Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #25

[Anderson]

I don't see Mom here as much as she used to be. Today I felt like Mom because I passed BC in his white BMW, not once but twice. Once when he was turning onto Lochmere Dr., again about an hour and a half later turning from Cary Pkwy. onto Tryon toward where...maybe THE HT. Of course he was wearing sunglasses, even though it had been raining and was very cloudy.

I have been very busy today as usual, but haven't listened to any news. I suppose nothing has happened in the BC case, nor the MY case as far as making it public goes?

Yes, I hope Mom is okay. I imagine you checked the other thread where there is some discussion on the hearing. I believe that is the only thing that is new. Perhaps we will have some news next week. One of the items that is scheduled for the hearing is related to the autopsy report. I don't know if anything will be public.

 

[raisincharlie]

I wonder if LE responds to their hinky meters. They must, don't you think? Even though they will then have to find material evidence.

Of course they do.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yes, I hope Mom is okay.

She's fine; heard from her yesterday or so. She's gotten involved in learning about an older case -- the Anna Waters one, which she told me is also here on WS.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I wonder if LE responds to their hinky meters. They must, don't you think?

yes, it's called your intuition or that 'gut feeling.' We all have it to one extent or another.

 

[Anderson]

Of course they do.

Thanks RC and SG for confirming what seems to be an obvious point. I think that it is helpful to have the usefulness of this approach spelled out on the board.

I really think that the article "The Post-Columbo Era: How the courts killed good detective work - how laws limit methods of criminal investigation," posted by SG in the O/T thread is worth reading. I think that the hinky-meter should play a role in solving crimes. Laws that limit the use of intuition (or as the article puts it, "police are not allowed to think") in police work would seem to keep criminals on the street.

Here are some quotes from the article:

"The only thing that keeps the wheels of justice turning is that most people don't know this. 'People only talk to the police because they think it will look suspicious if they don't,' says an experienced Manhattan assistant district attorney. 'What they don't realize is that the police aren't allowed to draw that negative inference.'"

"Since that moment [Supreme Court reforms in the 60s], the main strategy of every defense attorney has become to "put the state on trial" by challenging investigative procedures. As a result, absurdities have prevailed. Warrants were voided because of misspellings and typographical errors. Purely voluntary confessions recorded on videotape were thrown out when defense attorneys said their client 'couldn't have possibly understood his rights or else he wouldn't have admitted to this crime.'

Now something even worse has happened. District attorneys and police departments have become very good at abiding by the new rules; procedural mistakes are rare, and D.A.'s are very circumspect in asking for search warrants. There's only one problem: Now that the police are abiding by the letter of the Supreme Court directives, there are more and more unsolved crimes."

"The real problem is that the police are not allowed to draw any negative inference from this refusal to answer questions. In other words, the police aren't allowed to think- and that makes a crucial difference when it comes to asking for search warrants. The Fourth Amendment says that 'no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.' What constitutes probable cause? It can't be a hunch.."

Now, I am not certain how this legal context has influenced this case. BC answered questions and cooperated with police, so he certainly didn't want to look suspicious. Search warrants were issued, so there must have been a very good reason for them. However, I gather that LE would be limited in their investigation by this legal environment in some ways. Anyway, food for thought.

 

[Anderson]

She's fine; heard from her yesterday or so. She's gotten involved in learning about an older case -- the Anna Waters one, which she told me is also here on WS.

Good to know.

 

[Albert]

Albert: You said "...imagine for a moment that BC is not guilty..." Have you judged that none of us have imagined that? Well, you would be wrong.

"However I will proclaim that there are many on the list that feel they have a right to JUDGE someone else's actions." You proclaim? Your use of the word JUDGE :gavel: comes across as a bit pedantic and judgmental, (fingerwagging?) :nono:as to how you think some of us are. That's fine, but so is the fact that others have OPINIONS and carry no gavels. JMHO

Sorry for offending, ncnative. I was only trying to make a simple point. It is easy to say what you will do, however when faced with that reality will your actions be what you thought? Will you charge forward while bullets are aimed at you or will your turn and run? I am not insulted by being labeled pedantic as my wordsmith certainly does not match yours. And yes, it does appear that others are claiming BC is guilty and pointing to his lack of public appearance during memorial services as a telling sign.

 

[Anderson]

And yes, it does appear that others are claiming BC is guilty and pointing to his lack of public appearance during memorial services as a telling sign.

Yes (but in combination with the case-related affidavits etc), I suppose that we all have a different hinky meter (see above)! I should also point out that I would not call him guilty in a legal sense. But I do have my suspicions.

IMO

 

[jumpstreet]

And yes, it does appear that others are claiming BC is guilty and pointing to his lack of public appearance during memorial services as a telling sign.

Hmmm... not so sure about this one Albert. I think your point is fair, in that, just because we think we might behave in a certain way, doesn't mean when faced with that situation we necessarily will. That much is fair.

However, on the board, at least based on the recent related posts on this topic, it seems like most are factoring in the lack of appearance on BC's part, along with all the other information at their disposal in the case, and using that to form their (current) opinions. I'm not sure I've seen anyone here say that they think he's definitely guilty, based strictly on his lack of appearance at the various memorials.

I for one (using my own silly logic), think that his lack of appearance actually points to him being somewhat less guilty. [ If I'm guilty (and crafty/shameless enough to stage phone calls, and early morning trips to the HT), then I take no chances with the PR, and I attend at least some of the memorials, just to manage perception. If I'm innocent, maybe I don't hesitate as much to opt out due to being uncomfortable, etc ]

Even with the above said, I'm not concluding he's definitely innocent... it's just one factor (one of many).

 

[CyberPro]

Alone, the fact that he did not attend memorials etc means little to me. However, when keeping that thought in mind while reading his affidavits, makes it relatively easy to ring up three or four dings on the hinky meter easily. :crazy: Bitter, self absorbed man.

{bolding is mine}

RC,

I am not a shrink, nor do I play one on TV, but in your opinion, would you say this level of bitterness and self-absorbsion rises to the level of NPD, or perhaps a sociopathic level?

Sure, there is no law that says you have to attend memorial services of your murdered family member, it does not automatically mean you are guilty. You do not have to attend public memorials, private memorials, nor let anyone see that you even remember the person.

There is also no law that says you cannot release affidavits besmirching the life of your recently murdered spouse, who is the mother of your children. There is no law that says you cannot also state in your affidavit slights on the victim's moral standards, selection of friends and level of involvement in household decision making. None of these things are against the law.

BUT....

We are humans, not robots. While different people have different levels of emotional reaction, lack of reaction or delayed reaction. We, as humans, pick up on the apparent emotions of others and empathize with them to one degree or another. We reflect on how we would be likely to react, if we were in the same situation, and right or wrong, we make judgements and develop impressions of the person based upon how we would react under the same circumstances. If there is a large gap between how we believe we would react and how the other person is reacting, we can ask ourselves if we are missing any important information, and if we believe we have an accurate picture we form an opinion if the reaction we are seeing jells with how a normal, rational, human should react. If we percieve that person is NOT reacting like we believe they should be, we become suspicious.

There, I think I just defined the Hinky Meter Input Source.

It applies to real life, but if you read much fiction it comes into play there too. I picked up a book a couple of years ago at the airport to read on a trip, and vowed to never read another book by this well-known author, because the characters she had in the book did not react in the way I have ever seen a human react. It was absurd.

CyberPro

 

[jumpstreet]

{bolding is mine}

[...] If there is a large gap between how we believe we would react and how the other person is reacting, we can ask ourselves if we are missing any important information [...]

Good post Cyber... agree on it. FWIW, the 2nd part of your statement above is the biggest thing generally keeping my (personal) hinky meter largely at bay in this case thus far. While there's been a remarkable volume of information made publically available, the amount of information of substance, by comparison is still relatively small.

Are we missing any important information in this case?... absolutely.

 

[fran]

Agreed. Which is why I mentioned before... if he's guilty, I don't see why he wouldn't have attended (at least some of) these things [ if nothing else for the optics ]. If he's innocent, it still would make some sense to attend of course (for the same reason innocent people go to memorials/services/funerals all the time)... but as you mention, there's perfectly valid reasons why innocent people don't attend these things all the time.

If he's guilty though, (and crafty/cunning enough to plan alibi phone-calls, and a couple of trips to HT to cover his tracks), why not attend at least some of these things?

IMO, I feel that some people are missing the point in total, about Brad not attending any of the memorial services or funeral for Nancy.

Sure, people do grieve differently. It's not just that Brad proclaims to have loved Nancy and allegedly wanted the marriage to work, yet turns around and does NOT attend any celebrations of her life. No,.......it's ALSO just minutes before the start of one of the services, (as Mt3Ks has brought up,) Brad told his daughter her mom was (dead), whatever term he used, she was upset,....................rather than stand by her during the service and comfort her, he turned and walked away.

What kind of person does that?

No, it's not JUST that he didn't attend the services for his MURDERED wife, it's that he was NOT there for the two little ones left behind. The two things in life that shoud have meant more to him than anything. Nah,....... he left it to others to pick up the pieces.

His absence at the memorials indicates to me that he's a coward and can't face the eyes of those that know he's guilty............that and the prying eye of the media.....and LE.

JMHO
fran


PS...They say that one's eyes can be a window to the soul. At least Jason Young had the guts to attend Michelle's funeral, although he wore sun glasses to hide his uncaring gaze. BC wasn't smart enough to even think of that. See............he's not quite as bright as he thinks, MBA and all. Affidavits don't cut it.

PPS....Yes, we do grieve differently, been there done that. More than thrity-six years ago when my first husband was killed in an accident, the only thing I could think of was protecting my three month old son. I couldn't let anything happen to him.... Brad Cooper didn't worry about anything happening to his little girls. He knew the murderer of his wife wasn't going to harm his children also,.....because he KNEW first hand it was ONLY Nancy the perp was after.:furious:

 

[Anderson]

IMO, I feel that some people are missing the point in total, about Brad not attending any of the memorial services or funeral for Nancy.

Sure, people do grieve differently. It's not just that Brad proclaims to have loved Nancy and allegedly wanted the marriage to work, yet turns around and does NOT attend any celebrations of her life. No,.......it's ALSO just minutes before the start of one of the services, (as Mt3Ks has brought up,) Brad told his daughter her mom was (dead), whatever term he used, she was upset,....................rather than stand by her during the service and comfort her, he turned and walked away.

What kind of person does that? .........
His absence at the memorials indicates to me that he's a coward and can't face the eyes of those that know he's guilty............that and the prying eye of the media.....and LE.

Thanks Fran for reminding us of Mom's powerful post and bringing up some of the reasons that some of us see his behaviour as suspicious. You have also said these things from the beginning (if you haven't already, you should check out some of Fran's earlier posts).

In addition to telling the children about NC's death directly before her memorial and then not attending the service with them, he also wrote demeaning comments about NC on his initial affidavit and these were made public on the same day of the funeral in Canada. I read the two stories at the same time. There was certainly a ding on my hinky meter.

Fran, I also think that you are probably right, he may be a coward. I suggested in an earlier post that perhaps BC was ashamed and that is why he didn't attend. But perhaps a coward has no shame.

I believe that NC's father called the murder an extreme act of cowardice and suggested that the only decent thing the (nameless) murderer could do is to come forward and confess. Who can argue with that?? And perhaps that is what a truly ashamed person would do.

 

[Anderson]

There, I think I just defined the Hinky Meter Input Source.

I think you did CyberPro!! Great post.

 

[fran]

Thanks Fran for reminding us of Mom's powerful post and bringing up some of the reasons that some of us see his behaviour as suspicious. You have also said these things from the beginning (if you haven't already, you should check out some of Fran's earlier posts).

In addition to telling the children about NC's death directly before her memorial and then not attending the service with them, he also wrote demeaning comments about NC on his initial affidavit and these were made public on the same day of the funeral in Canada. I read the two stories at the same time. There was certainly a ding on my hinky meter.

Fran, I also think that you are probably right, he may be a coward. I suggested in an earlier post that perhaps BC was ashamed and that is why he didn't attend. But perhaps a coward has no shame.

I believe that NC's father called the murder an extreme act of cowardice and suggested that the only decent thing the (nameless) murderer could do is to come forward and confess. Who can argue with that?? And perhaps that is what a truly ashamed person would do.

FWIW,

I don't think BC is 'ashamed.' He most likely doesn't see anything wrong with ANYTHING he's done. He probably believes Nancy deserved what she got. After all, look at those 'affidavits' and legal documents he filed. He wants EVERYONE to believe Nancy was 'no angel.' He just hides behind his attorney and legal documents in letting everyone know.
Nahhh.............like I've said before, Brad is a 'stab you in the back' kinda' guy. He avoids confrontation as much as he can and a :liar: too.

Oh, yeah, I THINK he's GUILTY!:behindbar

JMHO
fran

 

[jilly]

PS...They say that one's eyes can be a window to the soul. At least Jason Young had the guts to attend Michelle's funeral, although he wore sun glasses to hide his uncaring gaze.

I wouldn't exactly say "guts" cause imo jason young is one of the most gutless murderers I've ever come across.
It's pretty obvious the only reason he attended the funeral was because his mother made him do so.

 

[raisincharlie]

{bolding is mine}

RC,

I am not a shrink, nor do I play one on TV, but in your opinion, would you say this level of bitterness and self-absorbsion rises to the level of NPD, or perhaps a sociopathic level?

<respectfully snipped>

CyberPro

Cyber Pro,

This is one area where I don't go. I have a built in distrust of anyone who takes it upon themselves, even though possibly highly educated, to define what is normal and what is not. Therefore I try not to view persons as such and do not try my hand at a mental evaluation of them. I realize that some real mental problems definitely exist however.

 

[Anderson]

I don't think this information has been posted here. There have been a couple of new posts on the blogspot:

Friday, September 26, 2008
Apologies, and Thanks

"I've been served with a subpoena which requires that I produce, among many other things


'Any and all correspondence, including but not limited to email, memorandum, letters, notes, text messages, etc, blog posts or blog spots, chat room conversations with any person or agency, including but not limited to Plaintiffs, their counsel, law enforcement officers, friends, etc. regarding Nancy Cooper, Bradley Cooper, the biological children of Nancy and Bradley Cooper, or Nancy Cooper's death and/or disappearance.'


Unfortunately, this includes all the wonderful volunteer form postings. These volunteers have my sincere and deep sympathies for any invasion of privacy this might engender. They also have my sincere, deep and lasting gratitude for all their fantastic work or offers of work."

Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The Cary "Clique"?

"We have been very careful not to speculate in the media as to how or why or by whom Nancy was murdered.

We will continue that stance.

Any and all pertinent communications are done in a legal framework. The media are publicizing what should be a private matter, but that is not under our control, nor is it anything we desire.

Nancy is dead. Nancy has been silenced. It is the civic duty of those she confided in to provide her a voice."

http://nancycooper.blogspot.com/

This suggests to me that there may be more information that NC passed along to her friends regarding her deteriorating relationship with Brad. I am glad that NC had/has such wonderful friends.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Interesting. I guess that will include emails I exchanged w/DD last month.

Can you imagine the reams & reams of paper/digital files/discovery that will be amassed from all those people issued subpoenas? The cost from the billable hours alone for the legal assistants to go through all of that ...<shudder>.

 

[momto3kids]

Dropping in to say HI!
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, did you all notice on Nancy's blogger she had won front row tickets to John Mayer? From what I gather some friends put her name in and she won. I don't know when they did this and can't seem to locate a link to when the contest began.
What a Birthday present this would have been for NC!!