Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #9

[Just the Fax]

Yes, the key words being "when a body is exposed outside." If someone is killed but the body is not exposed where blowflys can be attracted to it for a couple hours, you wouldn't get blowfly activity immediately. So the blowflies don't give you a precise TOD...it gives you a good estimate of how long a body was exposed and AVAILABLE for the blowflys to discover it and start laying eggs, multiplying, etc.

Hopefully the M.E. will be able to determine TOD from other factors if not the bug activity.

Sorry, you missed the addition to my post where I gave you credit for killing her inside......

 

[SleuthyGal]

You might re-think that. Scott moved Laci from their home to a warehouse early in the morning. How far and at what time of the day did Scott Peterson haul Laci's body to dump her in the bay ? Something like 90 plus miles between 11 am and 1230 pm. Then a ride in a boat out into the bay to dump her.

No one noticed a thing.

Slightly different scenario because Scott had her covered up in the back of his pickup truck with big patio umbrellas and tarps and then she was (likely) put in the boat and covered when he was inside his warehouse (deserted on that day) as he was driving to the bay. He was out there on Dec 24th in cold weather, and there were only 1 or 2 other cars at the Berkeley Marina that morning...the Berkeley Marina was mostly deserted. Plus the SF Bay is HUGE, VAST. I used to live in SF before moving to NC (how ironic to have 2 big murder cases in each of my 'home' towns like that). It would be fairly easy to avoid detection once you're out on the water in cold/foggy weather. Visibility is not unlimited. He was in a small boat on a huge bay. And obviously we know he did avoid detection since no one saw him dump the body and we know she was in that bay.

But it's not inconceivable that Brad Cooper also dumped his wife's body in the subdivision in daylight hours (or at the breaking of dawn). I believe he did it well before 7am though.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Sorry, you missed the addition to my post where I gave you credit for killing her inside......

Yes I did miss your edit. Well I can't wait to see what the M.E. has to say and if they are able to narrow down a TOD or not.

 

[raisincharlie]

Slightly different scenario because Scott had her covered up in the back of his pickup truck with big patio umbrellas and tarps and then she was (likely) put in the boat and covered as he was driving to the bay. He was out there on Dec 24th in cold weather, and there were only 1 or 2 other cars at the Berkeley Marina that morning...it was mostly deserted. Plus the SF Bay is HUGE, VAST. I used to live in SF before moving to NC (how ironic to have 2 big murder cases in each of my 'home' towns like that). It would be fairly easy to avoid detection once you're out on the water in cold/foggy weather. Visibility is not unlimited. He was in a small boat on a huge bay. And obviously we know he did avoid detection since no one saw him dump the body and we know she was in that bay.

But it's not inconceivable that Brad Cooper also dumped his wife's body in the subdivision in daylight hours (or at the breaking of dawn). I believe he did it well before 7am though.

Given he has access to a garage, an SUV with tinted windows and a location such as this:

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s198/Mahmooinla/Nancy Cooper/NCbodylocation.jpg

(Thanks mahmoo)

It is quite easy to imagine the possibility of accomplishing the task.

 

[panthera]

You might re-think that. Scott moved Laci from their home to a warehouse early in the morning. How far and at what time of the day did Scott Peterson haul Laci's body to dump her in the bay ? Something like 90 plus miles between 11 am and 1230 pm. Then a ride in a boat out into the bay to dump her.

No one noticed a thing.

I was thinking of people being out jogging and doing things on Saturday morning. You're right though about Scott Peterson on Christmas Eve at the San Francisco Bay!

 

[Just the Fax]

Yes I did miss your edit. Well I can't wait to see what the M.E. has to say and if they are able to narrow down a TOD or not.

I can tell you from reading numerous reports done in NC, the autopsy report will not show an estimated TOD....they will tell the cops their opinion and it will come up at trial, but I have never seen it written an an autopsy done by the NCME

 

[jerzeegirl]

just got done reading brads affidavit, and omg i cant believe im gonna say this (cuz all along ive thought he killed Nancy), but i believe him, or i think i do. If everything in that sworn affidavit is true and can be verified, i believe he didnt kill nancy. I had tears reading it. But i can totally understand people including myself, thinking he killed her. OMG, im so torn on this, he answered just about all the questions i had in that affidavit. And i dont think he would have stated those things if they could be proven wrong. Or would he?

im so confused, obviously.

 

[Just the Fax]

just got done reading brads affidavit, and omg i cant believe im gonna say this (cuz all along ive thought he killed Nancy), but i believe him, or i think i do. If everything in that sworn affidavit is true and can be verified, i believe he didnt kill nancy. I had tears reading it. But i can totally understand people including myself, thinking he killed her. OMG, im so torn on this, he answered just about all the questions i had in that affidavit. And i dont think he would have stated those things if they could be proven wrong. Or would he?

im so confused, obviously.

That is the point jerzee....sympathy for Brad courtesy of his attorney.
Don't take the bait.

 

[Onescout]

Just as an observer from the outside, Brad's 2 statements in the affadavit bother me.
One being that Nancy was a big spender, wanted expensive jewelry etc...yet any photo I see of her, she barely has any jewelry on and she wears very casual clothes.
He also makes the claim that she called him while he was out on the morning in question to get juice...anyone who has been in a hostile end of the marriage environment doesn't have those "Hey hon can you get some juice?" kind of phone calls. This was merely to set up alibi.
He and his mouthpiece are attempting to paint a picture and it really isn't consistent with the steadfast claims of others.
As it always is with his "type", he is trying to control perception and history of the marriage.
He is certainly not spending one second on finding the killer of his children's mother, is he?
Has there been one mention from his counsel that they are offering a reward or persuing a private investigation? I truly don't recall such actions.

 

[raisincharlie]

Just as an observer from the outside, Brad's 2 statements in the affadavit bother me.
One being that Nancy was a big spender, wanted expensive jewelry etc...yet any photo I see of her, she barely has any jewelry on and she wears very casual clothes.
He also makes the claim that she called him while he was out on the morning in question to get juice...anyone who has been in a hostile end of the marriage environment doesn't have those "Hey hon can you get some juice?" kind of phone calls. This was merely to set up alibi.
He and his mouthpiece are attempting to paint a picture and it really isn't consistent with the steadfast claims of others.
As it always is with his "type", he is trying to control perception and history of the marriage.
He is certainly not spending one second on finding the killer of his children's mother, is he?
Has there been one mention from his counsel that they are offering a reward or persuing a private investigation? I truly don't recall such actions.

I think he may be spending more time perusing crime forums to make sure he has answers to cover all the bases...:crazy:

 

[Just the Fax]

Just as an observer from the outside, Brad's 2 statements in the affadavit bother me.
One being that Nancy was a big spender, wanted expensive jewelry etc...yet any photo I see of her, she barely has any jewelry on and she wears very casual clothes.
He also makes the claim that she called him while he was out on the morning in question to get juice...anyone who has been in a hostile end of the marriage environment doesn't have those "Hey hon can you get some juice?" kind of phone calls. This was merely to set up alibi.
He and his mouthpiece are attempting to paint a picture and it really isn't consistent with the steadfast claims of others.
As it always is with his "type", he is trying to control perception and history of the marriage.
He is certainly not spending one second on finding the killer of his children's mother, is he?
Has there been one mention from his counsel that they are offering a reward or persuing a private investigation? I truly don't recall such actions.

Yes, a mother is murdered and dumped and now Brad and mr blum are focusing all their attention on lies and spin......The cops are certain there is no random killer out there.

Nobody in Cary is the least bit afraid....wonder why :waitasec:

If there was a 1% chance it was not Brad, the cops would be obligated to inform the public of a possible "runner killer" on the lose.

 

[Onescout]

I think he may be spending more time perusing crime forums to make sure he has answers to cover all the bases...:crazy:

True that , RC.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Well he will get NAILED in the end. His behaviors are inconsistent and he can't go back and redo the crime. He's NOT the perfect murderer and this WASN'T the perfect crime. Within just 90 min Nancy's friend was worried and was calling to inquire about her whereabouts. That was not something BC was expecting. It forced him into a specific story right then and there. He can't deviate from it ("oh well I thought she left to go running but now I think she might have gone....") So he's locked in. And he's the only one who saw her after the party. So the time line is locked down too. And Nancy had made plans to see the friend at 8am...again...BC can't say that wasn't true. He probably didn't know of her plans and the exact time.

And what a coinky dink he just happens to live in one of the safest communities in the entire country. And he just happened to be going through a separation and it just so happened that MANY friends knew Brad treated Nancy terribly and that this separation was very contentious.

NONE of those things can be changed. Things that were overheard. Things that others were witness to. Things that Nancy told others and her friends and family. They are all consistent.

And now Nancy has been murdered and nothing can undo that.

And all Brad can do is sit and marinate in every little step he took and every little thing he did or didn't do and wait...wait for the facts to emerge.

 

[Celt]

Just as an observer from the outside, Brad's 2 statements in the affadavit bother me.
One being that Nancy was a big spender, wanted expensive jewelry etc...yet any photo I see of her, she barely has any jewelry on and she wears very casual clothes.
I agree and also he says Nancy liked to buy $8000 paintings..well in the property settlement HE gets 9 paintings and she gets 7~so HE must like them himself

 

[Magister]

166- Went to HT to buy milk at 6:15
That was on the way home from dumping her body...he had to have a reason to be out if someone saw his car leave the house.

**Thinking some more, he also left his cell phone hidden near the HT

167- He drove home at 6:30

168/169- From the home phone, he then called his cell phone he left near HT at 6:40 so it appeared Nancy actually called. (set to automatic answer after 3 rings...easy and he was a phone engineer )

170- Nancy left for a jog That is a lie. He dumped her dead body around 6 am and went to the HT on the way back at 6:15

As someone else has essentially said, there's a timestamp on Harris-Teeter's video, the cash registers and both phones; If he's on video receiving a call and if the call originated from the house, then someone (or something) called from the house. And, if he's seen making an outgoing call, then he'd be caught and if his back is turned to the camera, there'd be a question.

The video timestamp probably isn't set by the atomic clock, but it's close enough for court and I'm sure that LE has noted the difference.

 

[raisincharlie]

Just as an observer from the outside, Brad's 2 statements in the affadavit bother me.
One being that Nancy was a big spender, wanted expensive jewelry etc...yet any photo I see of her, she barely has any jewelry on and she wears very casual clothes.
I agree and also he says Nancy liked to buy $8000 paintings..well in the property settlement HE gets 9 paintings and she gets 7~so HE must like them himself

Plus he gets the huge tv :crazy: Shhhhh, you weren't suppose to notice those things. Kinda like Brad saying none of Nancy's friends knew Carrie's last name but yet Carrie's last name is referenced by Jessica Adam in her affidavit.


Shhhhhh

ETA - saturdays were also "Mommy's day off" so I guess Brad was gonna haul those babies over to the tennis courts. At least it wasn't golf...

 

[Magister]

Kinda like Brad saying none of Nancy's friends knew Carrie's last name but yet Carrie's last name is referenced by Jessica Adam in her affidavit.

In all of the early media, Brad's questions about Carrie were mentioned and the fact that Jessica didn't know how to get in touch with her has been discussed. On this board, it was even speculated that Carrie might not exist.

 

[raisincharlie]

just got done reading brads affidavit, and omg i cant believe im gonna say this (cuz all along ive thought he killed Nancy), but i believe him, or i think i do. If everything in that sworn affidavit is true and can be verified, i believe he didnt kill nancy. I had tears reading it. But i can totally understand people including myself, thinking he killed her. OMG, im so torn on this, he answered just about all the questions i had in that affidavit. And i dont think he would have stated those things if they could be proven wrong. Or would he?

im so confused, obviously.

Before you get overwhelmed with sorrow for Brad - read these statements from numerous people who knew them both well. You will be crying for a totally different reason.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/23/3258895/Plaintiff_affidavits.pdf

 

[fran]

just got done reading brads affidavit, and omg i cant believe im gonna say this (cuz all along ive thought he killed Nancy), but i believe him, or i think i do. If everything in that sworn affidavit is true and can be verified, i believe he didnt kill nancy. I had tears reading it. But i can totally understand people including myself, thinking he killed her. OMG, im so torn on this, he answered just about all the questions i had in that affidavit. And i dont think he would have stated those things if they could be proven wrong. Or would he?

im so confused, obviously.

Hi jerxzeegirl, welcome to Websleuths!

While your contemplating how innocent Brad must be, have you read some of the additional items filed today by Nancy's friends?

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/07/23/3258895/Plaintiff_affidavits.pdf

they have a LOT to say about what type of a person ole Brad was to Nancy. Believe me, it is NOT pretty.

JMHO
fran

 

[Just the Fax]

As someone else has essentially said, there's a timestamp on Harris-Teeter's video, the cash registers and both phones; If he's on video receiving a call and if the call originated from the house, then someone (or something) called from the house. And, if he's seen making an outgoing call, then he'd be caught and if his back is turned to the camera, there'd be a question.

The video timestamp probably isn't set by the atomic clock, but it's close enough for court and I'm sure that LE has noted the difference.

Who said there is a video of him receiving a call ? He said in the affidavit, Nancy called him at 6:40 BEFORE he was in the store to buy the detergent and juice at 6:45
(2.3 miles...5 minute drive)

Like I said, he made the call from the house at 6:40 to his phone hidden at the HT.
He immediately took off to the nearby store, arriving at 6:45 to buy the detergent