New Search Warrant

[Maja]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3863538/



For some reason, I thought I read where the necklace was found in a desk some time ago and that NC's wedding ring was at the jewelers...am I mistaken?

If her ring really was at the jewelers, I wonder if the jeweler testified as to the day it was dropped off and by WHOM...

 

[Maja]

Skittles...

On Sunday, July 13, 208 Brad Cooper advised affiant that a pair of Nancy Cooper's running shoes, which Brad described as dark blue in color 'Saucony' running shoes were missing from a shelf within the laundry room in the residence. Brad advised that he assumed that she had been wearing this pair of running shoes when she exited residence on the morning of Saturday, July 12, 2008. Two (2) shoes for the right foot, which were both 'ASICS' and dark in color, but different styles from each other, were observed at the Cooper residence on August 13, 2008 by affiant in the attached garage on a shelf. These two (2) shoes for the right foot were placed beside each other on the shelf as if they were a pair. Affiant is seeking to locate the matching shoes for the left foot for each respective style of ASICS running shoes.

Boy howdy! Seems BC would have been better suited not even to touch any of NC's running shoes. Who remembers every pair she has anyway?

 

[raisincharlie]

Ed Crump video report:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/index

 

[raisincharlie]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3863538/



For some reason, I thought I read where the necklace was found in a desk some time ago and that NC's wedding ring was at the jewelers...am I mistaken?

If her ring really was at the jewelers, I wonder if the jeweler testified as to the day it was dropped off and by WHOM...

In Brad's October 2 deposition he indicates the diamond pendent is at the residence in a desk. He also indicated that Nancy's engagement ring was at the jewelers but he did not know where the band was.

 

[raisincharlie]

SG - Detective Young has somewhat pinpointed what the inconsistencies are with respect to what Brad told LE he and Nancy did on the 11th and he on the 12th of July. This would be video segments 7 and 8 according to Skittles list. A comparison of the first SW probable cause to the video indicates some of these inconsistencies. I know you wondering about this, it is interesting to go back and look and read. Hmmmmmm

 

[Skittles]

In Brad's October 2 deposition he indicates the diamond pendent is at the residence in a desk. He also indicated that Nancy's engagement ring was at the jewelers but he did not know where the band was.

Are you trying to be funny, RC? You, too, have spent too much time listening to his deposition. Brad sure "indicated" a lot, or at least he said Nancy indicated. One of his favorite words, apparently, along with "handful."

 

[raisincharlie]

Are you trying to be funny, RC? You, too, have spent too much time listening to his deposition. Brad sure "indicated" a lot, or at least he said Nancy indicated. One of his favorite words, apparently, along with "handful."

I have never really mastered the fine arts of humor or sarcasm when pecking away at this keyboard but I did note Brad indicated much but said little.

I have spent a fair amount of time watching the videos, as more information comes to light it is very interesting to go back to certain statements made by the one now jailed. Totally different light shown on some of those statements when equipped with additional information. He was indeed pretty twitching while talking about Nancy's running shoes. :crazy:

Thank you for your notes - extremely helpful :clap:

 

[Maja]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/3709940/

Of all the deposition videos...the beginning of this one where BC looks into the camera and purpose and attitude, spins his wedding band around. It's really creepy to me.

 

[SleuthyGal]

SG - Detective Young has somewhat pinpointed what the inconsistencies are with respect to what Brad told LE he and Nancy did on the 11th and he on the 12th of July. This would be video segments 7 and 8 according to Skittles list. A comparison of the first SW probable cause to the video indicates some of these inconsistencies. I know you wondering about this, it is interesting to go back and look and read. Hmmmmmm

Thanks RC!

 

[ncsu95]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3863538/



For some reason, I thought I read where the necklace was found in a desk some time ago and that NC's wedding ring was at the jewelers...am I mistaken?

If her ring really was at the jewelers, I wonder if the jeweler testified as to the day it was dropped off and by WHOM...

This comment has nothing to do with BC or her murder. I doubt very seriously that NC never took off her necklace. From one of the pictures, you can see that it is a loose necklace (hangs down) with a pretty thin chain. How many women sleep with these type of necklaces on? And shower with it on (like is asserted in the video)? Also, almost all of the pictures in the picture thread do not show her wearing it (one does). I know you need to establish when she got it and when those pictures were taken, but it should be easy to find pictures of her from that the time she got it until July 12th.

 

[ncsu95]

One thing from the probable cause section is the detective had viewed footage from Harris Teeter of two separate visits. I wonder if this rules out a third visit at 4:20 or if they just didn't want to mention three visits in the warrant?

Also, they were looking for Brad's clothing, but none was listed as seized (except for shoes) in the items removed.

I think it pretty much rules it out. They were looking for clothes worn in the 2 videos. If there was a 4:20 visit, those clothes would be of more importance since they would have occurred after dumping the body. So I believe this proves there was not a 4:20 am visit to HT, and only the 2 that have been verified by video posted on K&B.

 

[SleuthyGal]

read the latest SW...JA Young says pictures were produced that showed Nancy wearing that very necklace all throughout that vacation, including when she was swimming.

 

[ncsu95]

Item 19 says - 4 pairs of foot wear.

I wonder if they found the left sides. Guessing this is what was taken.

1 pair of ASICS belonging to NC - Left (found) and Right
1 pair of ASICS belonging to NC - Left (found) and Right
1 pair of shoes belonging to BC - HT trip #1
1 pair of shoes belonging to BC - HT trip #2

It does sound like he found the matching shoes. Also, again, Brad said a pair of Sauconys were missing. I'm sure he knows the difference between Sauconys and Asics.

 

[ncsu95]

read the latest SW...JA Young says pictures were produced that showed Nancy wearing that very necklace all throughout that vacation, including when she was swimming.

I read that. But again, do you honestly believe she would sleep with it on?

 

[piedmont]

I read that. But again, do you honestly believe she would sleep with it on?

Yes, I can see sleeping in a very special necklace that you loved and just always wanted to have on because it made you feel good. I don't think I'd worry too much about it breaking while I wore it to sleep. jmo

 

[ncsu95]

Yes, I can see sleeping in a very special necklace that you loved and just always wanted to have on because it made you feel good. I don't think I'd worry too much about it breaking while I wore it to sleep. jmo

Okay. It would be easy to prove if she didn't since I'm sure there have been many pictures of her taken this year. I wonder when she got the necklace. Was this the one she got last October?

 

[raisincharlie]

One thing from the probable cause section is the detective had viewed footage from Harris Teeter of two separate visits. I wonder if this rules out a third visit at 4:20 or if they just didn't want to mention three visits in the warrant?

Also, they were looking for Brad's clothing, but none was listed as seized (except for shoes) in the items removed.

Skittles I have really been studying on this comment. I'm not sure it rules out for sure an earlier visit to HT but what it does seem to confirm, at least to me, is that LE seems to think the trips to HT were not exactly legitimate in the expressed purpose. The approach seems to be either LE thought he had these clothes on during an altercation or he had them on when he disposed of Nancy's body. It seems to me from reading it 100 times, LE believes Nancy's body was placed at the disposal site either right before 6 am or somewhere between 6 and 7 am. It also suggests, that because LE is wanting to obtain those clothes, that LE does not believe that Nancy made the 6:40 am phone call. Dunno about a 4:20 HT trip and what this wording does or does not say about it.

 

[piedmont]

Okay. It would be easy to prove if she didn't since I'm sure there have been many pictures of her taken this year. I wonder when she got the necklace. Was this the one she got last October?

I believe that's correct. Her friends, or at least one of them, must be pretty certain she always wore it. You're right, there should be tons of pictures to check from last October on, since she had such a social life.

And it could be that she came to wear it constantly as time wore on-could have taken on some kind of meaning for her (or maybe I'm getting carried away!) ha.

 

[ncsu95]

I believe that's correct. Her friends, or at least one of them, must be pretty certain she always wore it. You're right, there should be tons of pictures to check from last October on, since she had such a social life.

And it could be that she came to wear it constantly as time wore on-could have taken on some kind of meaning for her (or maybe I'm getting carried away!) ha.

It's just when someone uses superlatives like "always" and "never", that doesn't leave any room for error. If BC can show 1 single picture and/or video of her not wearing it during the last few months of her life, it makes the statement that she always wore it incorrect, and that testimony meaningless.

 

[raisincharlie]

I believe that's correct. Her friends, or at least one of them, must be pretty certain she always wore it. You're right, there should be tons of pictures to check from last October on, since she had such a social life.

And it could be that she came to wear it constantly as time wore on-could have taken on some kind of meaning for her (or maybe I'm getting carried away!) ha.

I believe that the last paragraph on page 4 of the probable cause section of the warrant specifies that LE did confirm Nancy wore this all the time and during all activities to include sleeping. Not only through friends but from a review of photographs.