Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #15

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
raisincharlie said:
Do I ever agree with you on this ! :)
Click to expand...

RC,

I knew we'd find some common ground!

Seriously, I find your posts intelligent and thoughtful, and appreciate the balance that you bring to the board. I've been a little nervous about jumping in to the conversation, but you guys are making me feel welcome even when we don't totally agree!

Thanks:)
 
momto3kids said:
OK..so you just confirmed what I have been saying. Right side entry, check out with cashier, cashier stocking, etc. Thanks so much because I haven't gone lately past midnight..since things do change this setup could have also.
Click to expand...
P.S. We were the only customers in the store. All eyes were on us, too. Human nature to look to who's walking in when few people actually are.
 
SleuthyGal said:
Hi Reddress!

LOL. I love going to the refrig/frozen foods section in grocery stores, esp in the summer! I don't handle this NC heat very well so those colder areas are like an oasis for me! I could not imagine putting on a jacket to go into the grocery store. Now, if I were to go to a restaurant where they pump out the AC and I'd be there for an hour+ then yes I'd want a jacket or sweater just in case. Most men tolerate cold better than women so any guy putting on a jacket in the summer would (IMHO) be kind of strange. Unless it was my 82 yr old father, who is on blood thinners and is always cold.
Click to expand...
He's an athlete. No body fat.
 
reddress58 said:
I have to agree with you about the receipts and the jacket. I ALWAYS freeze in the GS regardless of the outside temp, and I carry a jacket or sweater for the same reason. Also, if I were writing an affidavit to defend myself, even if I knew the general time I was at a location, I'd check whatever source was available to support my time frame. If anyone were to question his affidavit, he could point to the receipts to backup the items he bought and the time he bought them. In other words, it's the chicken & egg scenerio.
Click to expand...

Thanks for articulating what I was trying to say about the affidavit so well, Red :)
 
momto3kids said:
To take this a step further...

Why would anyone need to request the transaction history?

Simply state you got up around 5:45, went to get milk around 6am...got home and 30 minutes later realized you forgot to get juice for the little one...back to the store and picked up detergent since it was mentioned earlier they were out. NC had waited until he got home and left for her jog at 7am. How simple is that?

The LE doesn't expect anyone to know the exact time to the minute they were at the store, but I assume they do expect you to remember what time you got up that morning and the sequence of events.

IMO approx was what they needed. SO why did he feel he needed to check the exact time of the transactions????????
Click to expand...

I posted this last night when we discussed the VIC transaction history.
I still believe if he was asked about leaving home....how hard is it to remember when he got up and say 2 trips before NC left to go jogging. It was still the same day they discussed this with him...Personally they don't need exact time, approx. would do. IMO
 
momto3kids said:
I posted this last night when we discussed the VIC transaction history.
I still believe if he was asked about leaving home....how hard is it to remember when he got up and say 2 trips before NC left to go jogging. It was still the same day they discussed this with him...Personally they don't need exact time, approx. would do. IMO
Click to expand...

Mom, do you think the fact that he did get very exact on this made it seem more suspicious to LE?
 
I wear a light golf jacket in the early mornings so really you guys are stretching. Fact is IF he really had scratches..(which one on here said they saw in news conference but I sure didn't see them) and IF he really bought bleach he would A) have been arrested and B) Bleach (which he says was bleach but regular detergent) still won't hide blood....period. If they had even one of the theories that some of you had he would have been arrested.

As for defending himself in the Affidavits... He absolutely had the right to defend himself in every way... those are his kids... and if innocent he has every right... I would fight my *advertiser censored* off to defend myself ...especially if I was innocent.
 
d99gr81 said:
i wear a light golf jacket in the early mornings so really you guys are stretching. Fact is if he really had scratches..(which one on here said they saw in news conference but i sure didn't see them) and if he really bought bleach he would a) have been arrested and b) bleach (which he says was bleach but regular detergent) still won't hide blood....period. If they had even one of the theories that some of you had he would have been arrested.

As for defending himself in the affidavits... He absolutely had the right to defend himself in every way... Those are his kids... And if innocent he has every right... I would fight my *advertiser censored* off to defend myself ...especially if i was innocent.
Click to expand...

bingo!
 
reddress58 said:
Because WE on this site had already alerted the general population of his run to the store for detergent (it was noted as bleach at the time). I'm sure Brad felt he needed to clear that matter up for LE, the family, family attorney...anyone who would use that against him to take his children away.
Click to expand...


Please don't get aggravated with me as it is these kinds of conversations which bring out lots of points and the more we have the better - okay ?

I agree - there is no doubt in my mind he was defending himself since he put in caps - WELL AFTER DAWN when referencing this topic. However if his lawyer ever thought for a single minute about putting him on the stand during the custody hearing - he would be definitely dumber than a box of rocks.

I don't see how a judge could possibly use speculation, from either side, the public, or even LE to make a decision of such magnitude, especially on behalf of those children. The judge simply would not do that. The judge did the smart thing and sent them to his chambers so they could hash it out themselves rather than dragging all this into the public.

This is my bottom line - none of this was admissable in reality. There was nothing to defend. The only way Brad could defend himself is to prove Nancy was alive - not that he was at a store at a certain time or not at a store at a different time. If he proved Nancy was alive at 7 am - the rest is moot.
 
FullDisclosure said:
RC,

I knew we'd find some common ground!

Seriously, I find your posts intelligent and thoughtful, and appreciate the balance that you bring to the board. I've been a little nervous about jumping in to the conversation, but you guys are making me feel welcome even when we don't totally agree!

Thanks:)
Click to expand...

I'm glad you feel welcome - nothing to be scared of here. Well maybe now and then, but it is mostly good. I can definitely appreciate sensible opposing views - makes me study a bit harder. :crazy:
 
raisincharlie said:
I'm glad you feel welcome - nothing to be scared of here. Well maybe now and then, but it is mostly good. I can definitely appreciate sensible opposing views - makes me study a bit harder. :crazy:
Click to expand...

I agree RC.....the variety of opinions and theories is what makes following & delving into the cases interesting.....if we all always thought and felt the exact same way it would probably get a little boring.

Welcome to WS FullDisclosure :wave:
 
raisincharlie said:
Please don't get aggravated with me as it is these kinds of conversations which bring out lots of points and the more we have the better - okay ?

I agree - there is no doubt in my mind he was defending himself since he put in caps - WELL AFTER DAWN when referencing this topic. However if his lawyer ever thought for a single minute about putting him on the stand during the custody hearing - he would be definitely dumber than a box of rocks.

I don't see how a judge could possibly use speculation, from either side, the public, or even LE to make a decision of such magnitude, especially on behalf of those children. The judge simply would not do that. The judge did the smart thing and sent them to his chambers so they could hash it out themselves rather than dragging all this into the public.

This is my bottom line - none of this was admissable in reality. There was nothing to defend. The only way Brad could defend himself is to prove Nancy was alive - not that he was at a store at a certain time or not at a store at a different time. If he proved Nancy was alive at 7 am - the rest is moot.
Click to expand...
Oh, please don't think I'm aggrevated. Quite opposite. I agree with you about the merit of doing what he did with the receipts. It was pointless leagally. But I don't think the legal stance in the custody case was his only motivation. More so... the speculation going around and him. Either 1) thought he had it all figured out and didn't expect the store to be an issue, so went back to see how the side he told differed from what the receipts would show and/or 2) Felt the affidavit would be a good forum to squelch the rumors...especially with "proof" he was telling the truth.
 
reddress58 said:
Oh, please don't think I'm aggrevated. Quite opposite. I agree with you about the merit of doing what he did with the receipts. It was pointless leagally. But I don't think the legal stance in the custody case was his only motivation. More so... the speculation going around and him. Either 1) thought he had it all figured out and didn't expect the store to be an issue, so went back to see how the side he told differed from what the receipts would show and/or 2) Felt the affidavit would be a good forum to squelch the rumors...especially with "proof" he was telling the truth.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.
 
d99gr81 said:
no he is on leave...but will work from home
Click to expand...

Did Cisco give him some new computers to work with ? I'll wager the ones that were in his home on the 15th are now locked away in an evidence vault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 193 more.
Total: 772 (members: 194, guests: 578)

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
578
Total visitors
772
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,364
Messages
18,238,366
Members
234,357
Latest member
CajunKim
Back
Top