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

[Just the Fax]

You think they are going to take this to the GJ before 2009? I had stopped looking at the GJ schedule altogether.

Knowing this same DA has sat on the Michelle Young case for 23 months, I will be shocked if BC is indicted anytime soon.

 

[mahmoo]

Knowing this same DA has sat on the Michelle Young case for 23 months, I will be shocked if BC is indicted anytime soon.

Good point.

 

[jumpstreet]

Knowing this same DA has sat on the Michelle Young case for 23 months, I will be shocked if BC is indicted anytime soon.

That, and (1) the fact that we now know the FBI is involved in the investigation, that (2) CPD as of just last week were investigating (what in my mind is likely a new thread tied to) the internal messages/contacts on NC's mobile phone and personal address books, and finally of course, (3) that the forensic stuff may very be be in the "oven", all combine I think to say we should likely be surprised to see any indictment before summer 2009 if not later.

That is, of course, unless someone (new or familiar) cracks under good-cop/bad-copy pressure down at the CPS.

No worries though, the custody judge is scheduled to tell us next week whether BC did it or not! Cool, huh?

 

[Anderson]

That, and (1) the fact that we now know the FBI is involved in the investigation, that (2) CPD as of just last week were investigating (what in my mind is likely a new thread tied to) the internal messages/contacts on NC's mobile phone and personal address books, and finally of course, (3) that the forensic stuff may very be be in the "oven", all combine I think to say we should likely be surprised to see any indictment before summer 2009 if not later.

That is, of course, unless someone (new or familiar) cracks under good-cop/bad-copy pressure down at the CPS.

No worries though, the custody judge is scheduled to tell us next week whether BC did it or not! Cool, huh?

Hi JS,

Did you see the media article posted by Jess today (in legal docs) that suggests that the investigation is related to uncovering information that NC had kept private related to the divorce proceedings? It is possible that one of her family members or friends told LE that this information was on her cell. I seem to remember an affidavit (I will have to check) that suggested that NC kept notes related to the separation, but I could be wrong.

Hard to know for sure what they are looking at . . .

 

[mahmoo]

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.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Knowing this same DA has sat on the Michelle Young case for 23 months, I will be shocked if BC is indicted anytime soon.

Part of me wonders if this DA is (secretly) hoping to complete his term without having to deal with any of these particular murder cases. JTF: have you checked DA Wiloughby's pulse this week to determine if he is still conscious?

 

[SleuthyGal]

That is, of course, unless someone (new or familiar) cracks under good-cop/bad-cop pressure down at the CPS.

Always telling the truth will allow one to never have to 'crack' (unless it's their own knuckles).

No worries though, the custody judge is scheduled to tell us next week whether BC did it or not! Cool, huh?

Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with a family court/custody judge making such a determination. I can't really articulate why right now, other than to say it doesn't 'feel' right even if there is legal precedent. I'll have to think about it some more, but on the surface I don't like this direction.

 

[momto3kids]

I really wonder where NC wedding set was found.
I didn't see it listed as on the ME report so I don't think they were on her hand.
No, I dont' think she was mugged and robbed. If she was they left 1 diamond stud behind.

Did she take them off when they were in the hate mode?
Did she wear them Friday nite to the BBQ?
Did she jog in them normally?
Did she sleep in them usually?

Really this could answer a timing issue for her murder. If the set was in the home when the search was done and she NEVER ran without them, had them on Friday nite...she was murdered in her home. Just another piece that confirms she never left to go jogging.

 

[mahmoo]

Interesting that you mention jewelry again mom.......I'm hung up on the "glass" earring, as the autopsy report described it. I started going back over all the pictures of NC that we have access to......I see what I think is the earrings they refer to in the autopsy. I know you can buy set after set of glass earrings and that's all you ever wear but......it seems like the closer I look at all the pictures....that's all she ever had on. Woman ends up dead.....murdered.......and the ME mentions she has only one of the earrings on. Makes me ask questions.

Guess I'll add this too.......since I'm critiquing my own post (wink, wink)......Odds are real high (and I know ya'll ladies will agree with me) that she didn't get ready to run that morning and put in her diamond earrings before she left........not logical.

 

[Jess]

Always telling the truth will allow one to never have to 'crack' (unless it's their own knuckles).



Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with a family court/custody judge making such a determination. I can't really articulate why right now, other than to say it doesn't 'feel' right even if there is legal precedent. I'll have to think about it some more, but on the surface I don't like this direction.

The custody battle, and it is a battle, is tearing at my heart . I just feel sick at the thought of those little girls' lives been torn apart again. I would like to think that LE and the DA would have enough to at least name Brad as a suspect before the court date, but I don't think that is going to happen. legal precedent--- has anyone found one in NC ??

 

[jumpstreet]

Hi JS,

Did you see the media article posted by Jess today (in legal docs) that suggests that the investigation is related to uncovering information that NC had kept private related to the divorce proceedings? It is possible that one of her family members or friends told LE that this information was on her cell. I seem to remember an affidavit (I will have to check) that suggested that NC kept notes related to the separation, but I could be wrong.

Hard to know for sure what they are looking at . . .

Thanks Anderson - that article posted by Jess I think was just a Canadian (Edmonton) derivative of the original in the Raleigh paper. I think the SW states LE was led to believe that the phone was kept locked by NC due to the pending divorce settlement. That definitely doesn't imply (to me) that the information they were seeking (on the locked phone) was tied to the pending divorce. [ Maybe so, or maybe not ]

It was the reason given for why she was believed to have locked the phone... but to me doesn't necessarily imply anything about the type of info they're looking for on the locked phone.

 

[mahmoo]

The custody battle, and it is a battle, is tearing at my heart . I just feel sick at the thought of those little girls' lives been torn apart again.

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.

 

[Jess]

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.

Or is she staying to help take care of the girls if they are returned ?

 

[jumpstreet]

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 .

Agreed - I posted this query before also mahmoo! Wouldn't LE have done a good (or at least basic) examination of the phone's contents (text-messages, contacts, etc) just as part of normal investigation in order to be thorough, and to "leave no stone unturned"? Sure, the phone company records would show incoming and outgoing calls, but what about unanswered call attempts (that's stored locally on the phone). What about those text messages, photos (if the phone allows you to take pictures), contact info, etc - all that possibility a wealth of information related to someone recently discovered deceased (just to get a sense of their recent behaviors/activities/interactions). I find it surprising if it's true this wasn't done initially, as a matter of course.

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.

It's a good thought. Maybe you're right, and they did do a thorough examination of the phone when they obtained it as part of the initial search (somehow got it unlocked without a SW, or it wasn't locked when they first retrieve it). I guess that's one possibility.

The alternative of course is that they didn't feel it necessary (For whatever reason) to dig 'under the surface' of the phone to find out what information might be locally stored.

If it is just a 'follow-up' to see what alterations BC may have made to the phone since the initial search, I wonder if they're trying to do the same thing with the SW for her personal address books [ie, seeing if he has ripped out any pages, or used white-out maybe to make some alterations - possibly drawn funky derogatory pictures next to anyone's name who submits an affidavit for the plaintiffs in the custody hearing. ]

Seriously, I suppose it's hard to tell based on what we (don't) know. To me, I'm surprised they didn't do an initial "below the surface" search of the phone. If they didn't, that's surprising. If they are doing so now, then my guess is they've been made aware of something that makes them think they might find something here that will help them come closer to solving who killed NC... I guess another theory would be that they're doing it to remove trial ammunition from BC's defense (e.g. K&B to LE-on-the-stand: "Did you even bother to check her log of text messages, etc on the phone at any time during the investigation... did you even bother to investigation who she might have been having relations with, etc...")

Hopefully time will tell.

 

[mahmoo]

Or is she staying to help take care of the girls if they are returned ?

Gosh......I hope not. She may be a sweet lady but I don't think it's in the girls' best interest......especially long term.

 

[jumpstreet]

Always telling the truth will allow one to never have to 'crack' (unless it's their own knuckles).

Agreed - if we believe MH though, seems that LE is at least willing to try to see if everyone in this particular saga has been 100% truthful by way of a few Q&A's under the bright light down at headquarters...

Frankly, I'm uncomfortable with a family court/custody judge making such a determination. I can't really articulate why right now, other than to say it doesn't 'feel' right even if there is legal precedent. I'll have to think about it some more, but on the surface I don't like this direction.

Yeah, of course I was only semi-joking early when I posted earlier that us sleuthers could take encouragement that 1 week from today, we're scheduled to be told by the custody judge whether BC did it or not, and knowing that piece of the puzzle would of course greatly reduce scope of our investigation...

Indeed, it seems highly unlikely that 1 week from today, with all the stuff that needs to be sorted/sifted through, that the custody judge will actually be able to 'bottom-out' the task at hand, so don't be surprised at a continuance of some sort. [ Or - maybe they'll start some of the proceedings, but not complete it - who knows ]

Even if they do "continue" it with another temporary custody arrangement - it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the custody hearing will need to come to a final head at some point before an indictment is returned. In which case, your discomfort may indeed ultimately be well founded, depending on what custody decision is made.

 

[mahmoo]

Yeah, while I posted earlier that us sleuthers could take encouragement that 1 week from today, we're scheduled to be told by the custody judge whether BC did it or not. Knowing that piece of the puzzle may greatly reduce scope of our investigation...

This custody judge is in a hell of a predicament.

 

[Anderson]

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.

After reading Jim Lister's affidavit, I hope that BC's Mom does not end up as one of the primary care givers for the kids. JL's testimony also matches things that were said by NC's friends, although they had heard their information through NC. This has now been corroborated with first hand information from JL.

 

[mahmoo]

Whether NC exxagerated stories or not......it sounds to me like, from the affidavits, she told a consistent story. I don't get the impression her family spent a whole lot of time around the friends and neighbors before they WERE ALL UNEXPECTEDLY thrown into this situation......it wasn't like her friends, neighbors, family or acquaintenances had TIME to correlate their "stories".

 

[SleuthyGal]

I know, Jess. I worry about the kids too. NO ONE on either side of the equation wants these kids to suffer in any way. I don't like that they're separated from their father even though they are doing well with their maternal family in Canada. But this is a temporary situation, there will be no winners regardless of what happens, and their mother remains dead. :frown: