Trial Date set and Trial Proceeding Discussion Here

[SleuthyGal]

because of the giant lack of evidence

John, do you realize no evidence has been released in this case yet? Neither the DA nor the Cary police has said one word about what they have on BC. And that's on purpose. They save it all for trial and never talk about it to the public. The reason you think there's no evidence is because you haven't heard it yet. And you won't until the trial starts.

 

[johnfear]

Actually, that's not normally the MO of the Cary Police department or the Wake County set.

They tend to leak it to back off the media via search warrants, etc.

In THIS case, I was saying: Giant lack of evidence = we don't know what's going on because they haven't released it.

However, what has been released is a load of crap for both sides. It basically drags both of them through the gutter in the public eye, but none of it is a really convincing setup for murder. And, let's be honest, they shot a guy with a balled up ski cap (pretending it was a weapon) after three hostages said there was no gun.

 

[Just the Fax]

The question is - will the defense call 200+ witnesses or are they just on the list? I think it may be the latter.

227 defense witnesses :floorlaugh:

 

[SleuthyGal]

227 defense witnesses :floorlaugh:

I think they've subpoenaed everyone's pets in addition to their extended families.

 

[panthera]

227 defense witnesses :floorlaugh:

I know. Can you imagine??? Those poor jurors! :doh:

 

[SleuthyGal]

They're not going to call all those witnesses. It would turn into a 6 month trial.

 

[Just the Fax]

Just out of curiosity, was Michael Sleeman ever looked at for this? He was the guy that raped a real estate agent over in that neck of the woods. I can't remember his timeline. Snagging a jogger doesn't seem to far out of his realm.

Nancy Cooper was not sexually assaulted.
However, the killer did manage to remove her shorts and underwear so it would appear that was the motive for the attack. That little bit of evidence pretty much rules out the random snatch/rape murder theory.

Yep, nobody but Brad had the motive to kill Nancy Cooper.

 

[SleuthyGal]

the killer did manage to remove her shorts and underwear

If she was wearing them in the first place, which we know is in doubt. Also recall she was found not wearing running shoes or socks. How many runners do you know who go 'running' barefoot? I personally know of none. :waitasec:

 

[fran]

They're not going to call all those witnesses. It would turn into a 6 month trial.

IIRCC, Scott Petersons attorney had a long list of potential witnesses. After just a few, he realized he was making a fool of himself and he abruptly said the def rests.

I think he put a lot of those people on the list to keep them out of the courtroom during the trial. JMHO

This should be interesting.

fran

 

[SleuthyGal]

he put a lot of those people on the list to keep them out of the courtroom during the trial.

yeppers.

 

[ncsu95]

Remember, he installed a full enterprise grade Cisco system in his home (see the video link I posted above from the 2008 deposition). Later,at the request of Nancy, he switched it back to a pots VTech. He could have very easily redeployed the Cisco system that AM before the trip to the store.
As late as 10/2010, we also know that is what the cops think he did.

This should be easy to prove. If it was from pots, it would show up in the call records for their provider.

 

[otto]

If she was wearing them in the first place, which we know is in doubt. Also recall she was found not wearing running shoes or socks. How many runners do you know who go 'running' barefoot? I personally know of none. :waitasec:

How many assault victims are found wearing all their clothes?

 

[otto]

Nancy Cooper was not sexually assaulted.
However, the killer did manage to remove her shorts and underwear so it would appear that was the motive for the attack. That little bit of evidence pretty much rules out the random snatch/rape murder theory.

Yep, nobody but Brad had the motive to kill Nancy Cooper.

Is that a hunch, or do you have more information about the evidence that has yet to be presented?

 

[Just the Fax]

Is that a hunch, or do you have more information about the evidence that has yet to be presented?

Per ME, there was no evidence of sexual assault.

 

[Just the Fax]

The defense also failed to persuade the judge to allow them to mention in their opening arguments a comment that one of the Coopers' two young daughters apparently made to a neighbor on July 12, 2008, the day her mother was reported missing.

Defense lawyers contend that one of the girls told a neighbor that she had seen Nancy Cooper that morning in dark shorts and a whiteT-shirt. The daughter, according to defense lawyers, did not get up that day until 8:30 a.m.
In the early days of the investigation, Brad Cooper said his wife had gone jogging at 7 a.m. July 12 and never returned home.



Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/09/1039211/many-in-jury-pool-cant-afford.html#ixzz1G6XZwXSV

 

[Just the Fax]

If she was wearing them in the first place, which we know is in doubt. Also recall she was found not wearing running shoes or socks. How many runners do you know who go 'running' barefoot? I personally know of none. :waitasec:

Per Brad: She was last seen wearing a T-shirt, running shorts and light blue running shoes.

So this killer (random or boyfriend) took the time to unlace her shoes, remove them along with her socks, yet didn't bother to remove her jogging bra????

This is just one of MANY little things that don't make a lick of sense and will help convict Brad in the end.

 

[raisincharlie]

The question is - will the defense call 200+ witnesses or are they just on the list? I think it may be the latter.

I doubt it as well - the defense calling all of them. The defense listed them, IMO for two reasons - one to keep them out of the courtroom and two to back up the arguement for an 8 week trial. Neither of which do i believe will be the case. However, one juror decided he couldn't commit due to the estimated length, my point, a means to whittle away at the jury pool. Seems to have worked - 15 seated out of 120 on the list...

 

[ncsu95]

Per Brad: She was last seen wearing a T-shirt, running shorts and light blue running shoes.

So this killer (random or boyfriend) took the time to unlace her shoes, remove them along with her socks, yet didn't bother to remove her jogging bra????

This is just one of MANY little things that don't make a lick of sense and will help convict Brad in the end.

I jog 5/6 days a week. I never untie my running shoes when taking them off. I untie them before I put them back on, but I always just slip them off when done (and I wear them tight). Now the socks being off is strange. But I could see someone pulling her shoes off to get her shorts off if they were going to sexually assault her.

 

[Just the Fax]

I jog 5/6 days a week. I never untie my running shoes when taking them off. I untie them before I put them back on, but I always just slip them off when done (and I wear them tight). Now the socks being off is strange. But I could see someone pulling her shoes off to get her shorts off if they were going to sexually assault her.

Maybe Kurtz will suggest her boyfriend had a sock fetish?
BTW, she was not sexually assaulted.

 

[SleuthyGal]

if they were going to sexually assault her

Perhaps, but she wasn't sexually assaulted (per the autopsy). And I doubt someone would not only take off but completely remove items from where she was attacked. No underwear, no running shorts, no socks, no shoes were found.

My opinion is that she never left to go jogging that morning. Because she was deceased hours before 7am.