Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #21

[ncnative]

I've figured it out. An owl :turkey: killed Nancy Cooper. That's the latest rage, anyway, over at Michael Petersen's cell.

 

[EntreNous]

It's quiet, that's for sure. It's been pretty quiet all day actually. Until we got some small morsel of info I think it's going to be just a matter of waiting for something to happen.

This is the first time I've gotten this involved in a case. This waiting is the pits.

 

[raisincharlie]

It's quiet, that's for sure. It's been pretty quiet all day actually. Until we got some small morsel of info I think it's going to be just a matter of waiting for something to happen.

This is the first time I've gotten this involved in a case. This waiting is the pits.

Keep the victim, Nancy Cooper, in your thoughts.

 

[carolinalady]

I've figured it out. An owl :turkey: killed Nancy Cooper. That's the latest rage, anyway, over at Michael Petersen's cell.

Hmmm...there was that owl attack in Apex at the beginning of the year. Of course, I still can't figure out how that pesky owl got into that staircase area of the Peterson house :waitasec:.

 

[EntreNous]

Keep the victim, Nancy Cooper, in your thoughts.

Trust me, she always is. I guess that's the misery of it all. It's very hard to lay the victim to rest until justice is meted out.

 

[jumpstreet]

I have a different view on warrants and keeping them secret. I believe it does more harm to seal them than it does to publish them if a suspect is in LE's head. The simple truth - we are setting here talking out our backsides and generating rumor after rumor, in reality. The truth can't hurt any worse can it ? In cases where an investigation could be jeopardized I say seal it , in a case where an informant could be exposed I say seal it.

Thanks Raisin...I gave this a little bit more thought. I definitely hear what you're saying, but I guess I'm not totally convinced that disclosing those warrants doesn't introduce at least some risk for a (potential defendant) to get a fair trial.

For the JY warrants, I had only casually followed that case, so I was "aware" of it, and aware that there had been no arrest, and aware that he was a person of interest. I was probably reasonably objective enough that I may very well could have passed a voir dire.

However, after reading them, my bias against the husband has definitely increased, and due to that bias, I likely would now be eliminated by the voir dire. (I suspect the pool of those that would be eliminated rose substantially when they published these warrants - it's just MHO)

I hear you also that this is the purpose of the voir dire - to eliminate those that have the bias, but geez, now that those warrants are published, in the JY case, that would seem the equivalent of eliminating all but the disengaged and totally uninformed (not necessarily the type of jury that will end up being the best (for either side)!)

Wild speculation on web site(s) (in the absence of official documentation is one thing (and in the JY case I never sought any of that, so had none of that bias), but seeing sworn affidavits from a courtroom takes things to another level of credibility (and potential bias) for sure.

It's a subjective thing I know, but FWIW, it's just not clear to me that a case can't be made for keeping some of the more inflammatory (official police) stuff (e.g. the warrants, contents) undisclosed until trial in order to protect the defendant (and/or not derail the prosecution's plans to get the fair trial).

[ Wonder if there's any precedent for mis-trial or transfer of venue, because of too much disclosure in the media and by LE prior ]

Sorry for the length here, and I know it's a bit of a 'side-bar', but I'll just say I remain a bit 'torn' with what the best course of action is. On the one hand, I really want to know more details, on the other hand, I really want justice (including the fair trial bit). Those things just seem a bit at odds here, that's all.

Thanks for all your good insights!

 

[SleuthSayer]

There will be considerably less in BC's warrants.

Yeah, it seems like they had considerably less to work with here. In the Young case, they had a bloody crime scene with lots of prints, etc. It appears that in this case, it wasn't even obvious what the crime scene was given that the police were handing out flyers a couple of weeks later describing her in running clothes, suggesting that they weren't yet sure whether she went running. Or, possibly that they were sure that she did go running.

 

[EntreNous]

This supposed friendship is definitely weird on BOTH sides.:crazy:

Who would be friends with someone who stabbed you in the back and had an affair with your wife?:steamed:

:chicken:OTOH, who would be friends with someone, who you'd had an affair with their wife?:talker:

Strange, very strange. :shocked2:

JMHO
fran

Exactly, Fran. Either way it's just bizarre.

 

[raisincharlie]

This supposed friendship is definitely weird on BOTH sides.:crazy:

Who would be friends with someone who stabbed you in the back and had an affair with your wife?:steamed:

:chicken:OTOH, who would be friends with someone, who you'd had an affair with their wife?:talker:

Strange, very strange. :shocked2:

JMHO
fran

The same kind of guy ? Obviously HM was totally at fault for that, not Brad. Perhaps she was also an embellisher and big spender and he had her on a budget as well. She just happened to have survived it.

Two peas in a pod I'd say.

 

[mahmoo]

This supposed friendship is definitely weird on BOTH sides.:crazy:

Who would be friends with someone who stabbed you in the back and had an affair with your wife?:steamed:

:chicken:OTOH, who would be friends with someone, who you'd had an affair with their wife?:talker:

Strange, very strange. :shocked2:

JMHO
fran

Glad you said it.............I've been thinking that!!

 

[fran]

Trust me, she always is. I guess that's the misery of it all. It's very hard to lay the victim to rest until justice is meted out.

Even after justice has been given out, those special cases, you remember the victim for years. Especially IF they were pregnant, you remember the due/birthday date of the child, the child's name. You remember them at holidays and how much fun they SHOULD be having.

It really can get to you.

JMHO
fran

 

[raisincharlie]

Thanks Raisin...I gave this a little bit more thought. I definitely hear what you're saying, but I guess I'm not totally convinced that disclosing those warrants doesn't introduce at least some risk for a (potential defendant) to get a fair trial.

For the JY warrants, I had only casually followed that case, so I was "aware" of it, and aware that there had been no arrest, and aware that he was a person of interest. I was probably reasonably objective enough that I may very well could have passed a voir dire.

However, after reading them, my bias against the husband has definitely increased, and due to that bias, I likely would now be eliminated by the voir dire. (I suspect the pool of those that would be eliminated rose substantially when they published these warrants - it's just MHO)

I hear you also that this is the purpose of the voir dire - to eliminate those that have the bias, but geez, now that those warrants are published, in the JY case, that would seem the equivalent of eliminating all but the disengaged and totally uninformed (not necessarily the type of jury that will end up being the best (for either side)!)

Wild speculation on web site(s) (in the absence of official documentation is one thing (and in the JY case I never sought any of that, so had none of that bias), but seeing sworn affidavits from a courtroom takes things to another level of credibility (and potential bias) for sure.

It's a subjective thing I know, but FWIW, it's just not clear to me that a case can't be made for keeping some of the more inflammatory (official police) stuff (e.g. the warrants, contents) undisclosed until trial in order to protect the defendant (and/or not derail the prosecution's plans to get the fair trial).

[ Wonder if there's any precedent for mis-trial or transfer of venue, because of too much disclosure in the media and by LE prior ]

Sorry for the length here, and I know it's a bit of a 'side-bar', but I'll just say I remain a bit 'torn' with what the best course of action is. On the one hand, I really want to know more details, on the other hand, I really want justice (including the fair trial bit). Those things just seem a bit at odds here, that's all.

Thanks for all your good insights!

Will say it one more time - Voir DIre - happens before every trial and is designed to weed out the problems. Change of venue is always an option. The state must prove thteir case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jurors must follow the instructions given by the judge.

Ask yourself this - who is really following every detail of this case - John Q public or people on message boards ? The custody issue will raise more eyebrows than the murder. That issue alone has extreme prejudicial value but it could have been avoided - it was not. I don't feel bad for the choice someone made - it was their choice.

 

[fran]

Yeah, it seems like they had considerably less to work with here. In the Young case, they had a bloody crime scene with lots of prints, etc. It appears that in this case, it wasn't even obvious what the crime scene was given that the police were handing out flyers a couple of weeks later describing her in running clothes, suggesting that they weren't yet sure whether she went running. Or, possibly that they were sure that she did go running.

They sure buttoned down the hatches pretty quickly the minute Nancy's body was ID'd.

They immediately taped off the house and sw'd the house, cars, and the person of Bradley Cooper. IMO, that was mighty quick. It seems they may feel that's the scene of the crime. They were sure checking those cars good too. Even underneath!

Also, for NOT having any evidence, they sure took out some nice size bags of sumpin'!

JMHO
fran

 

[raisincharlie]

Yeah, it seems like they had considerably less to work with here. In the Young case, they had a bloody crime scene with lots of prints, etc. It appears that in this case, it wasn't even obvious what the crime scene was given that the police were handing out flyers a couple of weeks later describing her in running clothes, suggesting that they weren't yet sure whether she went running. Or, possibly that they were sure that she did go running.

If LE didn't convince a judge the residence was a crime scene of some fashion - there would have been no warrant issued. Seems obvious the judge agreed.

 

[SleuthSayer]

If LE didn't convince a judge the residence was a crime scene of some fashion - there would have been no warrant issued. Seems obvious the judge agreed.

Well, it seems that if they were certain that the murder was committed in the house and that she never went running, they should have been handing out flyers describing the Coopers' cars and asking whether anyone had seen either of them being driven in suspicious ways -- rather than flyers describing her in clothes that they know that she never went out in.

 

[jumpstreet]

Well, it seems that if they were certain that the murder was committed in the house and that she never went running, they should have been handing out flyers describing the Coopers' cars and asking whether anyone had seen either of them being driven in suspicious ways -- rather than flyers describing her in clothes that they know that she never went out in.

That seems a reasonable point. If LE truly believed (or had compelling reason to believe) this, why wouldn't they be asking things like this point-blank to those around?

It's possible (I suspect almost guaranteed) that they went door-to-door and personally asked various folks in the recovery neighborhood if anyone saw anything unusual, anything at all, prior to discovery.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn they've gone door-to-door in the residence cul-de-sac asking everyone there more direct questions than what they asked passing motorists. [ Anyone know this to be the case? ]

Perhaps not wanting to tip their hand prematurely, and to not be inflammatory (along with same vein as not "naming" a POI just yet) is the necessary strategy for now?

The case probably hinges totally at this point on what the SBI returns. If it's conclusive, then there may be a prompt arrest. Otherwise, the warrants will be revealed, and we can make ourselves comfortable here, as it'll likely be a while.

 

[EntreNous]

Well, it seems that if they were certain that the murder was committed in the house and that she never went running, they should have been handing out flyers describing the Coopers' cars and asking whether anyone had seen either of them being driven in suspicious ways -- rather than flyers describing her in clothes that they know that she never went out in.

Maybe they were handing out flyers to see if anyone saw her in what Brad said she left the house in to actually support the theory that she never left the house that morning in what he said she had on or otherwise.

They could have been looking for that one person to come forward to support BC's story. Knowing they did all they could to make that opportunity available and still no one saw her. I'm guessing they had a pretty good idea of how that would turn out.

 

[jumpstreet]

Maybe they were handing out flyers to see if anyone saw her in what Brad said she left the house in to actually support the theory that she never left the house that morning in what he said she had on or otherwise.

They could have been looking for that one person to come forward to support BC's story. Knowing they did all they could to make that opportunity available and still no one saw her. I'm guessing they had a pretty good idea of how that would turn out.

That's reasonable (kinda like making a due diligence effort to "prove a negative" I guess) but wouldn't it also be reasonable that they should ask some direct questions to support their frontrunner theory of what happened? Surely eyewitness accounts of a BMW driving slowly down that road at 6am would be of interest.

{Just envisioning joe motorist driving away after being given a flyer thinking to himself... "well, I didn't see any jogger, but I wonder why they didn't ask me about that BMW driving like a bat outta hell that same morning... oh well... guess they're not interested in that... " }

 

[raisincharlie]

Well, it seems that if they were certain that the murder was committed in the house and that she never went running, they should have been handing out flyers describing the Coopers' cars and asking whether anyone had seen either of them being driven in suspicious ways -- rather than flyers describing her in clothes that they know that she never went out in.

This may make sense to you, however, it does not make sense. The fliers were overly undescriptive to begin with. Were LE to start asking did you see this car or this car - there might have been 20 people who said yeah I saw it when in reality they may have seen something totally different. Talk about crucifying someone - there you have it. If LE was handing those fliers out in the middle of Lochmere you might have a point - they were not. They were being handed out on the intersection of Cary Parkway and Holly Springs Rd - the focus being people who may have traveled those roads between 6 and 9 am. If someone saw a suspicious car they might just have said I didn't see her but I saw this car, blah blah blah, at such and such location.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Maybe they were handing out flyers to see if anyone saw her in what Brad said she left the house in to actually support the theory that she never left the house that morning in what he said she had on or otherwise.

They could have been looking for that one person to come forward to support BC's story. Knowing they did all they could to make that opportunity available and still no one saw her. I'm guessing they had a pretty good idea of how that would turn out.

It's pretty difficult to prove a negative. I.e., it's hard to prove that something didn't happen due to lack of eyewitnesses. You could put all 6.7B people on the planet on the stand, one at a time, to say that they don't recall seeing Nancy running that morning, but she still may have gone running.