Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #24

[SleuthyGal]

Disclaimer: I am not "on the fence, and have not been for some time." I just want to offer this as a possible other solution.

1. On the hairs being found. It has not been determined that the hairs are human. I am sure this is quite simple, and no doubt has been determined already, but we do not have that information. It is possible that the car hit a dog/cat/squrrel/'possum or ran past an area where this had happened and picked up animal hair in those areas.

2. Hair in the trunk could have been caused by someone leaning into the trunk to get something and having their head rub against the lid of the trunk.

This does NOT explain why the previously solvenly BC suddenly gets a case of the "White Tornado Syndrome", nor why the timelines he has offered are disjointed. There is a LOT that is not explained, even if you accept all of the things that he said.

I still think he is the likely culpret, but I just wanted to offer possible alternative solutions.

CyberPro

All good points, CP. I just did a bit of research on how quickly post mortem hair banding would occur and it's variable...anywhere from a few hours after death up to, possibly, a day or two. So obviously hairs that showed banding would prove those hairs came from a dead/decomposing body. But that's not likely to be available in this case.

I think there can be explanations for almost every single piece of evidence, but I think we're going to have to take them all in totality and see what the picture is when all they've gathered is (finally) known. We're still working with precious little info, IMHO.

 

[Anderson]

Anderson - as long as the press has the case number they would know about other warrants issued. This would include warrants issued on other persons that perhaps we have not heard of. Not sure that answers your question but I'm thinking both the press and K & B are checking with Ms. Bobbit on a routine basis to see if there are warrants either sealed or returned related to the specific case number.

That does answer my questions. Don't know what we do without you.

 

[Star12]

blah blah blah blah.....

.....Had substantial, credible evidence pointed to Brad Cooper, he would be in custody......

...blah blah blah blah

:::sigh::: well, I guess they have to spew this stuff. It's all just PR, and they are getting paid to say it.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm curious about the swabs they took from both outside and inside BC's car on each of the (driver's side) door handles. I wonder if they saw something or just did swabs in case there was DNA there.

 

[Apex-mom]

I'm interested in hearing from the 'fence-sitters' in this case and if the info released today gets you any closer to deciding one way or the other?

SleuthyGal- I had tried to keep an open mind.... maybe this, maybe that, but after reading all this....its not all a coincidence, he's as guilty as H*E*L*L .

Which will be where he ends up after oh, say 30+ years in prison.

The one thing you can say is at least the girls are with her family, which is where Nancy would have wanted them... (not like poor Michelle Young's daughter!).

 

[raisincharlie]

blah blah blah blah.....

.....Had substantial, credible evidence pointed to Brad Cooper, he would be in custody......

...blah blah blah blah

:::sigh::: well, I guess they have to spew this stuff. It's all just PR, and they are getting paid to say it.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[perkiomen]

I'm interested in hearing from the 'fence-sitters' in this case and if the info released today gets you any closer to deciding one way or the other?

:Banane19: previous fence-sitter here, but no more. IMO this guy is guilty as sin. I just read the SWs & probable cause and here are the things that make me go, "ah ha!" he DID it:

1. Frantic cleaning that morning (9:00 - 1:00), but fails to mention to LE he had a "planned" tennis game at 9:30 a.m., as he told others
2. "Guessing" at what NC was wearing for her run (I'd be interested to see if she was indeed found in the white tee shirt he said he last saw her in)
3. Vacuuming trunk but not interior of car (why vacuum the trunk where no one looks, but leave the interior a mess? why bother?)
4. "Gasoline spill" in trunk but no odor detected by LE
4. Scratches on neck without explanation
5. Keys found inside the home (even though NC kept them on her person at all times so BC could not get to the important personal documents in her car)
6. HAIR found on INSIDE of trunk lid is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE for me.

After reading the PCA and SWs with this new info, my hinky meter is dinging all over the place!! :furious:

 

[SleuthyGal]

thank you Apex-mom for weighing in. Is there anything in particular that made you go and 'that's it!'??

I wasn't on the fence, but I will say the scratches on his neck made me sit up and take notice. Also the 4+ hrs of cleaning, the screwed up timeline, and the hair in the trunk.

 

[jumpstreet]

Need opinions folks:

Looking at this I am beginning to believe there is no "undisclosed location" and that the warrant for retreival of digital/astral data from the computers is indeed the third warrant. Any thoughts ?

This makes a whole lot more sense (to me) than a theory that the DA and the entire media community have somehow conspired to "keep secret" a mythical 3rd warrant for undisclosed location. [ Sorry RC, but that thought seemed a real stretch to me... ]

Today, when I read the media reports, I thought it was (relatively) clear that the 3rd warrant was indeed for the contents of the computer data. I guess I missed exactly what was making you think otherwise (just curious)?

 

[DogWood]

Anderson - as long as the press has the case number they would know about other warrants issued. This would include warrants issued on other persons that perhaps we have not heard of. Not sure that answers your question but I'm thinking both the press and K & B are checking with Ms. Bobbit on a routine basis to see if there are warrants either sealed or returned related to the specific case number.

That DA has a tendency to hold on to SW's after they are executed...and not return them for a LONG time...

Just sayin'!

ETA: I wonder if the difference was he asked for them to be sealed before they were executed this time?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks Perkiomen! Your list makes a lot of sense.

 

[CARYISHOME]

well said, sleuthygal.

She does have a way, doesn't she?

 

[raisincharlie]

This makes a whole lot more sense (to me) than a theory that the DA and the entire media community have somehow conspired to "keep secret" a mythical 3rd warrant for undisclosed location. [ Sorry RC, but that thought seemed a real stretch to me... ;-) ]

Today, when I read the media reports, I thought it was (relatively) clear that the 3rd warrant was indeed for the contents of the computer data. I guess I missed exactly what was making you think otherwise (just curious)?

Not a theory - have seen it done before on several occasions.

 

[raisincharlie]

That DA has a tendency to hold on to SW's after they are executed...and not return them for a LONG time...

Just sayin'!

I know. it looks like this time however - the "reasonable" timeframe has been adherred to, at least with the ones we have seen that is.

 

[Zoe]

Need opinions folks:

Please note in regard to the "undisclosed location", I am starting to have doubts there is an "undisclosed location". Please note the following video- pay attention to when Mr. Crump shows the sealing order for the 25 July warrant - it does not reference an undisclosed location - truthfully it doesn't reference anything:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/media?id=6295029


And here at WRAL :

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

"A third warrant, dated July 25, does not specify a search location."

and also at WRAL:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/30/3302839/19507-cooper_warrants_sealed_2.pdf

page 1




Looking at this I am beginning to believe there is no "undisclosed location" and that the warrant for retreival of digital/astral data from the computers is indeed the third warrant. Any thoughts ?

i think you're right about this. i am wondering, perhaps LE needed a search warrant to obtain the CISCO computer "stuff" that was at BC's residence? or, if they could take anything at his residence simply because it was there. i know that when we take computers for forensic examination we cannot take equipment, [ex. laptops, cell phones, etc.] if they are owned by a company due to the confidential/proprietary info in it. of course, i am in the private sector of invetigations and presume that LE can do what they want w/a valid SW. but, just a thought ...

 

[jumpstreet]

Not a theory - have seen it done before on several occasions.

Was referring to your earlier theory (as I understood it) that it is happening with this particular case. [ Again, fwiw, I thought that probably a 'long shot' ]

If I understand it though, at this point, after further consideration, you're re-thinking (or at least polling the group on) that theory [ again, the theory that there was some media/DA conspiracy in this particular case w.r.t. a mystery warrant] ?

 

[EnvoyDriver61]

4. "Gasoline spill" in trunk but no odor detected by LE

Does this type of car have a rear gas tank? Do any cars have that any more or are they all on the side (a probable result of fires exploding from rear end collisions). My point then is that the only real reason you'd have for having gas in the trunk, since you aren't filling up a tank from the rear of a car like you used to, would be to fill a gas can for a lawn mower or something.

I doubt Brad did his own lawn. So, what would the gas be for?

Second, isn't gas used by less experienced people as a cleaning fluid or as a cover for other forensically detectable fluids? I wonder if he tried that, even a little, and had to have an explanation for the gas smell, and then when there wasn't a perceptible odor, he looks foolish.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Anderson]

:Banane19: previous fence-sitter here, but no more. IMO this guy is guilty as sin. I just read the SWs & probable cause and here are the things that make me go, "ah ha!" he DID it:

1. Frantic cleaning that morning (9:00 - 1:00), but fails to mention to LE he had a "planned" tennis game at 9:30 a.m., as he told others
2. "Guessing" at what NC was wearing for her run (I'd be interested to see if she was indeed found in the white tee shirt he said he last saw her in)
3. Vacuuming trunk but not interior of car (why vacuum the trunk where no one looks, but leave the interior a mess? why bother?)
4. "Gasoline spill" in trunk but no odor detected by LE
4. Scratches on neck without explanation
5. Keys found inside the home (even though NC kept them on her person at all times so BC could not get to the important personal documents in her car)
6. HAIR found on INSIDE of trunk lid is HUGE, HUGE, HUGE for me.

After reading the PCA and SWs with this new info, my hinky meter is dinging all over the place!! :furious:

Great list! He told LE that he did not see her leave, so he wasn't quite sure what she was wearing. I wonder if she was found in something completely different, rather than the white shirt that she had been wearing. Then he may hope that it would look like he was not the last person to see her. Just a thought.

 

[raisincharlie]

i think you're right about this. i am wondering, perhaps LE needed a search warrant to obtain the CISCO computer "stuff" that was at BC's residence? or, if they could take anything at his residence simply because it was there. i know that when we take computers for forensic examination we cannot take equipment, [ex. laptops, cell phones, etc.] if they are owned by a company due to the confidential/proprietary info in it. of course, i am in the provate sector of invetigations and presume that LE can do what they want w/a valid SW. but, just a thought ...

Zoe,

If the computer stuff in the residence belonged to Cisco - oh well - it was in the residence and therefore covered under the warrant. A review of the warrant for the data retrieval indicates no copy of the warrant was issued to a person or entity - a copy however accompanied the items to the location where the analysis was to be performed.

Looking at the inventory from Cisco it appears that only a thumb drive and an external hard drive were taken, a few discs, documents, and interestingly a telephone and charger unit.

 

[raisincharlie]

Was referring to your earlier theory (as I understood it) that it is happening with this particular case. [ Again, fwiw, I thought that probably a 'long shot' ]

If I understand it though, at this point, after further consideration, you're re-thinking (or at least polling the group on) that theory [ again, the theory that there was some media/DA conspiracy in this particular case w.r.t. a mystery warrant] ?

From conversing with you I don't think you understand much of what I am thinking actually. No conspiracy issues at all, your words not mine.