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

[SleuthyGal]

I don't think we know everything he told LE - I doubt everything is in the sw affidavit.

The cleaning vs. looking for Nancy is in writing, so that is a (confirmed) inconsistency.

Why would the detective write that Brad was cleaning from 9am to 1pm and fail to mention a pertinent fact about tennis plans at 9:30am if Brad told them? It wasn't in the SW affidavit because, I believe, Brad didn't say anything to the cops about those tennis plans. And if you notice, he also doesn't say anything in his custody affidavit about his cleaning binge between 9am - 1pm (but he does mention tennis plans for 9:30am, as well as being out looking for Nancy around 12:30pm when she failed to return home)

 

[raisincharlie]

My theory is predicated on that 4:20am HT visit being REAL (I know, it has not been verified by any official, but I do believe it and am basing my assumptions from that).

If there really was no HT visit at 4:20am then yes, he very well could have dumped her at 6am. I think it comes down to if you give any credence to a 4:20am HT visit to purchase laundry detergent (or not). I understand the need to have official confirmation from a LE type. Right now I believe it.

This is where we have an inconsistency

According to your opinion you think he went to the store at 420 to get detergent - obviously to clean up with. Where this doesn't work for me is if he bought detergent at 420 why did he go to the store at 620 to buy milk only to come home and realize there was no detergent and go back to the store to purchase more. Seems to me he would have known beyond a shadow of a doubt if he bought detergent at 420 he also would have known at 620 on the first trip he reports making if he needed more detergent but he didn't - he had to go a second time to buy detergent.

This whole two trips between 6 and 7 is a mask for something, most likely when he dumped her body and the supposed phone call was a mask to show she was alive while he was away. But if he was frantically cleaning after 4 am he would have known he need more detergent on his first trip - not the second IMO. We just see things differently.

 

[SleuthyGal]

>>>This whole two trips between 6 and 7

Brad says he went to HT 2 times between 6am and 7am. But the actual times are NOT verified by anyone (other than Brad). Would Brad have lied about the time of that first visit? It was the first visit in which he purchased laundry detergent.

>>>when he dumped her body and the supposed phone call was a mask to show she was alive while he was away.

But we don't really know where Brad actually was when he got this supposed phone call to buy juice. One cell phone tower serves his house and HT. Brad says he was at the store when this call came in. Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.

Maybe that 6:15am grocery visit really happened at 4:20am.

We don't know for sure yet.

 

[jumpstreet]

Seemingly 'smart' guys trip themselves up all the time....he could be subconsciously sabotaging himself for committing murder...or he could think that no one's keeping really close track of every thing he says...

Perhaps you're right: he's not bright enough to think it would be important/helpful to better align those official/legal stories, and yet he is smart/crafty enough to somehow take the time and effort to have a phone call be made from the house to his phone while he is running the errands. [ We assume the records will show this phone call was made, since he subpoenaed the records ] If we take him to be guilty, then NC didn't make this call I assume.

If he's guilty, then it requires us to believe the above: (a) he's smart enough to arrange that phone call as alibi... and (b), he's not smart enough to bother better aligning the courtroom documents.

If he's innocent, then NC made the phone call, and he's not worried about aligning the documents so much (because when you tell the truth you don't have to worry about what you said previously).

On face value, in terms of explaining the inconsistencies in the courtroom documents, the latter seems more plausible to me. The former seems a stretch. (Just mho as always )

 

[raisincharlie]

>This whole two trips between 6 and 7

Brad says he went to HT 2 times between 6am and 7am. But the actual times are NOT verified by anyone (other than Brad). Would Brad have lied about the time of that first visit? It was the first visit in which he purchased laundry detergent.

I agree nothing is verified, however Brad has issued a signed affidavit which will be checked and double checked by LE saying he was at the store at those times. And it was on the second trip he says he bought detergent and juice - check said signed affidavit.

If you are going to use affidavits to say things are so then all is fair game.

 

[jumpstreet]

I agree nothing is verified, however Brad has issued a signed affidavit which will be checked and double checked by LE saying he was at the store at those times. And it was on the second trip he says he bought detergent and juice - check said signed affidavit.

If you are going to use affidavits to say things are so then all is fair game.

As Sleuthy says, maybe he is subconsciously sabotaging himself for committing murder by intentionally issuing mis-statements in his custody affidavit. If we want to accept this premise as an explanation for some things, then we really cannot put any stock or draw any conclusions from anything BC has said in an affidavit (or to LE).

 

[raisincharlie]

As Sleuthy says, maybe he is subconsciously sabotaging himself for committing murder by intentionally issuing mis-statements in his custody affidavit. If we want to accept this premise as an explanation for some things, then we really cannot put any stock or draw any conclusions from anything BC has said in an affidavit (or to LE).

Don't buy the sabotage theory. That would indicate remorse even on a subconscious level. I don't think there is any remorse.

 

[momto3kids]

LE affidavit...states he told LE he got up at 4am to tend to Katie, even took her to an office space within the home AFTER he made 2 trips to the store...NO time noted for the store trips.

His affidavit he states...
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 6:30am.

The same child... Hmmm, did she get up at 4 or 6:30? Store trip 4:20 or 6:40?

IF I were fighting for my children I would make damn sure I INCLUDED I got up at 4am to tend to my child in my affidavit. This was a prime example and a prime time to definitely have this in there...but NO the liar couldn't remember what he had told on the 12th

Bull...he got up to tend to a child. IMO he was up to do what he needed to do, dispose of a body and get items to clean his mess.

 

[jumpstreet]

Don't buy the sabotage theory. That would indicate remorse even on a subconscious level. I don't think there is any remorse.

Yeah, the sabatoge seems a stretch to me as well (but I'm sure stranger things have happened Sleuthy!)
Outside of this explanation though, it still leaves me at a little loss on the inconsistencies (and/or lack of similar highlights) in the 2 timelines. [ That is, if he's guilty ]

 

[reddress58]

A few days ago I posted this:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2605466&postcount=332

and it was pointed out to me earlier today that some of you might have thought I was somehow referring to Jason Young in that post. And LOLOLOL. OMG NO! :doh:

"J.A. Young" is a Sr. Police Officer with the Cary Police Dept and he was the one who took the lead in getting the search warrants and probable cause affidavit in the Cooper case. It is his signature on the probable cause affidavit and SWs. He is the one I was referring to in that previous post.

For the record, I would never want wife killer Jason Young (let alone any murderer) to be anywhere in my vicinity, let alone near my house or my dog or even mowing my lawn (no matter how much I hate mowing the lawn)!!

Whew. I feel better. I got a hearty laugh though at what some of you must have thought when I said I "wanted to give J. Young a big hug...have a beer, and ask him questions..." :floorlaugh:

I don't know, SG. I kinda like the first scenario better. I can imagine you hugging this young man after he's mowed your lawn; taking him to the local ale house as he is all hot, sweaty and thirsty; bellying up to the bar and saying; NOW, TALK! :whip: Can't think of a more qualified person than you to get his yapper goin' so we all can have some answers. Maybe you can ask B. Cooper to do the trimming and edging; have a group hug and invite him along for a few pints at the joint. :Banane35: Sure would help us out on this board! I say go for it.

 

[jumpstreet]

IF I were fighting for my children I would make damn sure I INCLUDED I got up at 4am to tend to my child in my affidavit. This was a prime example and a definite need to have this in there

Exactly, it seems a glaring ommission from the custody affidavit, given the other stuff that's in there.

...but NO the liar couldn't remember what he had told on the 12th

That would make sense, except that he would have had a written copy of the LE warrant in front of him when he wrote the custody affidavit, so he wouldn't have had to remember what he stated on the 12th.

It's puzzling, especially if he is guilty. Less so if he is innocent (IMO).

 

[reddress58]

LE affidavit...states he told LE he got up at 4am to tend to Katie, even took her to an office space within the home AFTER he made 2 trips to the store...NO time noted for the store trips.

His affidavit he states...
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 6:30am.

The same child... Hmmm, did she get up at 4 or 6:30? Store trip 4:20 or 6:40?

IF I were fighting for my children I would make damn sure I INCLUDED I got up at 4am to tend to my child in my affidavit. This was a prime example and a definete need to have this in there...but NO the liar couldn't remember what he had told on the 12th

Bull...he got up to tend to a child. IMO he was up to do what he needed to do, dispose of a body and get items to clean his mess.

Does anyone wonder, besides me, if LE asked him what times he went to the store? And if so, why they would leave that info out of the SW?

 

[momto3kids]

Exactly, it seems a glaring ommission from the custody affidavit, given the other stuff that's in there.



That would make sense, except that he would have had a written copy of the LE warrant in front of him when he wrote the custody affidavit, so he wouldn't have had to remember what he stated on the 12th.

It's puzzling, especially if he is guilty. Less so if he is innocent (IMO).

JS...you don't have to remember what the truth is...it is to remember what lie you told.

IF this LE affidavit was available, his so called attorneys should have made darn sure it was included!

He and his team made sure he bashed his dead wife, her family and friends...BUT to not state this little bit of tidbit to show he does provide attention to his girls IMO, this is one of the biggest misses they made! But you get what you pay for.

He never got up with Katie, she might have gotten up, but he was already up.

This 1 item makes me realize just how good(NOT) a team he has working for him.

 

[raisincharlie]

Does anyone wonder, besides me, if LE asked him what times he went to the store? And if so, why they would leave that info out of the SW?

The affidavit accompanying a search warrant has to show one thing only - there is probable cause to believe evidence relating to a specific crime may be found at the location to be searched. It does not have to include every detail of conversations, interviews or observations, it must only convince a judge there is a probability that evidence could be found. This affidavit is not evidence and is not usable in court.

 

[momto3kids]

Does anyone wonder, besides me, if LE asked him what times he went to the store? And if so, why they would leave that info out of the SW?

I don't know how many times, but it does make one wonder. Just like the scratches.

Hmmm...2 adults up at 4am with a child who is NOT sick? No motrin purchased, but detergent...let me see what is not right with this story:waitasec:

The thing I notice is there are NO times for the store trips in the LE affidavit.
They knew something wasn't right to be at HT and reviewed/seized? the video by Sunday early noon.

 

[momto3kids]

I don't know, SG. I kinda like the first scenario better. I can imagine you hugging this young man after he's mowed your lawn; taking him to the local ale house as he is all hot, sweaty and thirsty; bellying up to the bar and saying; NOW, TALK! :whip: Can't think of a more qualified person than you to get his yapper goin' so we all can have some answers. Maybe you can ask B. Cooper to do the trimming and edging; have a group hug and invite him along for a few pints at the joint. :Banane35: Sure would help us out on this board! I say go for it.

I'll even pay for the drinks if you can get the confession!!:Jumpie:

 

[jumpstreet]

IF this LE affidavit was available, his so called attorneys should have made darn sure it was included!

This 1 item makes me realize just how good(NOT) a team he has working for him.

Maybe these mis-steps on the part of the defense team are intentional, so as to provide grounds for appeal on the basis of incompetent defense counsel. Talk about planning ahead!

 

[Roy23]

The cleaning vs. looking for Nancy is in writing, so that is a (confirmed) inconsistency.

Why would the detective write that Brad was cleaning from 9am to 1pm and fail to mention a pertinent fact about tennis plans at 9:30am if Brad told them? It wasn't in the SW affidavit because, I believe, Brad didn't say anything to the cops about those tennis plans. And if you notice, he also doesn't say anything in his custody affidavit about his cleaning binge between 9am - 1pm (but he does mention tennis plans for 9:30am, as well as being out looking for Nancy around 12:30pm when she failed to return home)

This doesn't hold water----sorry. LE would have asked Brad what he did and not what he planned to do. The fact whether Brad had tennis plans doesn't mean anything. He stated that he cancelled so he didn't go. LE doesn't care what he planned to do but only what he did. So tennis plans are not necessarily a pertinent fact.

 

[Daphne69]

This doesn't hold water----sorry. LE would have asked Brad what he did and not what he planned to do. The fact whether Brad had tennis plans doesn't mean anything. He stated that he cancelled so he didn't go. LE doesn't care what he planned to do but only what he did. So tennis plans are not necessarily a pertinent fact.

Except that he DID call to delay and then to postpone his plans, according to his affidavit. That should be part of his timeline that morning.

 

[momto3kids]

Maybe these mis-steps on the part of the defense team are intentional, so as to provide grounds for appeal on the basis of incompetent defense counsel. Talk about planning ahead!

Maybe he will figure it out before this dog and pony show begins! Oh wait, it has already begun.