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

[mahmoo]

I dunno jumpstreet, if he didn't do it then there's a huge possibility that no female joggers (maybe no females period) in that whole metropolitan area are safe right now.

 

[raisincharlie]

:Banane13:

How about we take at look at what elevates the old hinky meter:

1. A man claims to have spilled gas in the boot of his car a few weeks back and for some reason on the very day his wife goes missing decides it is a good time to "vacuum" up that nasty spill.

2. A man who leaves the house a mess a week before decides on the same day his wife goes missing that he will turn into super maid and clean the house. Apparently including washing floors, vacuuming and doing laundry, even possibly cleaning up his wife's bathroom.

3. A good guy who gets up at 4 am to help care for the youngest child takes her into his office area so his wife can do laundry but he is the one who happens to notice they are out of laundry soap so he runs to the store on at least two confirmed occasions to buy milk and laundry soap.

4. A guy who has red marks on his neck on the same day his wife goes missing which are noticed by an LE officer but doesn't respond when asked about them.

5. A guy who doesn't seem to bother to answer his wife's cell phone even when she is hours late, even after she isn't home to take the kids so he can go play tennis. A guy who wasn't concerned to find his wife's cell phone and keys in the house when the rest of the world seemed to know she always took those things with her when she ran.

6. A guy who cooperates with LE until his wife's body is found and her death is ruled a homicide - suddenly feels he better get a criminal defense lawyer on his side.

7. A guy who busted for saying his wife was running with a certain person on the very day she goes missing also shows up to tell LE on the same day she did not run with Nancy and had no plans to run with her that day.

8. A guy who admits they had been arguing most of Friday about money and painting and a messy house and the next day his wife just disappears.

To note a few things. Oh yeah - I really believe he didn't have anything to do with his wife's death now for sure.

 

[mahmoo]

How about we take at look at what elevates the old hinky meter:

Sorry to snip this one RC.....it's a doozy.....don't be surprised if ya get a call from the DA's office.....they may want ya on the prosecution's team :Banane48:

 

[SleuthyGal]

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 ]

The Chief's statement was a MEDIA statement...used to keep her (looking) totally impartial in the community. Those statements have no evidentiary value. I guarantee you that behind the scenes she thinks he's guilty as sin! She is keeping a tight lid on info coming out of her dept because this is an active investigation. The police HAVE TO act responsibly and treat both perps and victims to a standard. The Chief's statements remind us that they are. But that doesn't mean the Chief is secretly telling you that there is no value to the evidence seized in the SWs or that Brad Cooper is actually innocent. Not at all!

The SWs and the items taken are evidence, but more important will be the RESULTS of what is found and no, it does NOT mean the forensic testing is all completed and back yet. Some of it might be. The DA is NOT going to move on this case until EVERYTHING being tested is back; we've discussed this several times on the board. The judge might have zero info on any results of forensic testing...the judge hearing the pleas to seal or not seal is NOT "the" trial judge and would not necessarily have access to any RESULTS of testing.

The sealing of warrants is both a game and a strategy employed by the DA--it's used to give LE more time to do their jobs, gather evidence, to not alert any potential perps as to direction the case might be heading. You can't say there isn't 'good' evidence just because the warrants WERE sealed and are now unsealed. That has nothing to do with it AT.ALL.

It sounds like you are basing your doubts on a media image and your perception surrounding the warrants, the PR positioning of what the Chief said in a media interview, and a misunderstanding of how and why and the strategy behind sealing search warrants vs. unsealing search warrants and how those decisions are made and WHY those decisions are made.

Those are not things that will ever be discussed in a courtroom if/when this case goes to trial. What WILL be shown is the evidence gathered and the results of that evidence.

So far it doesn't appear that you are looking at the actual content of what was gathered via search warrant executions, evidence noticed by LE, and the inconsistencies and lies already detailed that we know about as of now. But sure, you can choose to listen to the PR announcements and make your conclusions from that. Those aren't evidence, won't come into play in a courtroom, nor will the jury use any of that to look at and decide the case, but what the hay. Party on, dude. :waitasec:

 

[mahmoo]

Don't wanna hog the board but raisin.....is there a thread you can post that on where it won't get lost?

 

[raisincharlie]

Sorry to snip this one RC.....it's a doozy.....don't be surprised if ya get a call from the DA's office.....they may want ya on the prosecution's team :Banane48:

Well gee there's a few more - how about a guy who packs up his kids and runs over to spend the night with a friend on the same day his wife's death is ruled a homicide.

A guy who doesn't call 911 but decides its best to drag two kids out to look for his wife on the day she goes missing - thinking he just might see her on one of those trails while he is driving about (going to vacuum the car out).

A guy who quesses at what his wife was wearing when she went out to run on that fateful day.

And this is just from a few pages of an affidavit - bet LE knows a whole lot more than what was in that affidavit,

 

[raisincharlie]

Don't wanna hog the board but raisin.....is there a thread you can post that on where it won't get lost?

I reckon we could put over on SG's thread about inconsistencies. Will do that.

 

[mahmoo]

Is he still on "paid" leave from his job?

Sorry if it's been answered already :blowkiss:

 

[Star12]

So far it doesn't appear that you are looking at the actual content of what was gathered via search warrant executions, evidence noticed by LE, and the inconsistencies and lies already detailed that we know about as of now. But sure, you can choose to listen to the PR announcements and make your conclusions from that. Those aren't accurate, aren't evidence, won't come into play in a courtroom, nor will the jury use any of that to look at and decide the case, but what the hay. :waitasec:

Yeah, what SG said.

 

[mahmoo]

I reckon we could put over on SG's thread about inconsistencies. Will do that.

Eggscellent idea Watson :Banane37:

 

[SleuthyGal]

A perfect place for raisin's post would be to copy it onto the Evidence inconsistencies, lies thread!

 

[raisincharlie]

A perfect place for raisin's post would be to copy it onto the Evidence inconsistencies, lies thread!

Done

 

[SleuthyGal]

thanks raisin! That's a good one we need to preserve.

 

[raisincharlie]

Is he still on "paid" leave from his job?

Sorry if it's been answered already :blowkiss:

Dunno - haven't heard anymore on that issue actually.

Glad you made it through GUSTO - hope all is well your way.

 

[jilly]

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.....

COD - maybe, as a result of a leak, when they first discovered Nancy's body they initially thought she was hit by a car - road rash or something. Since the Cooper vehicles didn't have any damage, Brad's lawyer would think he was in the clear.

The more I think about it, though, I would bet on RCs opinion re bluster. And I LOVE Star's blah, blah, blah!:clap:

 

[mahmoo]

Dunno - haven't heard anymore on that issue actually.

Glad you made it through GUSTO - hope all is well your way.

We did.....thanks rc.....ended up very lucky I think. Just don't want anymore for maybe, say 5 years :crazy:

 

[raisincharlie]

We did.....thanks rc.....ended up very lucky I think. Just don't want anymore for maybe, say 5 years :crazy:

When I caled home this eve to speak with my wife - she said the rains have finally hit Missouri - getting up to an inch per hour of rain at times. Not good - hope you all dry out soon.

 

[mahmoo]

We took turns videoing.....haven't looked at all the footage yet.....gonna try to get it all downloaded and edited.....maybe I'll post a clip here somewhere......it was a wild ride I tell ya.....it's good to be reminded of the power of "mother nature".

 

[momto3kids]

For anyone who still is supporting BC.....how do you explain this wondeful lie he has told???

BC's affidavit #167....I started to get ready for the girls to get up and noticed we were out of laundry detergent and could not do laundry, so Nancy asked me to go back out to get some laundry detergent at around 6:30A.M.

BUT yet

told the LE on Saturday the 12th that both he and Nancy awoke around 4:00a.m. to care for their two year-old child. Brad Cooper took the child to his office area within the residence after making two (2) seperate trips to the grocery store.

Which lie do you wanna keep BC? inocchio:

Did Katie get up at 4am or did she get up at 6:30???

Remember you were out and about at 4am buying detergent :woohoo:

 

[SleuthyGal]

On just the laundry detergent alone he's got a bunch of versions going:

1. HE noticed they were out of laundry detergent

2. Nancy called to tell him they were out of laundry detergent at/around 6:30am or ???

3. Nancy was 'doing laundry' after they got up (at 4am? After that?)

4. Nancy was 'doing laundry' the last time he saw her (note he got home from the store at/around 6:45am and Nancy 'left to go jogging' at/around 7am)

5. He was doing laundry (9am to 1pm? Earlier?)

6. But they were out of laundry detergent so he got some at the store at 6:15am..or 6:30am....or 4:20am . (so how could Nancy do laundry then if they were out of detergent?)

round 'n round he goes!