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

[ncnative]

Wow, Mom. I just read your post above. YOUR child was assaulted by an adult? That's what I'm thinking you mean. Oh my. I'm sorry to hear that. Just wanted to say.

 

[jmflu]

AND, there are so many darned divisions, now, on this Nancy Cooper page, that it is getting difficult to go back and find what I need to. I hope there aren't too many more separate thread divisions.

Just ask someone where to find what you're seeking. I am very impressed with the memory of some of the posters! And they will research it if they don't remember it off the top of their head! Pretty darn impressive!

 

[SleuthyGal]

AND, there are so many darned divisions, now, on this Nancy Cooper page, that it is getting difficult to go back and find what I need to. I hope there aren't too many more separate thread divisions.

have you seen the Caylee thread? The Cooper thread is NOTHING in comparison.

 

[jilly]

I had a child at the age of 9 assaulted by an adult. The adult was arrested immediately, handcuffed and taken to jail.

The Asst DA we had supposedly wasn't a rookie. We hired a private attorney (who was a prior judge) in case they got off the criminal charges so we could file in civil court.

Having 2 families with children involved we could not ever meet with them and it got extended 3x. It was such a nuisance. Our attorney told us this was a tactic by the defense side to wear us down.

As for the DA? Nothing. He would never agree to meet for us to express our fustration with all this and review the case.

Sure it wasn't a big case at all. But 3 minutes before the case to turn around and ask me to come sit next to them and give a synopsis of what occured?

That's not very professional. Unfortunately, from what I've heard, it's common. Some of these prosecutors have too much of a caseload. Your Asst DA wasn't Tom Ford was it? Reading the Deadly Dose, I certainly have an opinion with respect to him.

It's too bad that you had to go through that and I especially feel sorry for your son. So was this adult convicted? And what did he get?

 

[jumpstreet]

WRAL article related to the MH affidavit...

...
Cooper was scheduled Thursday to give a deposition to the Rentzes' attorneys, who will be able to ask him anything that relates to his fitness as a parent, including whether he played a role in his wife's death.
...
Cooper must answer the questions or be held in contempt of court. He does have an option, however to invoke his Fifth Amendment right on any question that might incriminate him.

 

[jmflu]

WRAL article related to the MH affidavit...

...
Cooper was scheduled Thursday to give a deposition to the Rentzes' attorneys, who will be able to ask him anything that relates to his fitness as a parent, including whether he played a role in his wife's death.
...
Cooper must answer the questions or be held in contempt of court. He does have an option, however to invoke his Fifth Amendment right on any question that might incriminate him.

Hey Jump... thanks for the post...

 

[raisincharlie]

WRAL article related to the MH affidavit...

...
Cooper was scheduled Thursday to give a deposition to the Rentzes' attorneys, who will be able to ask him anything that relates to his fitness as a parent, including whether he played a role in his wife's death.
...
Cooper must answer the questions or be held in contempt of court. He does have an option, however to invoke his Fifth Amendment right on any question that might incriminate him.

K & B and the Cary PD can't be very happy with Mr. Hiller letting out that tidbit concerning LE questioning the usage of Nancy's cell phone on the day she went missing. uh oh :crazy:

 

[jmflu]

K & B and the Cary PD can't be very happy with Mr. Hiller letting out that tidbit concerning LE questioning the usage of Nancy's cell phone on the day she went missing. uh oh :crazy:

And I can't imagine they're too happy if he LIED about being coerced...

 

[raisincharlie]

And I can't imagine they're too happy if he LIED about being coerced...

The good thing, since the last interview was conducted at the PD offices, it will be recorded. The answer is known. To be fair however, it can't be pleasant to be drug into a murder investigation in which LE is asking you if you happened to have used the victim's cell phone. It wasn't a pleasant meeting for Mr. Hiller on any level I suspect.

 

[jumpstreet]

K & B and the Cary PD can't be very happy with Mr. Hiller letting out that tidbit concerning LE questioning the usage of Nancy's cell phone on the day she went missing. uh oh :crazy:

Wouldn't K&B have had the chance to review MH's amended affidavit before submitting it as evidence for the custody hearing?

I assume the CPD aren't happy with the public getting a glimpse of where the investigation stands as of 4 weeks ago. It brings up a side question, when the police are doing an investigation, asking certain "key" questions of folks... are those folks free afterwards to discuss/share the line of questioning as they see fit (with their spouse/friends/neighbors/co-workers/media/etc)?

I imagine the police may (or may not) ask, as a courtesy, that folks who are asked specific questions, to not disclose the line of questioning in the "interest of the investigation". Still though, nothing is preventing even some of the neighbors in this case from discussing with the media, specific (maybe even pointed) questions that CPD have asked them (even recently) related to the investigation.

I assume (non-arrested) folks are free to share/discuss whatever they want (a la freedom of speech) related to what questions the police asked them. Is this true, or, are they precluded from doing so to some extent under an "obstruction of justice" umbrella? [ i.e. Might MH's affidavit fall under 'obstruction of justice' in a way, since if nothing else, he is "tipping LE's hand" a bit, so to speak, as surely LE would not have otherwise volunteered (to the general public no less) the fact that they were questioning MH along these lines]

 

[jmflu]

The good thing, since the last interview was conducted at the PD offices, it will be recorded. The answer is known. To be fair however, it can't be pleasant to be drug into a murder investigation in which LE is asking you if you happened to have used the victim's cell phone. It wasn't a pleasant meeting for Mr. Hiller on any level I suspect.

Where did they get HIM from, though? Do you think BC told them that is who he was going to play tennis with, so they brought him in? But why ask about the cell phone? Do you think they found unidentified prints on her phone? Or perhaps they were able to ping the call close to his home?

 

[momto3kids]

The good thing, since the last interview was conducted at the PD offices, it will be recorded. The answer is known. To be fair however, it can't be pleasant to be drug into a murder investigation in which LE is asking you if you happened to have used the victim's cell phone. It wasn't a pleasant meeting for Mr. Hiller on any level I suspect.

With the CPD being so tight lipped, is there not something the LE can do pertaining to anyone questioned can't come out and release the information?
This tidbit now shows where the LE is headed and most likely any of BC's friends are now given a 'heads up' with this just in case they are called in.

As far as I know Cary hasn't dealt with a case of this magnitude/high profile since I have lived here. Murders yes, but not many... Are there some errors being made or is there no way around what is occuring? Is the custody case before the criminal case causing this info to come out? IDK

 

[momto3kids]

Wouldn't K&B have had the chance to review MH's amended affidavit before submitting it as evidence for the custody hearing?

I assume the CPD aren't happy with the public getting a glimpse of where the investigation stands as of 4 weeks ago. It brings up a side question, when the police are doing an investigation, asking certain "key" questions of folks... are those folks free afterwards to discuss/share the line of questioning as they see fit (with their spouse/friends/neighbors/co-workers/media/etc)?

I imagine the police may (or may not) ask, as a courtesy, that folks who are asked specific questions, to not disclose the line of questioning in the "interest of the investigation". Still though, nothing is preventing even some of the neighbors in this case from discussing with the media, specific (maybe even pointed) questions that CPD have asked them (even recently) related to the investigation.

I assume (non-arrested) folks are free to share/discuss whatever they want (a la freedom of speech) related to what questions the police asked them. Is this true, or, are they precluded from doing so to some extent under an "obstruction of justice" umbrella? [ i.e. Might MH's affidavit fall under 'obstruction of justice' in a way, since if nothing else, he is "tipping LE's hand" a bit, so to speak, as surely LE would not have otherwise volunteered (to the general public no less) the fact that they were questioning MH along these lines]

I basically just asked the same thing you did.
I wonder if they are doing this since the Judge on the custody case says she is going to decide if BC was involved with the murder of NC. I wonder if they are all going to talk now about the LE because they support BC and need to do this for the custody case.

In other words...are they trying to show the CPD is fishing? IDK

 

[jumpstreet]

With the CPD being so tight lipped, is there not something the LE can do pertaining to anyone questioned can't come out and release the information?

Yeah, it's my same general question in the above post.

Is the custody case before the criminal case causing this info to come out? IDK

It's a good point - under "normal" circumstances, MH may would have been free to share with friends/neighbors/etc what he was being questioned about. However, the custody hearing (and collection of associated affidavits) is providing a public forum (since the custody affidavits are "public record") where this info can come out to a much broader audience (news media, etc).

Indeed, I think the custody judge opened the door when she put the question of murder squarely 'on the table' in the custody hearing.

I wouldn't be surprised if CPD/DA are 'scrambling' a bit now to see how some form of a 'lid' can be put on further affidavits submitted in the custody hearing from becoming public knowledge, lest they interfere with the investigation, and/or a fair trail situation. Interesting stuff.

 

[gritguy]

Well, we don't know all the evidence LE has in the Cooper case - in fact, since 6-9 months haven't passed (reported typical amount of time to allow for the forensic processing believe it or not), they may still very well be waiting on forensics. The FBI involvement implies there may be some additional (specialized) forensic work being necessitated, so who knows how long that typically takes (12 months? More?).

What we do now (if we believe MH) is that as recent as a few weeks ago, they were focused on finding an explanation for phone call form NC's mobile phone to BC's mobile phone at some point on that Saturday.

Point is, LE may very well have (or will be getting) far more evidence in the NC case they they have in the MY case - we just don't have visibility to that. [ In the MY case, apparently it is a "known" that the initial forensics are indeed back from that 2+ year old case, so where they are is where they are... that's not necessarily the case yet with NC... ]

Agree totally and I hope you're right that that happens. I also hope that having sufficient evidence will actually spur the DA's office to try the case.

 

[raisincharlie]

Where did they get HIM from, though? Do you think BC told them that is who he was going to play tennis with, so they brought him in? But why ask about the cell phone? Do you think they found unidentified prints on her phone? Or perhaps they were able to ping the call close to his home?

I would guess, based on Mr. Hiller's affidavit that BC did identify him to LE. Mr. Hiller can't seem to remember if he first spoke with LE via telelphone on Saturday or Sunday of the weekend Nancy disappeared. So my assumption would be that BC told LE about him.

I don't know why LE would have brought him in to ask about his possible use of Nancy's phone. Could be any number of reasons and a guess would just be a guess. I would venture however that perhaps LE has also asked him where he was and who besides himself could verify his whereabouts at certain times. By now lots of interviews have been done, who knows what LE learned from those.

As to the cell pings - I'm pretty sure that Just the Fax searched out that there is one tower in the area, seems likely Mr. Hillers location may also ping the same tower from his house as from the Cooper house if I understand the description of his location correctly.

 

[raisincharlie]

With the CPD being so tight lipped, is there not something the LE can do pertaining to anyone questioned can't come out and release the information?
This tidbit now shows where the LE is headed and most likely any of BC's friends are now given a 'heads up' with this just in case they are called in.

As far as I know Cary hasn't dealt with a case of this magnitude/high profile since I have lived here. Murders yes, but not many... Are there some errors being made or is there no way around what is occuring? Is the custody case before the criminal case causing this info to come out? IDK

LE can't stop people from talking. They can tell them the importance of not discussing something but it is up to the person to decide how they wish to deal with it. Obviously some talk, some don't. One more thing LE has to waltz around - the heads up factor.

 

[jumpstreet]

LE can't stop people from talking. They can tell them the importance of not discussing something but it is up to the person to decide how they wish to deal with it. Obviously some talk, some don't. One more thing LE has to waltz around - the heads up factor.

Seems that in this case, with information pertaining to the murder investigation suddenly 'on the table' in the custody hearing... that adds a new dynamic to the "waltzing" they (LE) may need to end up doing. Perhaps even to the detriment of the investigation.

[ If not for the custody hearing - no way the public at large would likely know this latest piece of info ]

 

[raisincharlie]

Seems that in this case, with information pertaining to the murder trial suddenly 'on the table' in the custody hearing... that adds a new dynamic to the "waltzing" they (LE) may need to end up doing. Perhaps even to the detriment of the investigation.

[ If not for the custody hearing - no way the public at large would likely know this latest piece of info ]

What murder trial ?

Nancy's murder has been on the table since the day the Ex Parte was undertaken. Although the Rentz's didn't come right out and say it, if you recall K & B had a fit about it. K & B drew attention and had big words for the "insinuation" made in the Ex Parte. No one's fault but their own.

I don't agree that no one would have known about Hiller being taken in and asked about the phone - seems to me he likes to talk - even to the press.

 

[jumpstreet]

What murder trial ?

Thanks - fixed my post to read "murder investigation"... You knew what i meant though, right?

Nancy's murder has been on the table since the day the Ex Parte was undertaken. Although the Rentz's didn't come right out and say it, if you recall K & B had a fit about it. K & B drew attention and had big words for the "insinuation" made in the Ex Parte. No one's fault but their own.

Yeah, but up until the custody judge's statement explicitly including it, many felt the information related to the murder investigation (in the affidavits - BC's especially) had no place in a custody hearing. That might have been a fair point prior to the judge's statements... but no longer.

I don't agree that no one would have known about Hiller being taken in and asked about the phone - seems to me he likes to talk - even to the press.

Hmmm... hard to say. Regardless, I just wonder if MH's affidavit is "only the beginning" of the type of (murder investigation) information that might be put out there for the custody hearing (even from folks - friends/neighbors/etc who wouldn't have otherwise "neede to talk" at all...)

Guess we'll see...