Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #18

[sunflowers]

This is an interesting aspect - Bella and what she may have or may not have seen and if she said anything.

At 6 minutes into the 14 July 630 pm presser (repeating myself here), a reporter specifically asks Chief Bazemore if Bella had indeed seen Nancy on that morning. The Chief respond by saying the last person to have seen Nancy alive was Brad. Either the Chief is unaware that Bella possibly saw Nancy, or she is intentionally and effectively shying away from answering the question.

The only reason she might avoid answering that is if Bella did see something and did say something and the information is considered to now be part of the investigation and LE does not want that out. By not answering, it leaves the question open, had she said it was part of the investigation, the normal assumption would be yes. Not sure of what to make of it actually but I will say, I do not see how a judge could have given temp custody of those children to the GP's without something more than what was in the plaintiff motion for temp custody.

this last sentence is absolutely correct----I do not see how a judge could have given temp custody of those children to the GP's without something more than what was in the plaintiff motion for temp custody

it would be very unusual to allow temp custody with just what we've seen.

however, the other strange thing is that i'm not sure that the judge made the decision. you all correct me, please, if i misread this somewhere, but i was under the impression that both parties worked this out in the judge's chambers.

i believe that means that Brad for some reason agreed to this arrangement, and that it wasn't a decision handed down by the judge but rather one in which both parties decided on together.

regardless, though, of whether that understanding is correct, there still must have been compelling conversation about some information, facts, opinions, etc that allowed this "agreement" to be reached or that allowed the judge to take away custody from father, even temporarily. that's rarely done.

 

[raisincharlie]

this last sentence is absolutely correct----I do not see how a judge could have given temp custody of those children to the GP's without something more than what was in the plaintiff motion for temp custody

it would be very unusual to allow temp custody with just what we've seen.

however, the other strange thing is that i'm not sure that the judge made the decision. you all correct me, please, if i misread this somewhere, but i was under the impression that both parties worked this out in the judge's chambers.

i believe that means that Brad for some reason agreed to this arrangement, and that it wasn't a decision handed down by the judge but rather one in which both parties decided on together.

regardless, though, of whether that understanding is correct, there still must have been compelling conversation about some information, facts, opinions, etc that allowed this "agreement" to be reached or that allowed the judge to take away custody from father, even temporarily. that's rarely done.

A judge did order that temp custody be given over to the GP's in response to the Ex Parte petition on 16 July.

The hearing scheduled for the 25th - was resloved in judge's chambers between the parties.

 

[sunflowers]

"RC..it is on the webpage about Bella seeing her mom. It was posted by DD. Is this a slip up? LFT is the only thing I can think occured since mommy was no where to be found on Saturday. Would DD not tell the truth about this one thing she posted?"

If DD says that Bella saw her Mommy, does that not also mean that DD would have necessarily seen Nancy??? Otherwise that is not first-hand knowledge from Bella. Does it not make more sense, since the Art2mis posting was on July 14, that this is something that Brad told to DD???

that's what i think. i think brad told diane that bella had seen her mom, and diane wasn't suspicious at that time, & just took brad's word for it since why would he lie. JA would not have believed brad, but maybe good friends without the intimate info about nancy & brad's relationship would have assumed that brad was telling the truth.

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

personally, I take that to mean that BC came to the decision that at least near term, it was in the kids best interests overall.

It has been afterall, a media and neighborhood circus(I assume, haven't been in Lochmere since then and live in Raleigh).


Let's say he is innocent. Let's say his attorney's advice to him was this: it will take X days for the autopsy/DNA to be all done. When it's back and clears you completely, then you can regain custody. And since you're cleared, you won't be bothered by LE, sneered at in public, whispered about, etc.

 

[sunflowers]

A judge did order that temp custody be given over to the GP's in response to the Ex Parte petition on 16 July.

The hearing scheduled for the 25th - was resloved in judge's chambers between the parties.

got it. thanks. so the judge made the decision. it's so unlikely that a judge would make that decision without something more than we've seen.

 

[raisincharlie]

got it. thanks. so the judge made the decision. it's so unlikely that a judge would make that decision without something more than we've seen.

The only things we have seen are speculation. I find it highly unlikely a judge would remove two children from their remaining biological parent on speculation alone. Something very wrong with that picture.

 

[Deduction]

On 14 July - yes. Not since 15 July however.

RC the point I am trying to make is this: She also says in that pres confrence she has no reason to believe Nancy is not alive. She repeats at least twice that Nancy left the home to go jogging. She also gives the time of the 911 call that now conflicts with the time posted on the website. Therefore, the chief can be in error, she is human , and I believe this does prove that. Can she also be in error about her isolated case theory? Can anyone here admit there is even a remote possibility even a .0001 % chance of her being in error on that?

 

[carolinalady]

I couldn't agree with you more about the reward, it is most confusing that the husband (no matter the marriage) has not offered a reward and hired a PI , even if it's only to clear himself!

According to lots of posters in response to the "information request" on BC's atty's homepage, this would be straight out of the OJ playbook and would look even more suspicious.

 

[raisincharlie]

RC the point I am trying to make is this: She also says in that pres confrence she has no reason to believe Nancy is not alive. She repeats at least twice that Nancy left the home to go jogging. She also gives the time of the 911 call that now conflicts with the time posted on the website. Therefore, the chief can be in error, she is human , and I believe this does prove that. Can she also be in error about her isolated case theory? Can anyone here admit there is even a remote possibility even a .0001 % chance of her being in error on that?

She was wrong about the body being found in a pond but the caller reported it that way. WCSO who recovered the body said she was found in the dirt.

Had she said in press conference we think Nancy has been murdered - talk about a rush to judgement - hope is a good thing. I suspect the 2:51 time is the time Cary PD responded to the house - as the call was made at 1:50 and JA is advised at that time to call back in 35 to 45 minutes - the times seem to fall in place. Based on LE criteria used for the definition of an isolated case - I do not believe she was wrong in saying so because she clearly says there were no reports of suspicious activities, no evidence found to indicate anything else, the same as there were no reports of anyone seeing Nancy that morning.

Could she be wrong - anything is possible but given the training, expertise and her reliance on seasoned investigators - I find it hard to believe they all were wrong. I believe she is qouted as saying 32 officers on the case actually.

 

[carolinalady]

The only things we have seen are speculation. I find it highly unlikely a judge would remove two children from their remaining biological parent on speculation alone. Something very wrong with that picture.

We know that the judge heard testimony from LE and the plantiffs. We just don't know what was said. I wonder how they made it a "finding of fact" that Brad attempted suicide as a teenager and made threats of suicide this past winter?

Honestly, I have no clue as the the burden of proof in an emergency hearing. So, do they need some type of documentation or do they accept that Nancy told her family this?

 

[sunflowers]

I don't know honestly. The only reason I can think of is the intended purpose of the affidavit and the confirmation that Nancy's death was a homicide. It is possible upon counsul's advice, that the affidavit was short and pointed. I also think since there was an upcoming hearing scheduled, and it would be known to counsul that the affidavits are subject to public release, that many things were not told to avoid one side having a complete view of the case in chief for the custody hearing.

makes sense. only reveal what was relevent to the custody, not show their full hand to the defense & public

 

[carolinalady]

makes sense. only reveal what was relevent to the custody, not show their full hand to the defense & public

Well, that and plus it would make Nancy and her attorney look very bad (in the court's eye) if they were attempting to flee to Canada.

Not saying that she was planning to flee to Canada. But, BC references that Nancy's attorney advised her to flee to Canada for a more favorable custody hearing. Hopefully that was a misunderstanding. The children are North Carolina residents and the custody would be handled in local courts.

If she was moving somewhere w/i the local area, that would be moot.

 

[raisincharlie]

We know that the judge heard testimony from LE and the plantiffs. We just don't know what was said. I wonder how they made it a "finding of fact" that Brad attempted suicide as a teenager and made threats of suicide this past winter?

Honestly, I have no clue as the the burden of proof in an emergency hearing. So, do they need some type of documentation or do they accept that Nancy told her family this?

They seem to like the phrase "based upon information and belief" - I am not sure what that means. I don't suspect the judge required everything to be addressed and may have looked at it and said - prove these items to me. The police giving information is most curious because it was a civil action don't you think ? I don't know th eburden of proof either really but if you recall some wrongful death cases - the burden is significantly lower - I think they use the "preponderance of the evidence" as a standard rather than resonable doubt. Dunno for sure though.

ETA - the more likely it is than that it is not ?

 

[raisincharlie]

Gotta run.

Deduction glad you stuck around, it is good to "talk" with you and it is good to have different perspectives. I do understand where you are coming from and I do respect it.

 

[christine2448]

FYI chat is always open to discuss these case 'real time' with feller posters

To join java chat click below

http://www.serenity-irc.net/java/index.php

put nickname in

put websleuths in for the channel name


for Mirc Users:

open MIRC window

go to file

select server

go to Serenity IRC (hilight)

select random

then hit select on the right side

If you have chat saved to favorites delete them or they will go to old server

type in # websleuths for channel name then hit join

 

[SleuthSayer]

Why hasn't a reward been established for Nancy Cooper, given her social stature in Lochmere and the community? What about Cisco supporting Brad Cooper? Progress Energy put up reward money for Michelle Young and another lady who was employed there and slain last year.

Michelle Young was a Progress Energy employee. The company put up a reward 8 months after her death when the case was still unsolved. Cynthia Moreland was also a Progress Energy employee. The company put up a reward right away in her case, however, she was abducted while in the company parking garage.

Are there examples of large companies putting up rewards in the cases of deaths of spouses of an employee, at a scene that does not involve the company, within weeks of the crime?

As far as Cisco supporting Brad Cooper, I think that you may not appreciate the scale of a company like Cisco. They have close to 65,000 employees worldwide. The site where Brad works has more than 3000 employees. He is no company executive. Anyone with any kind of authority to speak on behalf of the company probably first heard of Brad Cooper when you did. Surely some of the tiny percentage of Cisco's 65,000 employees who have actually worked with Brad may have some opinion of whether or not he would be involved in this, the company executives and spokespeople would know no more than anyone here. (Of course with the exception of the legal department in California, who would know whatever was in the search warrant served on the company.) I'm sure that they hope that their employee is not involved, but they would just be speculating like the rest of us.

 

[Just the Fax]

Michelle Young was a Progress Energy employee. The company put up a reward 8 months after her death when the case was still unsolved. Cynthia Moreland was also a Progress Energy employee. The company put up a reward right away in her case, however, she was abducted while in the company parking garage.

Are there examples of large companies putting up rewards in the cases of deaths of spouses of an employee, at a scene that does not involve the company, within weeks of the crime?

As far as Cisco supporting Brad Cooper, I think that you may not appreciate the scale of a company like Cisco. They have close to 65,000 employees worldwide. The site where Brad works has more than 3000 employees. He is no company executive. Anyone with any kind of authority to speak on behalf of the company probably first heard of Brad Cooper when you did. Surely some of the tiny percentage of Cisco's 65,000 employees who have actually worked with Brad may have some opinion of whether or not he would be involved in this, the company executives and spokespeople would know no more than anyone here. (Of course with the exception of the legal department in California, who would know whatever was in the search warrant served on the company.) I'm sure that they hope that their employee is not involved, but they would just be speculating like the rest of us.

Jason Young was snubbed by his employer, ChartOne. When he tried to return from his 1 month of 'family leave', he was promptly fired.

Brad Cooper is on 'paid administrative leave' from Cisco.
This form of 'leave' is not related to vacation, personal days or family leave. Think of it as 'you are being investigated in your wife's murder and we would prefer you stay home until you are cleared'.

 

[Bob&Bob]

This was interesting.

http://.net/index.php?topic=3074.msg399411

reply #33

__________________
"In the Olympics there is no tomorrow."~a commentator

 

[Just the Fax]

This was interesting.

http://.net/index.php?topic=3074.msg399411

reply #33

__________________
"In the Olympics there is no tomorrow."~a commentator

Comment in the WRAL website comment area:

I work with someone who said her best friend was down at the police station yesterday getting her P.I. license. She mentioned to one of the guys there, "You guys have some action going on in Cary, huh?" He nodded. She said, "I think the husband did it." To which he replied, "We know who did it."

The police are carefully crafting their case. It is important that they be able to put this person away, and in the meantime they cannot damage their case, so they must be tightlipped and protective of their information. It doesn't mean they don't know anything. In fact, the family probably knows everything they know, and did not want Brad at that news conference. If he is guilty, and they know it, they could not stand to be in the same room as him, faking solidarity. I think that is why he was not there. The family did not want him there. But the police can't tell us that.

jmflu
July 16, 2008 12:19 p.m.

http://www.wral.com/golo/page/1896337/?id=3214017&d_full_comments=1&d_comments_page=2#comments_block

 

[2Daughters1Dog]

B&B - I personally find that to be a lot of hearsay. a. could be somebody on an ego trip - the person that posted it or evn the person getting the PI license b. one reason hearsay inadmissible is the likelihood of even a syllable of response being changed. response might have been "we think we know" or "we're pretty sure we know". c. Even in lil' ol' Cary, I can't believe a cop would blurt that out to anybody like that.