Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #26

[ncnative]

So, I'm lying here with laptop, insomnia and WS.

I've been thinking about the affidavits, reading them. I noticed that Scott Heider used to live on Strathburgh in Lochmere, right beside where Mike Hiller lives. Scott's home sold to another owner around March 3, 2007. Scott lives in Raleigh now, across from Lake Johnston.

Hiller has owned his home on Strathburgh for over 10 years, still does. Scott and Mike Hiller were Brad's buddies. All live(d) in Lochmere, very near each other, like Mike Hiller states in his aff: "...we live about 8 houses from each other...", meaning his home from Brad and Nancy's.

They were also Nancy's friends. That doesn't mean anything. Just stating. But then, Brad and (at the time) Scott Heider's wife had an affair. Very chummy situation in the neighborhood there. And Brad and Scott are still buddies! Nancy was no longer freinds with Scott's wife after Nancy found out about the affair of her husband Brad C. and Scott's wife Heather. Heather and Scott are divorced, Scott moved out of Lochmere. But what interesting social circles we have here. Entertwining over and over, all sorts of interactions. Possibilities abound.

Mike Hiller has some really biased affidavits out there, as in pro-Brad, as seemingly innocent. Scott does too. This is no news to you as WSs.

So many of the affidavits sound like they are really trying to push one side or the other onto whomever reads them. One bunch says "this" about "that", and the other bunch says "that" about "this". I am glad I don't have to figure it all out, but it surely is taking forever. And Nancy is dead. Who would have thought that she'd have been murdered, even 6 mos. ago? Hmmmmm?

 

[raisincharlie]

Regarding NC's phone, locked or not......I have a very difficult time believing investigators did not access any, and all, info on that phone when they seized it the first time......I mean, come on .

Maybe I'm being narrow-minded but, I think for them to seize the phone a second time, they either were checking to determine if BC altered any of the info on the phone or POSSIBLY, there were fingerprints lifted from the phone and somehow LE traced a set back to MH and they want to know why he would have had any reason to pick up NC's phone.

Mahmoo - have you read the search warrant for the phone ? It appears LE did check what they could and it was determined the phone contained what LE deemed to be evidence. Reading the warrant it also appears the phone and address books were given to LE on the 12th - I don't see that these items were ever returned to Brad. You will also note reference to the documents - apparently they were looked at as there are statements in the probable cause section that the hand writing is consistent with Nancy Cooper - did they just know that without doing some studying on it ?

The phone itself is not worth much in trying to determine phone calls made by Nancy nor would it tell the times of such calls. On the 15th LE deemed these items were indeed evidence, I suspect at that time a subpeona was issued to the phone service provider to obtain the records of call usage and text messages. We have not heard what subpeona's for information LE has had filed. With that in mind, how would LE know to ask Mr. Hiller about phone calls if LE did not have some information which led them to ask those questions ? Since the phone was locked, a search warrant would be needed to access the areas locked. Thus LE got a warrant. The question to timing is dependent on how valuable such information may be. Typically LE pursues the most important information first and then follows up with supporting information.

I can't figure why everyone is freaking out about this search warrant timing. If the service provider was accomodating, information relating to phone calls and text messages would have been in LE's possession within a few days. This seems to be supported by Mr. Hiller's statements that LE called him in for an interview about phone calls 2 weeks after Nancy was murdered.

In case you have not read it:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...rch_warrant_for_Nancy_Cooper_s_Blackberry.pdf

 

[pamlet]

I know.....I feel the same way too.

To me....that BC's mom is still apparently at his house taking care of him......makes me believe that he is not capable of taking care of two little girls......it looks to me like he's not even able to take care of himself.

To me this shows that Brad's Mom is there to support him - why is that so unusual?

I'm 1000's of miles away from home right now for the emotional support she needs after the loss of my Dad ...

I don't think it's odd at all that she's staying there .. he's lost his wife, custody of his kids and it seems as thought 3/4 of Cary think he's guilty of murdering his wife... He needs some support right now ... even if he IS guilty - more so if he's not.

 

[Star12]

Did anyone notice that LE did NOT seize the phone, or the address books?

 

[raisincharlie]

Did anyone notice that LE did NOT seize the phone, or the address books?

During the search warrant of the house ? No they did not, they already had them.

 

[jmflu]

Mahmoo - have you read the search warrant for the phone ? It appears LE did check what they could and it was determined the phone contained what LE deemed to be evidence. Reading the warrant it also appears the phone and address books were given to LE on the 12th - I don't see that these items were ever returned to Brad. You will also note reference to the documents - apparently they were looked at as there are statements in the probable cause section that the hand writing is consistent with Nancy Cooper - did they just know that without doing some studying on it ?

The phone itself is not worth much in trying to determine phone calls made by Nancy nor would it tell the times of such calls. On the 15th LE deemed these items were indeed evidence, I suspect at that time a subpeona was issued to the phone service provider to obtain the records of call usage and text messages. We have not heard what subpeona's for information LE has had filed. With that in mind, how would LE know to ask Mr. Hiller about phone calls if LE did not have some information which led them to ask those questions ? Since the phone was locked, a search warrant would be needed to access the areas locked. Thus LE got a warrant. The question to timing is dependent on how valuable such information may be. Typically LE pursues the most important information first and then follows up with supporting information.

I can't figure why everyone is freaking out about this search warrant timing. If the service provider was accomodating, information relating to phone calls and text messages would have been in LE's possession within a few days. This seems to be supported by Mr. Hiller's statements that LE called him in for an interview about phone calls 2 weeks after Nancy was murdered.

In case you have not read it:

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...rch_warrant_for_Nancy_Cooper_s_Blackberry.pdf

I guess I am not following you here. If you say they had this information within a few days, and they didn't return the items, why would they need another SW now??

 

[jumpstreet]

During the search warrant of the house ? No they did not, they already had them.

If they already had the personal address books (prior to the initial warrant), and they never gave them back... I don't understand why they would need a subsequent warrant (to access the personal address books).

Do we think they give them back at some point (along with the phone?) If no, why the additional warrant (for the address books). [ Or - is it the case such that it was okay for them to take the address books initially from the house (and keep them as evidence)... but to actually OPEN them... requires an additional warrant??

 

[jumpstreet]

I guess I am not following you here. If you say they had this information within a few days, and they didn't return the items, why would they need another SW now??

Exactly. What are we missing RC?

 

[jumpstreet]

The phone itself is not worth much in trying to determine phone calls made by Nancy nor would it tell the times of such calls[/URL]

Really? I thought most phones (and I assume blackberries) have an internal log of "attempted calls" (even ones not completed). The non-completed attempts might not show up in phone company records, but still might be "of interest". Other things on the phone such as contacts, stored photos, appointments, saved text messages, etc might also not be available strictly from the phone company records.

All these things I would think might be helpful from day1 as part of 'general information gathering'. Hence I continue to be surprised that this hasn't been done previously. Either LE didn't think there could possibly be anything of value on the phone (why not check, just to be sure though...)... OR... something recent has spurred them to think it worthwhile to check the local storage of the phone (and to re-examine personal addressbooks, etc)

 

[raisincharlie]

Exactly. What are we missing RC?

Read the warrant for the phone - specifically items to be siezed - it is not for the phone but rather for the contents of what is in the phone such as word documents, photos, video clips etc. The phone was locked, thereby establishing a reasonable certainty of privacy - a warrant is therefore a must to obtain the data from the secured locations of the phone.

This warrant is not for siezing either the phone or the address books - it is for siezing the data inside those items. Read carefully.

 

[jmflu]

Really? I thought most phones (and I assume blackberries) have an internal log of "attempted calls" (even ones not completed). The non-completed attempts might not show up in phone company records, but still might be "of interest". Other things on the phone such as contacts, stored photos, appointments, saved text messages, etc might also not be available strictly from the phone company records.

All these things I would think might be helpful from day1 as part of 'general information gathering'. Hence I continue to be surprised that this hasn't been done previously. Either LE didn't think there could possibly be anything of value on the phone (why not check, just to be sure though...)... OR... something recent has spurred them to think it worthwhile to check the local storage of the phone (and to re-examine personal addressbooks, etc)

Me too, JS... and I was surprised RC would say that they wouldn't be able to tell the time of the call... ?

 

[jumpstreet]

This warrant is not for siezing either the phone or the address books - it is for siezing the data inside those items. Read carefully.

I understand a warrant to make arrangements to unlock a locked phone. [ I don't understand why they wouldn't have obtained such a warrant from day-1 (given post above with all the potentially of-value stuff that could be found there, just to be thorough, but I can understand the need for a separate warrant ]

I still don't understand why they need a warrant to "seize" the "data" inside a non-phone address book that they already have? A warrant is needed to actually open a book? Are you thinking there was some "diary-style" padlock on the non-phone address books?

 

[jmflu]

Read the warrant for the phone - specifically items to be siezed - it is not for the phone but rather for the contents of what is in the phone such as word documents, photos, video clips etc. The phone was locked, thereby establishing a reasonable certainty of privacy - a warrant is therefore a must to obtain the data from the secured locations of the phone.

This warrant is not for siezing either the phone or the address books - it is for siezing the data inside those items. Read carefully.

So you're saying they took the phone with or without a SW the first time? And they've had it all this time and just now want to look into it?

 

[raisincharlie]

Really? I thought most phones (and I assume blackberries) have an internal log of "attempted calls" (even ones not completed). The non-completed attempts might not show up in phone company records, but still might be "of interest". Other things on the phone such as contacts, stored photos, appointments, saved text messages, etc might also not be available strictly from the phone company records.

All these things I would think might be helpful from day1 as part of 'general information gathering'. Hence I continue to be surprised that this hasn't been done previously. Either LE didn't think there could possibly be anything of value on the phone (why not check, just to be sure though...)... OR... something recent has spurred them to think it worthwhile to check the local storage of the phone (and to re-examine personal addressbooks, etc)

The phone was locked, stated many times. I don't see the difficulty in understanding this.

 

[raisincharlie]

So you're saying they took the phone with or without a SW the first time? And they've had it all this time and just now want to look into it?

Brad gave them the phone and address books. Please read the warrant - it is spelled out.

 

[mahmoo]

I guess what is questionable, in my mind, is that a search warrant to unlock the phone wasn't issued and executed until over two months after the murder. Seems to me, since he voluntarily handed the phone over to LE (without a search warrant) they would have been free to do as they pleased with it at that point. And as far as the phone's evidentiary value..........I would think it would be close to the top of LE's list of items to investigate .

 

[raisincharlie]

I understand a warrant to make arrangements to unlock a locked phone. [ I don't understand why they wouldn't have obtained such a warrant from day-1 (given post above with all the potentially of-value stuff that could be found there, just to be thorough, but I can understand the need for a separate warrant ]

I still don't understand why they need a warrant to "seize" the "data" inside a non-phone address book that they already have? A warrant is needed to actually open a book?

Without Brad standing there giving them permission - yes a warrant is necessary.

 

[jumpstreet]

Brad gave them the phone and address books. Please read the warrant - it is spelled out.

Forget the phone for now. Why are the non-phone address books (that we're thinking LE already has in their possession) included in the second warrant?

 

[jumpstreet]

I guess what is questionable, in my mind, is that a search warrant to unlock the phone wasn't issued and executed until over two months after the murder. Seems to me, since he voluntarily handed the phone over to LE (without a search warrant) they would have been free to do as they pleased with it at that point. And as far as the phone's evidentiary value..........I would think it would be close to the top of LE's list of items to investigate .

Bingo!

 

[raisincharlie]

I guess what is questionable, in my mind, is that a search warrant to unlock the phone wasn't issued and executed until over two months after the murder. Seems to me, since he voluntarily handed the phone over to LE (without a search warrant) they would have been free to do as they pleased with it at that point. And as far as the phone's evidentiary value..........I would think it would be close to the top of LE's list of items to investigate .

Mahmoo - do you think there is a video on the phone of the murder ? Short of that, what could be on the phone or in the address books that would say who murdered Nancy ? The phone portion would be known from the records subpeona'd why bother with the internal log when one has a print out and is working from it ? Most text messages are maintained by the provider for two weeks - please tell me why LE would need to waste time on the phone when they would have a print out of activity in hand ?