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

[jumpstreet]

True enough. But sometimes people murder, freak out at what they have done and report it to shift focus from themselves. It happens. It is just another possibility.

Agreed. The original post was asserting "murderers don't turn around and report their victim missing..." (or something to that effect) [ Therefore, JA could not be the killer, since she's the one who called the police ].

rwesafe is simply saying, that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other: different murderers do different things, (and he cited one example where a murderer did call police themselves).

Bottom line, just because JA called the police doesn't prove (or even imply) that she's innocent (and of course, doesn't prove she's guilty either). It's an unknown - she may very well have been involved... or she may not have been involved... who knows.

 

[SleuthyGal]

True enough. But sometimes people murder, freak out at what they have done and report it to shift focus from themselves. It happens. It is just another possibility.

Bottom line: is the CPD investigating JA? It appears not. They go where they see leads and 'smoke.'

 

[jumpstreet]

Bottom line: is the CPD investigating JA? It appears not. They go where they see leads and 'smoke.'

Hmmm... we don't know that they're not do we? We know they haven't searched her house or asked her to provide DNA samples... and we know she hasn't been named a suspect or even a POI at this point... but other than that...

 

[jmflu]

Agreed. The original post was asserting "murderers don't call the police to report the killing, they buy themselves as much time as possible" (or something to that effect) [ Therefore, JA could not be the killer, since she's the one who called the police ].

rwesafe is simply saying, that one doesn't necessarily follow from the other: different murderers do different things, (and he cited one example where a murderer did call police themselves).

Bottom line, just because JA called the police doesn't prove (or even imply) that she's innocent (and of course, doesn't prove she's guilty either). It's an unknown - she may very well have been involved... or she may not have been involved... who knows.

Again, leading me to believe that if a murderer is going to report the crime, he or she is not going to take the time to hide the body!

 

[SleuthyGal]

Hmmm... we don't know that they're not do we? We know they haven't searched her house or asked her to provide DNA samples... and we know she hasn't been named a suspect or even a POI at this point... but other than that...

There would be SW(s) and we would, at some point, learn about it/them. So far all SWs have been focused on/around Brad.

 

[Shadow722]

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

 

[rwesafe]

Bottom line: is the CPD investigating JA? It appears not. They go where they see leads and 'smoke.'

You don't know if she is being investigated or not. I would suspect that anyone who shows up on NC's cell phone records the night prior and the morning of will be investigated to some degree.

 

[jumpstreet]

There would be SW(s) and we would, at some point, learn about it/them. So far all SWs have been focused on/around Brad.

Agreed, if there were SW's we would know for sure they were investigating her, but the lack of same, to me, doesn't mean they are not. Maybe they're investigating her, but they don't have enough evidence to get a SW (yet) for her... is that impossible?

Do you think LE is "investigating" and/or interested in MH? There have been no SW's for MH that we know of... but it sure seems like (at least as of 4 weeks ago) they were exploring whether or not he was at all involved.

 

[Anderson]

So you think that NC willingly married an abuser? If he indeed was always abusive since the time of his relationship with RKAB, and completely incapable of changing his ways....you are saying that she spent 8 years of her life and gave birth to two children knowing she was married to a man capable of horrendous emotional abuse? I just don't believe that.

Possibly, but she would not have known he was an abuser, obviously. My point is that this is a very complex issue. Just because NC was not a "pushover" does not mean that she could not have been in an abusive relationship, which, BTW, she was trying to leave by many accounts.

Again, I think that it would be helpful to have a look at some literature on domestic abuse. You should also read RKAB's post carefully. This is not something that you can oversimplify.

 

[Anderson]

RKAB, that was very eloquent and well-stated. Painting Brad with the same brush strokes as one would, say, a serial killer on a spree is neither accurate nor helpful.

Brad, like everyone, has many facets. And not all of them are, or have to be, evil. The reality is that BC and NC's relationship was in turmoil, likely had stress, was contentious, and was devolving to divorce. That is usually a volatile time in any relationship.

Agreed.

 

[jmflu]

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

WOW... Did you start typing this yesterday?!

Very impressive! Thank you!

 

[maconrich]

So you think that NC willingly married an abuser? If he indeed was always abusive since the time of his relationship with RKAB, and completely incapable of changing his ways....you are saying that she spent 8 years of her life and gave birth to two children knowing she was married to a man capable of horrendous emotional abuse? I just don't believe that.

Why don't/can't you believe it??

and
RKAB it's very good to hear from you again - your experience and insight have been invaluable. And I'll have to agree that while a tiger doesn't change it's stripes, some tigers manage to camouflage those stripes so well they're hard to see especially when one is on the outside looking in...

 

[SleuthyGal]

You don't know if she is being investigated or not. I would suspect that anyone who shows up on NC's cell phone records the night prior and the morning of will be investigated to some degree.

Perhaps the better question is, "is JA STILL being investigated by CPD, assuming they've looked at everyone in close contact with NC? Has she been 'cleared' from CPD's 'list' of people close to NC who need to be checked?

 

[jumpstreet]

Perhaps the better question is, "is JA STILL being investigated by CPD, assuming they've looked at everyone in close contact with NC? Has she been 'cleared' from CPD's 'list' of people close to NC who need to be checked?

Yeah, exactly. Seems this one is an 'unknown' (along with lots of other unknowns...)

 

[rwesafe]

Possibly, but she would not have known he was an abuser, obviously. My point is that this is a very complex issue. Just because NC was not a "pushover" does not mean that she could not have been in an abusive relationship, which, BTW, she was trying to leave by many accounts.

Again, I think that it would be helpful to have a look at some literature on domestic abuse. You should also read RKAB's post carefully. This is not something that you can oversimplify.

As I mentioned in earlier post, I was married to a man who was clinically diagnosed with NPD. Abuse of the physical and emotional kind is not a mystery to me. I lived it, I know what it looks like and what it feels like. I am not over simplyfying anything.

 

[Anderson]

As I mentioned in earlier post, I was married to a man who was clinically diagnosed with NPD. Abuse of the physical and emotional kind is not a mystery to me. I lived it, I know what it looks like and what it feels like. I am not over simplyfying anything.

We can agree to disagree on that then. But I would think that your experience would make you more sympathetic and understanding.

 

[rwesafe]

We can agree to disagree on that then. But I would think that would make you more sympathetic and understanding.

Yes, we can

 

[rwesafe]

I don't believe that the relationship we had was an immature one.

Brad also has good things about him as well. He could be fun, he could be nice....again, it was part of the rollercoaster. Anyone who has suffered through any type of an abusive relationship whether it be emotional or physical or both, knows about the "honeymoon phase" where the time following bad times is extremely good. When it seemed like things were horrible and one thinks it's time to call it quits and leave, out comes the honeymoon and you second guess your intention to leave because "maybe things will change".

Nancy must have seen a lot of good in Brad to have stayed with him as long as she did and to make the choice to have not one but two children with him. Having children really complicates and clouds the choice and ability to leave a relationship as well. Without children, a person is able to end a relationship and worry only about the effect it will have on them as one person. Having children with someone, while living in a different country and not being able to work really complicates the ability to leave as well.

Having children is also a challenge in life, period. Children do not always make a relationship better and they can cause the cracks that are already visible in a relationship to get bigger. Maybe together as a couple they believed that having children would help them become closer or maybe Nancy realized that she wasn't going to be able to leave him and wanted to have children to fulfill her life and enrich her life.

I think moving so far from her family, whom it appears she was so close to, was isolating and lonely. She appears to have many friends who care deeply about her in Cary but nothing would replace her family. This could have caused problems between her and Brad as well.

Whatever the case may be, Nancy saw things in Brad that allowed her to choose him as a husband and father of her children. She may have looked past the bad and focused on the good. He does have good in him, everyone does. Maybe she believed that he would change after moving and that's why she went with him. Maybe she believed that he would change after they had children.

But it's correct, a tiger doesn't change it's stripes. And I don't believe he has.

Perhaps you don't care to state it here or maybe you already have and I have forgotten, how long did your relationship with BC span? Months, years?

 

[RKAB]

And I'll have to agree that while a tiger doesn't change it's stripes, some tigers manage to camouflage those stripes so well they're hard to see especially when one is on the outside looking in...

That is so so true...there are people who graduated high school and university with Brad who think there's no way that he could have done this because he's such a "great guy". When I read one of the comments in our hometown newspaper from his classmate in high school, about how he's such a nice person, I was reminded of just how little people outside a circle can really know about a person. Those people inside a circle can see and have seen past the camouflage.

 

[rwesafe]

We can agree to disagree on that then. But I would think that your experience would make you more sympathetic and understanding.

That was a bit uncalled for.....

I am not unsympathetic in the least. But based on my own experience of being controlled by a sociopath....I don't see anything about NC that would suggest that she lived in the shadows of an abuser. That is JMO. I have said it before and I will say it again, I could be wrong! Just like you could be....