell phone. He merely said "from home".

K&B said that prior to entering T that BC had received the call. Of course, since it was before he walked in the store we didn't see any evidence of BC being on the cell phone, but we are pretty sure we saw it in his hands on the videos.

About PINs and locks, I have no clue.

 

[jumpstreet]

Is there actual proof that Brad rec'd a call from Nancy's cell during the Harris Teeter escapades? If so, then...the recent legal docs showed that Nancy's cell was "locked" when LE got it.
Anyway, if Nancy had it on "lock" and she died prior to the HT trips, how could BC say that he got a call from her cell (except for documented phone records).

BC always said that NC called him from "home" (but that never necessarily meant she didn't use her cell phone to do so). Until the MH affidavit came out this week, we weren't sure there were any record of phone calls (from the house or NC's mobile phone) to BC's mobile phone at any point. [ We only had BC's statement as such - still haven't seen actual phone records I don't believe ]

It was an assumption that the phone records likely backed up that statement in some form or fashion (otherwise, it would seem silly for him to state as much in his affidavit).

Now this week though, we have MH's statement that the CPD were asking him if he used NC's mobile phone to call BC (presumably to help BC use this to establish an alibi). This basically tells us that there is a phone record of some kind between NC's cell phone and BC (presumably cell phone) that LE is interesting in explaining. Not sure what time of day - could have been the ~6:40 call BC referenced in his affidavit.. or... could be some other phone call that LE has a record of. It's an unknown. Presumably the ~6:40 one though.

As far as the phone being locked, some have speculated that perhaps the device was password locked, but still allowed one to make a call from it (without the password). The online documentation for the Blackberry that we found yesterday suggests though that if the device is password protected, that one must know the password in order to make calls from it (and also of course in order to access stored text messages, etc), but some have reported that this may not be totally true. [ Anyone happen to own a Blackberry Pearl? ]

Explanations for how the phone call could have been placed from a locked phone to BC though are: (a) BC knew the password, (b) you don't really need a password to make calls from the phone, (c) there was no password set on the phone at the time of the calls, but subsequently someone set one up on it (presumably BC), and finally (extra appropriate for this particular thread - BC may be innocent...) (d) NC made the calls in question using her own phone, just like BC states she did.

It's a side-bar, and may or may not be related, but it is interesting that the very same week that MH submits an affidavit relaying a story where JA became quite emotional upon observing NC receive a text message from an individual named Brett (JA's husband is named Brett, but supposedly that is coincidence)... the the very same week now though LE is interested in accessing more information about NC's mobile phone (including as the SW says, text messages, contact information, etc), and NC's personal address books (non-phone). It would appear that LE is interested in further exploring NC's circle-of-contacts. What that means - who knows... could just be due-diligence... Or... could be they're chasing another lead.

 

[rwesafe]

As far as the phone being locked, some have speculated that perhaps the device was password locked, but still allowed one to make a call from it (without the password). The online documentation for the Blackberry that we found yesterday suggests though that if the device is password protected, that one must know the password in order to make calls from it (and also of course in order to access stored text messages, etc), but some have reported that this may not be totally true. [ Anyone happen to own a Blackberry Pearl? ]

Explanations for how the phone call could have been placed from a locked phone to BC though are: (a) BC knew the password, (b) you don't really need a password to make calls from the phone, (c) there was no password set on the phone at the time of the calls, but subsequently someone set one up on it (presumably BC), and finally (extra appropriate for this particular thread - BC may be innocent...) (d) NC made the calls in question using her own phone, just like BC states she did.

My best friend has the blackberry pearl. She says she has her set to auto lock after it has been inactive or unused for more than 15 minutes. She did not know about the other locking functions available, she was not at home and did not have the manual with her.

 

[NC_butterfly]

My best friend has the blackberry pearl. She says she has her set to auto lock after it has been inactive or unused for more than 15 minutes. She did not know about the other locking functions available, she was not at home and did not have the manual with her.

I have a Blackberry Pearl 8130 and to my knowledge, when it is locked with a password, everything on the phone is locked. I dug through all my menus and options and can't find any way to password protect some things but not everything. I'm not a Blackberry expert by any means, but hoping this helps!

 

[jmflu]

I don't feel differently. In fact, I find it consistent behavior with a man who is up to his eyeballs in debt and probably bitter that his wife is leaving.

Does this mean you find it "normal" or excusable behavior? I know you used the word "consistent" but when something becomes consistent I believe that makes it considered more normal.

I do not believe his behavior was normal. He sounds very controlling to me.

 

[momto3kids]

Omg.....roflmao I wanted to make the cow lips smaller but i don't know how. Now I'm gonna get in trouble for being O/T or OCD or something.

Do you know people pay BIG bucks for lips like those???