Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is the first case that I've followed every curve and turn of. I am not aware of the legal process. The GJ is expected to meet today, right? Can we expect to learn additional information today?
That is not true carolinalady
"That the release of this information will jeopardize the right of a defendant to a fair trial"
Brad and his attorney have the SW's and know what they say.
My point is the public does not because they could be inflammatory or they could compromise the ongoing investigation.
But that doesn't mean it contains damning evidence. More than likely, it has what LE believes happened to Nancy Cooper. I would think (and hope) that if they have damning evidence, BC would be in jail.
"By law, affidavits to obtain a search warrant must contain a detailed explanation of probable cause, and they usually have specifics about what police believe happened to the victim.
Sealing search warrants allow authorities to investigate a case without disclosing information that would allow public speculation about the case."
This is not worth arguing about. I never said it did contain damning evidence, I was simply saying that is many times why they are sealed in high profile cases. BTW, the probable cause to search his house would point to him.
After all, he said she left the house alive.
Probable cause
"A reasonable belief that a person (Brad Cooper) has committed a crime"
I found this posted on the City Data forum, Cary, NC. Page 41, post # 408
I have no idea who this is, but they were a member before the NC case so they didn't join just to state this. Is this why she was partially clothed?
07-26-2008, 07:00 PM
seajoy88
Member
I agree that even though they say it was not a random killing, the fact that no one has been arrested is a little unnerving.
A friend of mine that lives in the Lochmere area reported information to a detective the day Nancy went missing. While my friend was on her jog that day, she saw a woman by Nancy's description around 8am. She described an item of clothing this woman was wearing that was of interest to the detective. Whether this is a coincidence or not, an item of clothing as my friend described was found in the woods. It was not an item of clothing that was known to the public. I have no idea why the police would not release that information, but maybe it was a false lead. Either way, it's just enough information to make my friend stop running alone even if the police say they don't believe the murder was random.
I could have missed this, but has there been an affidavit from
Carrie Clarke?
Diana Duncan's husband?
Theresa O'Driscoll?
It would be interesting as to why not.
I found this posted on the City Data forum, Cary, NC. Page 41, post # 408
I have no idea who this is, but they were a member before the NC case so they didn't join just to state this. Is this why she was partially clothed?
07-26-2008, 07:00 PM
seajoy88
Member
I agree that even though they say it was not a random killing, the fact that no one has been arrested is a little unnerving.
A friend of mine that lives in the Lochmere area reported information to a detective the day Nancy went missing. While my friend was on her jog that day, she saw a woman by Nancy's description around 8am. She described an item of clothing this woman was wearing that was of interest to the detective. Whether this is a coincidence or not, an item of clothing as my friend described was found in the woods. It was not an item of clothing that was known to the public. I have no idea why the police would not release that information, but maybe it was a false lead. Either way, it's just enough information to make my friend stop running alone even if the police say they don't believe the murder was random.
"brad probably used her cellphone to call his to try to establish his alibi.
he'll probably find some excuse why his fingerprints are on her phone"
The Saint ,
IMO BC wouldn't have to find an excuse for his fingerprints to be on NC's cell phone. I know my hubby's would be on mine~ he handed it to me last night when it rang.
Fran, I think most of the shopping for expensive dresses and such took place BEFORE he took the credit cards out of her name. I think the tightened purse strings prohibited NC from shopping for the girls as she used to. BC stated in his affidavit that he at times used some of his remaining 20% of monthly income to buy the children clothes. If she wanted something special for the girls, she had to ask him to go pick it up. I think her father-in-law saw credit card reciepts of purchases NC signed for a while back before BC discovered the terms of the separation agreement and tightened the budget.I missed a lot of discussion yesterday while I was gone. Some posts I'd like to address. Well, some have already been discussed, but, LOL, you know me, I have to put in my :twocents: .
These are mostly from the previous thread. I don't know how to bring over a quote from another thread other than cut/paste.....computers are not my first language at home.
Our new member reddress58 said they were planning on building a new, more expensive home in another area. Ok, my take, it wasnt Nancy who was the spender, it was Brad. Hell blame it on her now that she cant dispute it, but IMO, hes the one that wanted to show off. After all, he's the one that just got his MBA!
As far as those $150 dresses put aside for the girls. Well, yeah that is pretty pricey for even an adult dress, imo. But hey, I wasn't raised that way. But remember, Nancy didn't have the purse strings, Brad did. He had to pick the dresses up. Soooo......remember if the MOST RECENT purchases for the kids et al have verifiable receipts, ie credit card or money card, that was Brad picking them up. But Nancy may have shopped them. So now you have Brad saying he did all of this shopping and stuff.......yeah, what a nice guy.
Of course their plans were changed for the new house when they returned from their Dec vacation. Nancy most likely realized that it was hopeless with this guy. He was about me, me, me and thats all there was. Plus, weve seen how his family is about Nancy and what is rumored of their treatment of her. Well, this bit of information points to Nancy not embellishing as Brad et al want everyone to believe, but trouble behind those closed doors. It's no wonder his parent's statements weren't more favorable towards Nancy.
Oh, also, remember how HIS friends said Nancy embellished. Well, the same could be for Brad. I mean, where are these people getting their information from?
Right!
JMHO
fran
Fran, I think most of the shopping for expensive dresses and such took place BEFORE he took the credit cards out of her name. I think the tightened purse strings prohibited NC from shopping for the girls as she used to. BC stated in his affidavit that he at times used some of his remaining 20% of monthly income to buy the children clothes. If she wanted something special for the girls, she had to ask him to go pick it up. I think her father-in-law saw credit card reciepts of purchases NC signed for a while back before BC discovered the terms of the separation agreement and tightened the budget.
Why do you ask about these particular people? Have you seen comments they made?
I know Diana Duncan made a statement.
We have a thread with all the legal documents. You may find something there.
I'm fairly certain Carrie Clarke hasn't given a written statement, that's been made public. I could be wrong.
JMHO
fran
You're right. The father-in-law just stated that Nancy bought $50 dresses for the girls and saw $200 receipts for jeans and pedicure. My bad. Sorry.