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

[Star12]

I think this was bluster - the lawyer knew the autopsy report would not be complete, knew there was no way they would get a copy of it before completion - it simplly does not happen. If that lawyer was serious and Brad was serious he would have put Brad on the stand on that Friday instead of hiding in chambers hashing out the custody issue. Pure D BS

Of Course!

blah blah blah ....Brad should have custody, we are fighting for him, he will prevail, (paper here, paper there, paper everywhere)!!!!

....blah blah blah

But, of course, they are PAID to say and do that!

Makes the client all warm and fuzzy. But THEN comes the reality. There are NO guarantees. And the attorney knows it.

 

[maconrich]

Star there are very good reasons why I don't follow cases that involve children. Anyone that harms a child in any way, shape or form, IMO needs to be shot in the head like a rabid dog and tossed out for fish food. I loose all capability to reason :crazy:

There's nothing flawed about your reasoning - ICAM. And TY for answering my questions re the luminol etc!!

 

[jumpstreet]

What do you all think brad thought would be in the autopsy report that would vindicate & clear him? he must have believed/known that they would find something that would clear him since his lawyers mentioned it more than once.....

Related: Did BC (and/or his attorneys) have access to the affidavit associated with the warrant of the home before yesterday? If yes, then would they have had access to it prior to when he submitted his affidavit for the custody hearing?

 

[sunflowers]

I think this was bluster - the lawyer knew the autopsy report would not be complete, knew there was no way they would get a copy of it before completion - it simplly does not happen. If that lawyer was serious and Brad was serious he would have put Brad on the stand on that Friday instead of hiding in chambers hashing out the custody issue. Pure D BS

seems like the lawyers are doing a lot of bluffing & blustering. relatively offensive how they can spew out total BS in defending their "innocent" client when LE clearly had something when they were in court that was persuasive enough to the judge to give temporary custody to Nancy's family.

still strange, though, but maybe a lawyer "technique" to act like the autopsy report will clear their client. Made me wonder!

 

[jumpstreet]

I'd have to hear the jury instructions before I decide if I would convict. But I believe he did it.

Just pre-supposing a charge of first degree murder, then my (limited) understanding is that the key component of the jury charge would be something along the lines of: Based on the evidence presented, and the testimony heard, do you conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question? If yes, you must return a verdict of guilty, if no, you must not.

It seems with this case, most everyone feels pretty comfortable saying that the most likely explanation (based on current knowns) is that BC committed the crime. However (fortunately), most (all?) of us are saying we're not even close to the point of returning a a guilty verdict if we were sitting on a jury today (again, based on current knowns).

[ This is a "good thing" [tm] of course (imo), and makes perfect sense. Anyone who claims "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" at this point is likely not being sufficiently objective, and likely letting 'emotions' drive the conclusion (vs reason) ]

The bottom line is, facts could have already been uncovered (and may already be known) that totally exonerate BC... {a loooong time has passed since the warrants were issued}... and of course, facts could (at some point) be uncovered (presumably though they aren't already currently known by LE) that would support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Time will tell...

 

[raisincharlie]

Related: Did BC (and/or his attorneys) have access to the affidavit associated with the warrant of the home before yesterday? If yes, then would they have had access to it prior to when he submitted his affidavit for the custody hearing?

If you read the warrant for the house and cars it states a copy of the warrant and the inventory was left in the residence. The search was completed on the 16th so Brad would have had a copy of the entire warrant from the 16th forward. This is noted on the page after the inventory.

 

[raisincharlie]

seems like the lawyers are doing a lot of bluffing & blustering. relatively offensive how they can spew out total BS in defending their "innocent" client when LE clearly had something when they were in court that was persuasive enough to the judge to give temporary custody to Nancy's family.

still strange, though, but maybe a lawyer "technique" to act like the autopsy report will clear their client. Made me wonder!

Lawyers are better actors than most actors are.

 

[sunflowers]

Related: Did BC (and/or his attorneys) have access to the affidavit associated with the warrant of the home before yesterday? If yes, then would they have had access to it prior to when he submitted his affidavit for the custody hearing?

good question---anybody know? regardless, though, i think that RC's right about the lawyers blustering. Maybe they have drama classes in law school for how to "act" & "set the stage" & act out various roles. So much of their "outrage" etc seems contrived & carefully orchestrated.

 

[sunflowers]

Lawyers are better actors than most actors are.

too wierd, that's just what i was thinking about & writing.

 

[SleuthyGal]

good question---anybody know? regardless, though, i think that RC's right about the lawyers blustering. Maybe they have drama classes in law school for how to "act" & "set the stage" & act out various roles. So much of their "outrage" etc seems contrived & carefully orchestrated.

Sunflowers, raisin answered this question 2 or 3 posts above yours!

 

[wirehair]

The lawyers stated something similar to there is nothing new as of late....I guess they are correct because they knew of the inventory a long time ago so it's not new to them....They are probably counting up the dollars they are going to charge to fight this and smiling. JMHO

 

[sunflowers]

Sunflowers, raisin answered this question 2 or 3 posts above yours!

we must all be on the same page tonight. LOL.

 

[jumpstreet]

...The search was completed on the 16th so Brad would have had a copy of the entire warrant from the 16th forward. This is noted on the page after the inventory.

Thanks - yeah, I noted that in the warrant (of course I read them all 'cover to cover' ). Just wasn't sure if there is there might be a distinction between the affidavit part of the warrant, and just the 'cover' page when delivering to the recipient. Sounds like 'no', it all goes in it's entirety.

Given that the entire thing would have been delivered prior, it seems somewhat curious that BC would not have noted some of the events in the custody affidavit that he had shared with LE previously (and were in their warrant). [ e.g. up at 4am to take care of the youngest, and the cleaning while waiting for NC to return, etc.. ] It was a perfect opportunity to 'line up those stories' a bit... I wonder why he didn't take advantage of that... hmmmm...

 

[Star12]

Just pre-supposing a charge of first degree murder, then my (limited) understanding is that the key component of the jury charge would be something along the lines of: Based on the evidence presented, and the testimony heard, do you conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in question? If yes, you must return a verdict of guilty, if no, you must not.

It seems with this case, most everyone feels pretty comfortable saying that the most likely explanation (based on current knowns) is that BC committed the crime. However (fortunately), most (all?) of us are saying we're not even close to the point of returning a a guilty verdict if we were sitting on a jury today (again, based on current knowns).

[ This is a "good thing" [tm] of course (imo), and makes perfect sense. Anyone who claims "guilt beyond reasonable doubt" at this point is likely not being sufficiently objective, and likely letting 'emotions' drive the conclusion (vs reason) ]

The bottom line is, facts could have already been uncovered (and may already be known) that totally exonerate BC... {a loooong time has passed since the warrants were issued}... and of course, facts could (at some point) be uncovered (presumably though they aren't already currently known by LE) that would support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Time will tell...

There is a lot of stuff out there that has not been released to the public that will be introduced at trial. It would be pretty arrogant of us to think we knew all the evidence, and to make a judgment based on what is here on this forum. However, there seems to be an awfully lot of evidence that we do know about that points to the husband. What exculpatory evidence can you point to?

 

[jumpstreet]

However, there seems to be an awful lot of evidence that we do know about that points to the husband. What exculpatory evidence can you point to?

Very little, just noting that some very well could exist. [ and I assume this point isn't really contested, and is consistent with most everyone agreeing that they aren't yet ready to 'convict' or anything like that]. I agree though, much of what we know, while dated, and vastly circumstantial, does seem to point in that general direction.

FWIW though, after reading the warrants, my (personal) opinion of the likelihood that BC committed the crime actually dropped. I still think there's a chance he did it, maybe even a "more likely than not" chance... but after reading the warrants (combined with the comments of the chief yesterday, and some other info), I feel it's less likely than I did before reading them. (again, just MHO).

 

[SleuthyGal]

after reading the warrants, my (personal) opinion of the likelihood that BC committed the crime actually dropped.

Wow! That's a new one I haven't heard. So the scratches on his neck, the lies, the inconsistent timeline in which he contradicts his own statements, the 4+ hr cleaning frenzy, the admission he was up at 4am, the cleaning only of the trunk of his car when the rest was messy too, hair found in the trunk lid and tire wells, served to make him look more innocent in your eyes?

 

[Star12]

Very little, just noting that some very well could exist. [ and I assume this point isn't really contested, and is consistent with most everyone agreeing that they aren't yet ready to 'convict' or anything like that]. I agree though, much of what we know, while dated, and vastly circumstantial, does seem to point in that general direction.

FWIW though, after reading the warrants, my (personal) opinion of the likelihood that BC committed the crime actually dropped. I still think there's a chance he did it, maybe even a "more likely than not" chance... but after reading the warrants (combined with the comments of the chief yesterday, and some other info), I feel it's less likely than I did before reading them. (again, just MHO).

:Banane13:

 

[momto3kids]

Given that the entire thing would have been delivered prior, it seems somewhat curious that BC would not have noted some of the events in the custody affidavit that he had shared with LE previously (and were in their warrant). [ e.g. up at 4am to take care of the youngest, and the cleaning while waiting for NC to return, etc.. ] It was a perfect opportunity to 'line up those stories' a bit... I wonder why he didn't take advantage of that... hmmmm...

JS....to put it plain and simple IMO they are idiots! BC can't remember the lies he's told and his attorneys aren't guiding him to make sure he doesn't have a 3 way story occuring...

 

[momto3kids]

In case anyone is thinking of needing their service they sent me a card...
I'll send it to you free:woohoo:

 

[jumpstreet]

Wow! That's a new one I haven't heard. So the scratches on his neck, the lies, the inconsistent timeline in which he contradicts his own statements, the 4+ hr cleaning frenzy, the admission he was up at 4am, the cleaning only of the trunk of his car when the rest was messy too, hair found in the trunk lid and tire wells, served to make him look more innocent in your eyes?

Yeah, I figured my statement might not be the most popular here . Anyway, to try and explain, fwiw: when I weigh those things against some other things, then the net is a reduction in current believed "likelihood of guilt" for me, yeah. [ I'm not saying that I think it's impossible that he did it, and just to clarify, as mentioned, based on current knowns, it still seems reasonable to conclude "more likely than not" that he did do it ]

Among a couple of sticky things for me are (and there are a couple of others):
- The chief's statement which emphasized not reading too much into the warrants. To me, she was either point-blank saying he didn't do it, or the warrant results didn't ultimately yield enough for us to get reasonable doubt (even though at the time, we believed he did do it). [ it's either that, or a backhanded nudge to the crime-lab to get a move on the results ]
- The fact that they were sealed at all, and now released. What's changed? [ I don't buy the notion that media pressure resulted in the judge succumbing to the release - that's silly ] My thought is that the judge knows that the forensics are back. If there's not enough to indict/arrest now, he's not going to be able to hold up the warrants indefinitely.

Sure - there may be explanations for the above 'sticky points' that support BC committing the crime (not the least of which being a view that the forensics aren't even back yet (yes, I know forensics can take 6 months or more, like has been posted previously)... I'm just less and less on that page, I think they're probably back). On the other hand, there are conceivable explanations for each of the items asserted in the (now dated) warrants that would be consistent with him not doing it.

When I weigh the new information, and compare things that raise my 'hinky meter' (to borrow an expression), with things that lower it, the net result is the meter is slightly lowered for me. [ Again, all MHO, etc ]