Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #14

[Just the Fax]

Frankly, I'm not surprised he hasn't been arrested yet. I don't believe that will happen until the investigation has been completed.

You think ? My point was if they had video evidence of him being in the HT at 4 am and he denied it.

At this point, it is about forensics and developing a CE case.

 

[stillblv]

Here is the video interview with Megyn Kelly and Brad Cooper on Monday morning, July 14. Brad says she left between 6:30 and 7:00 Saturday morning for her run and that he was at home with the girls.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video...vUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/americasnewsroom/

 

[SleuthyGal]

All I will say is, after last night and what I heard (unless this person is bold face lying to me) I really think 4am is crucial in this.

Did your 'source' see evidence for themselves that shows this? Or are they repeating what they heard from someone else? If they saw something directly then yeah, I'd believe it. If not...well....nothing personal, but I'd still have to see it for myself.

 

[SleuthyGal]

the DA isn't going to say so until he feels he can prove the case not argue the time.

Very true! The DA gets one shot in court and he's not going to jump the gun. There's no reason to. Plus the longer someone of interest has 'out there' to talk about their activities, the more info they may provide. cf. Scott Peterson.

 

[jumpstreet]

"Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby asked that no part of the warrants be released, saying that keeping the information private at this point in the investigation is crucial to the case.

"It may be of the nature that would alert someone who is an offender as to what evidence law enforcement has," Willoughby said. "It may alert an offender as to what evidence law enforcement is seeking."

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3306798/

This statement in court from the DA is confusing. It is my understanding Brad Cooper was served the SW on his residence and he and his attorney have a copy of the SW. If this is the case, he is already alerted to the evidence LE is seeking

I think what's disclosed is only the SW itself, not the associated affidavits (which provide documentation for the probable cause (and possibly goals) for the SW), and not the results (inventory) from the search.

In the hearing yesterday, the attorney for the media was arguing that since some persons do have copies of the SWs themselves (BC, and the employer if nothing else), then at least those docs aren't totally private, and therefore could be disclosed.

The DA didn't want to make any general distinctions though that the SW itself could be made public, nor the other docs (affidavits, and inventory).

So the DA's point (quoted above) is still valid to keep the affidavit and inventory sealed (keep those that know only to the minimum, so as not to alert anyone (else) unnecessarily). This way, if the prime suspect isn't the one to whom the warrant was served (e.g. the workplace warrant, or if prime suspect isn't BC), then keeping the warrant itself sealed prevents any information from being disclosed unnecessarily either.

I still don't fully understand why LE opted to have the workplace location disclosed in the 2nd warrant (vs 3rd warrant, which is a total secret (person/thing/address)). Why not even keep the fact that the workplace is being searched a secret also? [ Not sure I buy the notion that it also would serve as a mechanism to entice other co-workers to come forward and volunteer information - I would think they would make that request explicitly if it was deemed to be of value, but who knows... ]

 

[momto3kids]

This is going to be key, I think. And of course it's the most provable one way or the other. Store cameras, receipt. This would be a really stupid thing to lie about due to the fact that one would get caught in such a lie poste haste. I really don't think he made a 4am-5am visit to any store--I'd have to see the video myself to believe it. It was just be so incredibly stupid ... and then to lie about it.

Video and receipt doesn't prove murder. He is trying to steer the focus away from himself.
I agree he is stupid to lie about this, but can you imagine he tells the LE...yea I went to HT at 4 for detergent. :waitasec:
Just remember the chiefs response when asked the question...she gave a big sigh.

 

[Just the Fax]

I think what's disclosed is only the SW itself, not the associated affidavits (which provide documentation for the probable cause (and possibly goals) for the SW), and not the results (inventory) from the search.

In the hearing yesterday, the attorney for the media was arguing that since some persons do have copies of the SWs themselves (BC, and the employer if nothing else), then at least those docs aren't totally private, and therefore could be disclosed.

The DA didn't want to make any general distinctions though that the SW itself could be made public, nor the other docs (affidavits, and inventory).

So the DA's point (quoted above) is still valid to keep the affidavit and inventory sealed (so as not to alert anyone). And of course, if the prime suspect isn't the one to whom the warrant was served, then keeping the warrant itself sealed prevents any information from being disclosed to them either.

I still don't fully understand why LE opted to have the workplace location disclosed in the 2nd warrant (vs 3rd warrant, which is a total secret (person/thing/address). Why not even keep the workplace location a secret. [ Not sure I buy the notion that it was to entice other co-workers to come forwards - I would think they would make that request explicitly if it was deemed to be of value ]

Although sealed, The full SW, including inventory and the PC affidavit was served to Jason Young on 2-14-08.
This information was disclosed by the close 'family friend' and personally verified by one of the detectives at the Butterfly event in May.

 

[Just the Fax]

Video and receipt doesn't prove murder. He is trying to steer the focus away from himself.
I agree he is stupid to lie about this, but can you imagine he tells the LE...yea I went to HT at 4 for detergent. :waitasec:
Just remember the chiefs response when asked the question...she gave a big sigh.

Video and receipts at the HT at 4:20 am with no explanation is very compelling CE.

 

[momto3kids]

Did your 'source' see evidence for themselves that shows this? Or are they repeating what they heard from someone else? If they saw something directly then yeah, I'd believe it. If not...well....nothing personal, but I'd still have to see it for myself.

Listen SG, I am not on here to ask anyone to believe me. I will not get into detail about what I found out, but YES this person DID see the video!!! I was told enough to know they saw it and why.

Every one is focused on a particular time, and all I am trying to do is say include 4am. Take it or leave it.

Obviously you believe BC had nothing to do with NC murder. Correct? You believe everything he has stated in his statement?

 

[Star12]

Does the confiscation by LE of a company's video surveillance tapes require a search warrant, supeona, or what?

 

[raisincharlie]

Listen SG, I am not on here to ask anyone to believe me. I will not get into detail about what I found out, but YES this person DID see the video!!! I was told enough to know they saw it and why.

Every one is focused on a particular time, and all I am trying to do is say include 4am. Take it or leave it.

Obviously you believe BC had nothing to do with NC murder. Correct? You believe everything he has stated in his statement and he did say HE DID NOT KILL HIS WIFE!

I'll take it. Until it is proven right/wrong it is as possible as anything else we think about.

 

[jumpstreet]

Although sealed, The full SW, including inventory and the PC affidavit was served to Jason Young on 2-14-08.
This information was disclosed by the close 'family friend' and personally verified by one of the detectives at the Butterfly event in May.

Hmmm... good info. In that case, maybe it is normal for all the docs (warrant, affidavit, and inventory) to be disclosed to who the warrant is being served upon (even if sealed).

Even so, the DA's point would be valid if they need to serve warrants to folks who aren't the primary suspects (e.g. employer, others (or if BC isn't the primary suspect)), and still keep the information contained (ie, inaccessible to those who are the primary suspects)

Also at the hearing, this point for keeping them sealed was just one of a number (at least one other being to not bias the ability for fair trail - (ie, prejudice the potential jury pool with lots of heresay, etc)). In fact, (to me), the judge seemed to emphasize this basis more than some of the others.

 

[raisincharlie]

Does the confiscation by LE of a company's video surveillance tapes require a search warrant, supeona, or what?

That would be decided really by the owner of the company. In other words, LE is going to ask to see it - the company has the right to tell LE to get a warrant or to let them see it. For the most part - commercial businesses such as retail outlets routinely turn over the tapes with no request for a warrant. A business such as Cisco - no doubt they would tell LE to get a warrant -proprietary info in their systems would demand they have a warrant.

 

[momto3kids]

That would be decided really by the owner of the company. In other words, LE is going to ask to see it - the company has the right to tell LE to get a warrant or to let them see it. For the most part - commercial businesses such as retail outlets routinely turn over the tapes with no request for a warrant. A business such as Cisco - no doubt they would tell LE to get a warrant -proprietary info in their systems would demand they have a warrant.

I understand HT has been given over anything needed for this case.

 

[Daphne69]

FWIW, Mto3k, I'm with raisin. I see this as a distinct possibility and have no reason NOT to consider it.

 

[raisincharlie]

Hmmm... good info. In that case, maybe it is normal for all the docs (warrant, affidavit, and inventory) to be disclosed to who the warrant is being served upon (even if sealed).

Even so, the DA's point would be valid if they need to serve warrants to folks who aren't the primary suspects (e.g. employer, others (or if BC isn't the primary suspect)), and still keep the information contained (ie, inaccessible to those who are the primary suspects)

Also at the hearing, this point for keeping them sealed was just one of a number (at least one other being to not bias the ability for fair trail - (ie, prejudice the potential jury pool with lots of heresay, etc)). In fact, (to me), the judge seemed to emphasize this basis more than some of the others.

A copy of the warrant and attached documents must be provided to the person/entity on who it is served by law - sealed or not. The sealing only keeps it out of public view - it cannot hide it from the person/entity being served.

Brad has no idea what was in the Cisco warrant nor the warrant for an undisclosed person/place. Cisco alone knows what was in the warrent served on them - but they do know. The undisclosed person/place also knows exactly what was in the warrant served on them.

 

[raisincharlie]

I understand HT has been given over anything needed for this case.

I am comfortable believing they did exactly that. Seen it done many times.

 

[mahmoo]

Listen SG, I am not on here to ask anyone to believe me. I will not get into detail about what I found out, but YES this person DID see the video!!! I was told enough to know they saw it and why.

Every one is focused on a particular time, and all I am trying to do is say include 4am. Take it or leave it.

Obviously you believe BC had nothing to do with NC murder. Correct? You believe everything he has stated in his statement and he did say HE DID NOT KILL HIS WIFE!

I definitely believe it!! I think that's where he headed after he disposed of her body.

Now, it may well be true what he told LE about making the two trips to HT between 6-7 AM to purchase milk, juice and detergent and he's certainly smart enough to realize they would verify that.

I think where he probably messed up was not realizing LE would check the store video prior to 6 AM and see him there between 4-4:30 AM making the FIRST purchase of some type of cleaner.

So possibly........3 trips to the store .

 

[mahmoo]

Listen SG, I am not on here to ask anyone to believe me. I will not get into detail about what I found out, but YES this person DID see the video!!! I was told enough to know they saw it and why.

One more comment on this.......I could see where LE would show this video to the store employees that were on duty at that time.......they would be eye witnesses that could also place him in the store at that time.....showing them the video would help "jog" their memory.

Of course.......still doesn't prove he murdered his wife but um.......sure as heck would look suspicious and I'm certain anyone sitting on a jury would think so too......especially if the only thing he purchased was some type of cleaner.

 

[Just the Fax]

The video from the Hillsville Hampton Inn was turned over to the cops without a SW in the Michelle Young murder