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

[mahmoo]

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.

Do people really get ready at 6:30am on Sat morn for their kids to get up????

 

[mahmoo]

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

Interesting that you list them all together.......can we say SUSPICIOUS?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Do people really get ready at 6:30am on Sat morn for their kids to get up????

Not if you ever went by my mother's behavior when I was growing up, even at a young age! aka "Fend for Yourself." She used that line a LOT!!! :smile:

 

[SleuthyGal]

Interesting that you list them all together.......can we say SUSPICIOUS?

I think to understand just how wonky his timeline and statements are, you need to list things together to see it. :banghead:

 

[tarheellvr]

Lawyers are better actors than most actors are.

Coming from a family of attorneys........NOT one myself......not only are they actors, but the desire for that "academy award" is almost stronger than the breath they breathe!

 

[tarheellvr]

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.....

I agree with RC...110% BS. He DID show his true colors that Fri in court.

Plus, IMO, BC, being the person he is, is probably lying his guts out to his attorneys....his type would never confess, mush less admit anything. Although I'll give them some credit....they probably figured him out from day one.

 

[momto3kids]

Interesting that you list them all together.......can we say SUSPICIOUS?

MOO....

The list just keeps getting longer with all the lies BC has told. Aren't they interesting when you get to sit back and look at all of them?

 

[momto3kids]

I think to understand just how wonky his timeline and statements are, you need to list things together to see it. :banghead:

SG....

I think it would prove interesting to have a list from the BC supporters showing us he is NOT lying.

Because it seems our list just keeps getting longer with NO innocence in sight!

 

[tarheellvr]

Hi Tarheellvr! I agree with you on the bits of truth these guys throw in and I would tend to agree with you in that they woke up Katie. If Katie did wake up, I think there's a good possibility that he took her with him when he dealt with the disposal of his wife. I just have the feeling she wouldn't have gone back to sleep right away without the comfort of mommy putting her back to bed and I don't think Brad would leave her in the house alone....awake....would he?

I don't see how he could run over her in the garage, though. Any garage I've been in, you hardly have room to swing a cat once the car is parked in it. Plus it seems nowadays people have their garages crammed with other stuff. I guess if he left her on the garage floor, backed out and then came back in but he might not want to risk the neighbors seeing or hearing that commotion. I kinda think that he put her in the trunk in the privacy of a closed garage and then took her out somewhere to stage a hit and run. Like someone else reminded us - Brad's lawyer was screaming about the autopsy report.

I'm not exactly 'sold' on this yet though. What puzzles me is the hair found under the right front bumper and if he did run over her, didn't he think that there might be tire marks which could be traced to his vehicle?

I don't think that he meant to kill her either - to begin with. It's ironic how these guys like Brad and Young screw up in the aftermath which I believe which is what will be the result of them both being convicted.

Glad we're on similar pages with our synopsis of events. I think it's a definite he took Katie and I really think he took Bella as well because the risk of leaving either of them home alone was too high. After all, he was in a critical situation and IMO wouldn't "add fuel to the fire" by leaving them home.....too much could happen. I think they were asleep or drowsy to the point of sleep while in the car and in the dark...if he backed up to the curb, raised the trunk lid neither of them could see anything anyway.

Ummm.......tire marks...didn't think of that.....good point. Also the size of the garage...another valid point. You may be right......could've been done somewhere else. Although this brings up the girls again and I really do think they were with him.

As for autopsy report....BS IMO......"bluster" as RC said.

No, I don't think it was premeditated either. In the heat of a fight his rage took over and he gravely injured her. Now with that said......his cowardly actions/reasons to take things a step further and THEN kill her.....I'm on the fence about this....guess this part IS considered premeditation.

Yes, BC & JY did screw up in the aftermath. I can't believe it's taking so long for them to get JY's *advertiser censored**........hoping it won't run the same course with BC.

 

[jumpstreet]

Thanks for the responses! I agree that the list of things taken 'at face value' appear suspicious for sure, and raise the meter. No question there's some hard to explain things! [ and a reminder, I'm still on the page (as I think most everyone here is) that based on current knowns, more likely than not, it would appear he did it, ... while at the same time, nowhere near being comfortable with a "guilty" verdict based on what (very) little we really know ]

Thanks to SG for the take on a couple of the points that were giving me pause... the release of the warrants, and the police chief statement. For some reason, both those things are still sticky for me, but I appreciate your explanation.

.....how do you explain the [below apparent inconsistency]???

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.

Potential (and hypothetical) explanatory response from BC: "When I spoke with the LE officer on 7/12 regarding Saturday morning, I may have mis-spoke or been mis-understood, and of so I apologize [I was under a lot of stress coming to terms with the fact that Nancy may be truely missing, and overwhelmed with the situation at that time]. We were both up (temporarily) at 4:00, but our daughter later went back to sleep. When she got up later, and while I was cleaning, she was in my office area playing with some toys..."

Again, it's just a potential and hypotheticalexplanatory response. There are probably perfectly reasonable explanatory responses for most all the (circumstantial) items we currently know. [ This is what's keeping us from a guilty verdict, though the preponderance of CE is driving us to conclude "more likely than not" he is the culprit (which is fine) ].

Anyway - thanks again for the responses... back to partying.

 

[jumpstreet]

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.

Yeah, it could still be Theory B though... the current runner-up theory... in earlier informal poll to the team (I need to query again to see if folks numbers have changed), that theory came in with a likelihood of somewhere in the 20-25 percentile range iirc. [ Regardless, this one certainly hasn't been categorically eliminated so far based on what we currently know ]

 

[SleuthyGal]

This board is not a court of law (thank goodness) and I don't think anyone could say they could in good faith CONVICT a man of murder in a court of law today based on what's known so far. Heck, we don't even know the cause of death! So I think the whole convict now argument is moot until this case is in trial and nearing completion.

Now, discussing the evidence we DO know about, the statements actually made in legal affidavits (as opposed to hypothetical ones conjured up in one's head), the lies we have discovered, the items from the SWs...all of that is relevant to understanding what a jury may be looking at down the road.

Circumstantial evidence is defined as everything that is not direct or eye witness evidence. It is often much more powerful than eye witness testimony. We might be able to come up with excuses for each item on the 'hinky' list (or maybe not), but it's important to look at all the evidence on a list and consider the totality of all items when taken together. And it's early days...there's a lot we do not know yet.

I personally don't see innocent explanations for LIES. If you compare each statement BC made between his police interviews and his affidavits you would have to conclude that:

1. he has multiple versions of what he was doing and when and
2. his multiple versions of the same event are not consistent with each other nor with what other witnesses said and
3. you wouldn't know which version of his story to believe, assuming you could believe ANY of them.

These are legal documents and BC's actual statements will be used in a court of law....not what he 'should have said,' and not what he 'probably meant to say to clear up confusion,' but what he actually DID say and DID write. His verbatim statements are evidence.

 

[jumpstreet]

These are legal documents and BC's actual statements will be used in a court of law....not what he 'should have said,' and not what he 'probably meant to say to clear up confusion,' but what he actually DID say and DID write. His verbatim statements are evidence.

It makes sense that BC's custody affidavit is legally admissible. Is the statements of the LE officer relaying what he said admissible too, or is that hearsay? [ Just curious. If that part isn't hearsay, I wonder why not?]

 

[SleuthyGal]

It makes sense that BC's custody affidavit is legally admissible. Is the statements of the LE officer relaying what he said admissible too, or is that hearsay? [ Just curious. If that part isn't hearsay, I wonder why not?]

Not hearsay. The statements verbally given to police and then related in documents written and signed by the detectives are affidavits -- legal documents the same as all the others. Don't forget that a judge SIGNED each SW based on the included statements/affidavits by the cops. They are all admissible (and will be used in a trial).

 

[jumpstreet]

This board is not a court of law (thank goodness) and I don't think anyone could say they could in good faith CONVICT a man of murder today based on what's known so far. Heck, we don't even know cause of death! So I think the whole convict now argument is moot until this case is in trial and nearing completion.

Agreed. I think we're all on the same general page here - that there is at once is a lot of suspicious stuff, but also a reasonably good chance that he didn't commit the crime. Only occasionally to ask the question to keep us 'grounded' is my thought. [ Reading some of the posts, one might think some have already convicted him, or might feel comfortable doing so with ease ]. If our board is to 'on the whole' remain objective and balanced (while at the same time discussing, bouncing-ideas, learning), it seems reasonable to post the query as an occasional 'check point'.

 

[CyberPro]

OK, I was not on the board last night much, and just got caught up in reading all the posts since then.

Really good points being made about the multiple versions of "Laundry Story" and Wake-up times. Makes me think we are playing a game called Laundry Roulette.

I just had a thought based upon the comments about COD disguised as a Hit N Run and the lack of space in many garages.

I wonder if she was initially dropped in the middle of the cul de sac, then pushed off the road using the car? This could account for possible road rash (which is a speculation at this point) and might also account for the hair being in the wheel wells. This is predicated on the supposition that those hairs will be found to be human, and match NCs hair.

ETA: Surely the perp () could NOT have been so clueless as to realize that in an acutal Hit n Run, the victim should be placed along a roadway where traffic is actually moving with some degree of speed, not in a cul de sac (!) and that the COD needs to be consistant with and Hit n Run, and have things like bone fractures.

CyberPro

 

[jumpstreet]

Not hearsay. The statements verbally given to police and then related in documents written and signed by the detectives are affidavits -- legal documents the same as all the others. Don't forget that a judge SIGNED each SW based on the included statements/affidavits by the cops. They are all admissible (and will be used in a trial).

Wow - very interesting. Maybe I'm unclear on the exact definition of heresay, my general impression is it tied to testimony from one person, of what another person told them. [ Doesn't matter if I sign an affidavit saying I heard person X say this doesn't make it any more valid/true]

But - I take it in the case of LE search warrants (because they are signed by LE, and signed by a judge), that the court would put higher 'weight' on what a LE person claims a suspect said (vs what witness X may claim (or submit via affidavit) that the suspect said). Is that right?

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not implying anything with the above query, I'm just asking for my own education (from curiosity perspective). On the surface, it strikes me as inconsistent handling of "relay of statements". In general, what is something "inadmissible, based on it being hearsay?"

 

[SleuthyGal]

Agreed. I think we're all on the same general page here - that there is at once is a lot of suspicious stuff, but also a reasonably good chance that he didn't commit the crime. Only occasionally to ask the question to keep us 'grounded' is my thought. [ Reading some of the posts, one might think some have already convicted him, or might feel comfortable doing so with ease ]. If our board is to 'on the whole' remain objective and balanced (while at the same time discussing, bouncing-ideas, learning), it seems reasonable to post the query as an occasional 'check point'.

{red highlight is mine}

No we are not in agreement at all, general or otherwise. In fact I think he DID commit this murder. I still couldn't convict him for it in a court of law based on the CURRENT amount of evidence, simply because I don't HAVE all the evidence needed in order to render a LEGAL verdict.

But I sure as heck have opinions based on what I've seen so far. And what *I've* seen so far is: a man who has lied, a man who has physical indications of being scratched by someone else, a man who did out-of-character behaviors ON THE MORNING his wife went 'missing,' just to name a few. That's what I see so far.

And I have no problems saying on this board that he's not only the 'likely' culprit, I believe he *is* the culprit.

 

[momto3kids]

Show us your PINK underwear BC!!:dance:

As we know, the 1 thing everyone learning to do laundry messes up on......

red + whites=pink :laugh:

At least we would know he's attempted to turn on a washing machine

 

[reddress58]

I found one problem with RC's "laundry list". She did not call Brad to get laundry detergent. She called him to pick up juice for Bella. Might want to correct this.

Also, the SW's never stated that LE asked Brad about the scratches on his neck. It just states that he offered no explanation.