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

[jumpstreet]

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

Ok - I think I understand the distinction. You're saying that your reason for not returning guilty verdict is that there are certain key pieces of data we still need in order to do so legally.

I guess I translated "unable to return a guilty verdict" to mean "I think reasonable doubt exists". [ To me, those were identical, but maybe not ]

I took "reasonable doubt exists" to mean "there is a reasonable chance he didn't do it". I treated those as basically the same statement.

Just to ask it point blank though:

I believe he *is* the culprit

Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of this, based on current knowns?

[ If yes, then you are right, we aren't yet on the same page... ]

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks Reddress! Unfortunately I can't edit last night's post to remove the part where she called him to get laundry detergent...she did supposedly ask him though (I will have to look this up).

 

[SleuthyGal]

Are you convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of this, based on current knowns?

[ If yes, then you are right, we aren't yet on the same page... ]

Ok - I think I understand the distinction. You're saying that your reason for not returning guilty verdict is that there are certain key pieces of data we still need in order to do so legally.

BINGO!


1. I have no doubt he committed this murder and

2. I still could NOT convict him in a court of law today based on the fact that I don't have the necessary data with which to render a LEGAL decision. Not that I have doubt about what's been learned so far (I don't), but for the fact that I need to see ALL the evidence including results of forensic testing, autopsy, COD, etc, etc.

 

[raisincharlie]

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).

Agreed SG - what Brad himself told someone to their face is not hearsay. These LE officers will be brought into court to testify about what they heard directly from the horses mouth, what they saw in the house, about his demeanor and so on.

Of note however is that the search warrants themselves are not used in court or entered as evidence for obvious reasons and that is that parts of them are based on suspicion. Suspicion formed through direct conversation, observation and based on experience and training.

 

[raisincharlie]

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.

I didn't say Nancy called him to get laundry detergent, I didn't mention Nancy calling him at all actually. If LE didn't ask him about the marks, why would they mention he provided no explanation ? A person is suppose to know LE is looking at a scratch or two and tell LE all about it ?

 

[jumpstreet]

BINGO!


1. I have no doubt he committed this murder and

2. I still could NOT convict him in a court of law today based on the fact that I don't have the necessary data with which to render a LEGAL decision. Not that I have doubt about what's been learned so far (I don't), but for the fact that I need to see ALL the evidence including results of forensic testing, autopsy, COD, etc, etc.

Sleuthy, I guess I just struggle with reconciling your 2 statements : "I have no doubt he committed the murder" [not just 'beyond reasonable doubt', but 'beyond any doubt' (wow)...] but without even knowing COD, forensics results, approximate TOD, etc.

But anyway, I respect that it's your view. For me, fwiw, there is still room for an abundance of reasonable doubt (but it's just 'mo')

 

[reddress58]

I didn't say Nancy called him to get laundry detergent, I didn't mention Nancy calling him at all actually. If LE didn't ask him about the marks, why would they mention he provided no explanation ? A person is suppose to know LE is looking at a scratch or two and tell LE all about it ?

My apologies, RC. It was SG's laundry list.

 

[jumpstreet]

Agreed SG - what Brad himself told someone to their face is not hearsay. These LE officers will be brought into court to testify about what they heard directly from the horses mouth, what they saw in the house, about his demeanor and so on

Good to know. So if (hypothetically) the defense puts SH (or others) on the stand, and they testifies that BC told them directly the night he stayed at his place (or whenever) that he didn't do it, would the jury be instructed to disregard that (treat it as 'hearsay')?, or would it be admissible and to be weighed along with all the other evidence/testimony?

 

[raisincharlie]

Good to know. So if (hypothetically) the defense puts SH (or others) on the stand, and they testifies that BC told them directly the night he stayed at his place (or whenever) that he didn't do it, would the jury be instructed to disregard that (treat it as 'hearsay')?, or would it be admissible and to be weighed along with all the other evidence/testimony?

It would be admissable and the jury would decide its value as to truth or not.

 

[reddress58]

My apologies, RC. It was SG's laundry list.

We don't really know if they asked him or not. We just know he didn't offer an explanation. I wouldn't offer an explanation for something someone did not ask about. Why bring it to anyone's attention?

 

[SleuthyGal]

Sleuthy, I guess I just struggle with reconciling your 2 statements : "I have no doubt he committed the murder" [not just 'beyond reasonable doubt', but 'beyond any doubt' (wow)...] but without even knowing COD, forensics results, approximate TOD, etc.

But anyway, I respect that it's your view. For me, fwiw, there is still room for an abundance of reasonable doubt (but it's just 'mo')

I think that's because you don't understand what I mean by 'legal decision in a court of law' and how that is made, versus one's personal opinion and beliefs in a case (which are not to be used to render a verdict). I've explained it as clearly as I can.

 

[raisincharlie]

We don't really know if they asked him or not. We just know he didn't offer an explanation. I wouldn't offer an explanation for something someone did not ask about. Why bring it to anyone's attention?

Why put it in an affidavit that he offered no explanation then ? Would it not be deceitful to not ask and then put in an affidavit the guy didn't offer an explanation ? How to get a search warrant thrown out 101 - lie or mislead. They asked, he didn't answer simple as that, he was too busy "volunteering" the fact he was up at 4 am.

 

[reddress58]

Why put it in an affidavit that he offered no explanation then ? Would it not be deceitful to not ask and then put in an affidavit the guy didn't offer an explanation ? How to get a search warrant thrown out 101 - lie or mislead. They asked, he didn't answer simple as that, he was too busy "volunteering" the fact he was up at 4 am.

Do you honestly think he just stared into their eyes and was mum to the question? I think at least he would say "I don't know". But wouldn't that answer have to be put in the SW? It's an explanation.

 

[raisincharlie]

Do you honestly think he just stared into their eyes and was mum to the question? I think at least he would say "I don't know". But wouldn't that answer have to be put in the SW? It's an explanation.

From what I saw of him, eye contact was not his thing.

 

[CyberPro]

Why put it in an affidavit that he offered no explanation then ? Would it not be deceitful to not ask and then put in an affidavit the guy didn't offer an explanation ? How to get a search warrant thrown out 101 - lie or mislead. They asked, he didn't answer simple as that, he was too busy "volunteering" the fact he was up at 4 am.

RC,

Just for my own edification, could the conversation have gone like this?

LE: Mr. Cooper, I know that this matter is distressing to you, please understand that we will do all that we can to find your wife and return her home safely. I can see that you are upset, if we can do anything to help, we will be glad to do so. I see you have injuries, do you need medical attention for them?

BC: Thank you, yes, it is upsetting, I have been up since 4AM attending to the kids... and getting some items at the store so that we had food for their breakfast.....

CyberPro

 

[SleuthyGal]

Do you honestly think he just stared into their eyes and was mum to the question? I think at least he would say "I don't know". But wouldn't that answer have to be put in the SW? It's an explanation.

We don't know how the detective actually worded his (statement or question) to Brad. He could have asked, "What are those marks on your neck?"

OR

he could have said, "I notice marks on the back of your neck...." {pause to see if BC says anything in response to that statement which no, is not worded exactly as a question} followed by {sounds of crickets chirping}

 

[raisincharlie]

RC,

Just for my own edification, could the conversation have gone like this?

LE: Mr. Cooper, I know that this matter is distressing to you, please understand that we will do all that we can to find your wife and return her home safely. I can see that you are upset, if we can do anything to help, we will be glad to do so. I see you have injuries, do you need medical attention for them?

BC: Thank you, yes, it is upsetting, I have been up since 4AM attending to the kids... and getting some items at the store so that we had food for their breakfast.....

CyberPro

LE can indeed be "tricky" that way. Draw attention to something to see how it is responded too. So yes it could have been this simple and innocent sounding.

 

[reddress58]

We don't know how the detective actually worded his (statement or question) to Brad. He could have asked, "What are those marks on your neck?"

OR

he could have said, "I notice marks on the back of your neck...." {pause to see if BC says anything in response to that statement which no, is not worded exactly as a question} followed by {sounds of crickets chirping}

In all his frantic morning activites (cleaning, body disposing, shopping, car vaccuming, laundry doing, Katie watching, etc.), it may have been the first time BC was aware that scratches even existed on his neck. That is if LE brought it to his attention, which you guys seem to think they did. I still think the SW should say, "When asked about the scratches on his neck, BC gave no explanation."

 

[reddress58]

RC,

Just for my own edification, could the conversation have gone like this?

LE: Mr. Cooper, I know that this matter is distressing to you, please understand that we will do all that we can to find your wife and return her home safely. I can see that you are upset, if we can do anything to help, we will be glad to do so. I see you have injuries, do you need medical attention for them?

BC: Thank you, yes, it is upsetting, I have been up since 4AM attending to the kids... and getting some items at the store so that we had food for their breakfast.....

CyberPro

Yes, now I can see how this could be done. (note to self: think outside the box)

 

[raisincharlie]

In all his frantic morning activites (cleaning, body disposing, shopping, car vaccuming, laundry doing, Katie watching, etc.), it may have been the first time BC was aware that scratches even existed on his neck. That is if LE brought it to his attention, which you guys seem to think they did. I still think the SW should say, "When asked about the scratches on his neck, BC gave no explanation."

Respectfully - a search warrant affidavit is not testimony. If or when this officer is called to the stand, he will provide the details of this conversation. Especially if Brad's DNA ends up being found say under a nail on one of Nancy's hands for foundation purposes. A search warrant affidavit is necessarily limited.