April 15th wknd of Sleuthing

[less0305]

My grandchildren in that age bracket, used both computer and phone, cell phone & home phones, quite reliably. And they are wizzes on their DS Lites? I think that's what they are.

My 4 year old granddaughter calls me all the time - and most of the time her mom don't even know it. "Emmy, can I come to your house?"

I think Bradley spoofed the call. That's what I strongly believe. However, my second argument to those who claim there is no way it could be done, then explain how a child couldn't have called daddy on his cell phone. He certainly would have answered that call on his cell with an ID of "Home" since he knew it could not be Nancy, as she was dead. He answered, "Honey, daddy will be right back. Just go to your room and stay and I will be right there."

There is no proof that Nancy made that call. None, beyond the liar's words.

 

[less0305]

All 10 required equipment that wasn't found in the house.

Other items missing and never produced. Same, same.

 

[gracielee]

Random thoughts regarding a struggle:

I sincerely don't understand the whole "no evidence Nancy struggled and that points to Brad" argument. Do you think she would struggle with a stranger, but say to her husband, "Okay, honey. I'll just sit back and let you strangle me?" Even if he "surprised her" she would fight for her life. Also, what about the missing ducks and sticks in the foyer? I thought those were evidence of a struggle? Where are the significant marks on Brad? On Nancy? (I know there was decomp, but one little mark on her neck? Why aren't there scratches from her own fingernails trying to take the assailant's hands away, which is a common defensive would in a strangulation struggle? And Brad was wearing shorts and a T shirt the afternoon of July 12. I'm just thinking out loud here...

Laying in wait, attacking without warning, nancy either extremely tired or asleep, lots of wine in her, big strong ironman coming at her in the darkened home, vs. an alert, running, nancy cooper, outside in the daylight, not alone in a darkened home. Certainly someone would have seen/heard this tall, fit, strong young woman fighting off the van of Hawaiian, Hispanic, Mormon, gypsies driving down Holly Springs Rd. was it?

 

[SleuthSayer]

Cite the accountings for all the merchandise brad had cisco receipts for, because when I heard the testimony, numerous items he had receipts for, could not be located.

I have not had the time to watch more than a few hours of all of the testimony, so I don't know the answer to this. Has someone testified that they even tried to account for the equipment? Did someone testify that they asked BC where the router and FXO card were and he was unable to provide an answer? Did someone testify that the serial numbers of the router and FXO port were determined and that the lab in which BC works was searched for the items? Did someone from Cisco testify that they had searched their acres of labs, offices, and other employee homes and verified that they cannot be accounted for? Or, are we just saying that because they were not in the house, they cannot be accounted for?

 

[johnfear]

Okay, so once again, here we go:

You guys want me to jump to the guilty side based on this:

1) He may have made a spoofed call to cover for an alibi that required careful planning and coverup (I mean, he bought it in January, no? Disposed of it in July? Picked up other pieces along the way) and there are a number of ways to do it and NO EVIDENCE of any of it? Tell me it was his accomplice, I'll believe you, but not this.

2) He may have hovered over the area of Fielding Drive on a google map for 3 seconds (the whole thing was only 41 seconds, but that area was 3 seconds) on the day before his wife went missing, and it's three miles from his house and he had NO business being there.

3) Her mom, dad, sister, brother, et al and etc. say he MUST have done it.

4) A bunch of people who lived in his neighborhood and told inconsistent stories about the levels of what was going say he MUST have done it.

5) We (admitted on the stand by DD) have NO, ZIP, ZERO eyewitnesses of any kind to any type of any violence between the two of them other than a few instances of cursing and screaming?

6) The divorce process went on for SIX months and he definitely was all up in her business about it, controlling the cash flow and snooping like a dumb-@$$.

7) He was READING her emails from old boyfriends and didn't say/do anything about that until one day in July (allegedly).

8) He actively participated in borrowing tons of money from her fam for his AND Nancy's benefit.

9) There may or may not have been eyewitnesses the morning she supposedly jogged and what not who saw her/didn't see her, but the bottom line is NO ONE CARED enough to pay any attention until hind sight kicked off.

10) The DETECTIVES in a MISSING PERSONS case took dozens of photos of the missing person's house and SPOKE to each other about red scratch marks, now rub marks on the defendant's neck and NO ONE thought to sneak a photo, for "prosperity(sic)'s" sake?

11) All of these people are AWARE of some computer expertise on the part of the defendant and snatch up all of his computers and lock them away between July and October and a bunch of smart phones, etc. but somehow erase one of them and act like they know NOTHING about smart phones, etc. and now want us to believe it really didn't matter anyways.

You guys want to look at all of this and try and tell someone that you can't prove a negative?

Okay, maybe CPD is not corrupt (I never really thought they were "framing" or "maligning" him on purpose) but you want to tell me that this, coupled with everything else we were watching for the last six weeks of our life (some of us nearly three years) and you guys want to call it EFFECTIVE police work, and EFFECTIVE prosecution.

Are we watching the same set of circumstances here?

At this point, I've decided I will forever remain on the fence, but only because of this:

Gritguy and the like won't have to write long, compelling, intelligent narratives for me in a trial where the person is obviously guilty (JY for instance) and the main reason I will be watching those other trials is because of curiosity, BUT...you guys think that what has been shown to this jury shows him as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Really?

You are THAT sure. I cannot believe you haven't seen some major snafus in what I've written. This is not JUSTICE. This is JUST A MESS.

I left out the lies part of this for one reason and one reason alone. He didn't lie to anyone and say "I didn't do it". He didn't LIE about that. He didn't say anything at all. And sometimes when you see someone who lies constantly, the only time they are telling the truth is usually when their mouth is closed.

Oh, and you want me to believe it was because he suddenly got angry and snapped, but planned it for months....riiiggghhht. Forgot that part.

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm listening to part 1 of det daniels testimony and I noticed that Brad told them the first time about a running bra Nancy was wearing. He described it as black and gray and then he stopped and didn't say anything more.

That makes two times that Brad focuses attention on nancy's running bra. Once on the 12th when daniels is interviewing him and then again on the 14th when Nancy's body is found (at that time he mentions Nancy always wearing a black and red and gray running bra).

That really hit me. Twice. He mentions the running bra and nothing else twice.

< thud >

 

[Just the Fax]

~~~snipped

If BC did it, I'm more likely to believe he did it after the HT trips.

So you think he killed her before 8AM and then dumped the body when he was later riding around with his girls? Now that's not being a good dad. Allowing them to to see him sling their nearly nude, deceased mom in a ditch is beyond sick. But if that's your theory.....

 

[johnfear]

I'm listening to part 1 of det daniels testimony and I noticed that Brad told them the first time about a running bra Nancy was wearing. He described it as black and gray and then he stopped and didn't say anything more.

That makes two times that Brad focuses attention on nancy's running bra. Once on the 12th when daniels is interviewing him and then again on the 14th when Nancy's body is found (at that time he mentions Nancy always wearing a black and red and gray running bra).

That really hit me. Twice. He mentions the running bra and nothing else twice.

< thud >

And yet the detectives WROTE down BLUE AND GRAY, possibly BLUE and RED on their notes. How does that play, Sleuthy? They wrote down one thing, remembered another?

The man KNEW that this was how the next three years of his life were going to go and he KNEW that they were looking at him.

The answer to the question Brad Cooper asked: Am I a suspect? was always YES. They didn't look anywhere else, yet they all seem to be saying he wasn't and they did.

 

[gracielee]

Huh? Both of those women were killed by their husband.

My point was, strong, fit, nancy cupper was not out running in the morning, pumped full of adreneline, (sp?), taken down by someone chasing her. Someone laid in wait, catching her when she was sleepy, tired, full of wine, coming into her darkened home. That's why I'm curious about those forbidden web-sites/ngs. Me thinks Brad knew the special spot on ones neck to render one immobile within seconds. No ability to fight back. If Nancy was up and running, she'd have had numerous defensive injuries. Even women who weren't trained athletically, and were pregnant, had defensive injuries.

 

[gracielee]

All 10 required equipment that wasn't found in the house.

But items Brad did have cisco receipts for. Wonder where those items went?

 

[gracielee]

My 4 year old granddaughter calls me all the time - and most of the time her mom don't even know it. "Emmy, can I come to your house?"

I think Bradley spoofed the call. That's what I strongly believe. However, my second argument to those who claim there is no way it could be done, then explain how a child couldn't have called daddy on his cell phone. He certainly would have answered that call on his cell with an ID of "Home" since he knew it could not be Nancy, as she was dead. He answered, "Honey, daddy will be right back. Just go to your room and stay and I will be right there."

There is no proof that Nancy made that call. None, beyond the liar's words.

Our SIL plaayed a very angry voicemail he got from his 4 yr. old daughter, our granddaugher, chewing him out royally when she found out daddy was taking mommy out for a special luncheon date while she would be in preschool that day. It was hilarious! I'm sure he will save it for all eternity. :great:

 

[Just the Fax]

My point was, strong, fit, nancy cupper was not out running in the morning, pumped full of adreneline, (sp?), taken down by someone chasing her. Someone laid in wait, catching her when she was sleepy, tired, full of wine, coming into her darkened home. That's why I'm curious about those forbidden web-sites/ngs. Me thinks Brad knew the special spot on ones neck to render one immobile within seconds. No ability to fight back. If Nancy was up and running, she'd have had numerous defensive injuries. Even women who weren't trained athletically, and were pregnant, had defensive injuries.

But gracie, when the random killer or facebook stalker theory makes no sense and doesn't add up, they will then jump over to friends, JP or CD and play that angle. As we know, the only person that had motive and opportunity to kill Nancy was Brad Cooper.

 

[Danielle59]

Okay, so once again, here we go:

You guys want me to jump to the guilty side based on this:

1) He may have made a spoofed call to cover for an alibi that required careful planning and coverup (I mean, he bought it in January, no? Disposed of it in July? Picked up other pieces along the way) and there are a number of ways to do it and NO EVIDENCE of any of it? Tell me it was his accomplice, I'll believe you, but not this.

2) He may have hovered over the area of Fielding Drive on a google map for 3 seconds (the whole thing was only 41 seconds, but that area was 3 seconds) on the day before his wife went missing, and it's three miles from his house and he had NO business being there.

3) Her mom, dad, sister, brother, et al and etc. say he MUST have done it.

4) A bunch of people who lived in his neighborhood and told inconsistent stories about the levels of what was going say he MUST have done it.

5) We (admitted on the stand by DD) have NO, ZIP, ZERO eyewitnesses of any kind to any type of any violence between the two of them other than a few instances of cursing and screaming?

6) The divorce process went on for SIX months and he definitely was all up in her business about it, controlling the cash flow and snooping like a dumb-@$$.

7) He was READING her emails from old boyfriends and didn't say/do anything about that until one day in July (allegedly).

8) He actively participated in borrowing tons of money from her fam for his AND Nancy's benefit.

9) There may or may not have been eyewitnesses the morning she supposedly jogged and what not who saw her/didn't see her, but the bottom line is NO ONE CARED enough to pay any attention until hind sight kicked off.

10) The DETECTIVES in a MISSING PERSONS case took dozens of photos of the missing person's house and SPOKE to each other about red scratch marks, now rub marks on the defendant's neck and NO ONE thought to sneak a photo, for "prosperity(sic)'s" sake?

11) All of these people are AWARE of some computer expertise on the part of the defendant and snatch up all of his computers and lock them away between July and October and a bunch of smart phones, etc. but somehow erase one of them and act like they know NOTHING about smart phones, etc. and now want us to believe it really didn't matter anyways.

You guys want to look at all of this and try and tell someone that you can't prove a negative?

Okay, maybe CPD is not corrupt (I never really thought they were "framing" or "maligning" him on purpose) but you want to tell me that this, coupled with everything else we were watching for the last six weeks of our life (some of us nearly three years) and you guys want to call it EFFECTIVE police work, and EFFECTIVE prosecution.

Are we watching the same set of circumstances here?

At this point, I've decided I will forever remain on the fence, but only because of this:

Gritguy and the like won't have to write long, compelling, intelligent narratives for me in a trial where the person is obviously guilty (JY for instance) and the main reason I will be watching those other trials is because of curiosity, BUT...you guys think that what has been shown to this jury shows him as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Really?

You are THAT sure. I cannot believe you haven't seen some major snafus in what I've written. This is not JUSTICE. This is JUST A MESS.

I left out the lies part of this for one reason and one reason alone. He didn't lie to anyone and say "I didn't do it". He didn't LIE about that. He didn't say anything at all. And sometimes when you see someone who lies constantly, the only time they are telling the truth is usually when their mouth is closed.

Oh, and you want me to believe it was because he suddenly got angry and snapped, but planned it for months....riiiggghhht. Forgot that part.

Thank you.

 

[gracielee]

So you think he killed her before 8AM and then dumped the body when he was later riding around with his girls? Now that's not being a good dad. Allowing them to to see him sling their nearly nude, deceased mom in a ditch is beyond sick. But if that's your theory.....

He was busy stuffing 'em full of chicken nuggets and ketchup so they wouldn't notice him dragging their mother from the trunk. :maddening::maddening::maddening:

 

[FullDisclosure]

Laying in wait, attacking without warning, nancy either extremely tired or asleep, lots of wine in her, big strong ironman coming at her in the darkened home, vs. an alert, running, nancy cooper, outside in the daylight, not alone in a darkened home. Certainly someone would have seen/heard this tall, fit, strong young woman fighting off the van of Hawaiian, Hispanic, Mormon, gypsies driving down Holly Springs Rd. was it?

That's my point. Was there a struggle or not? Whether it was BC or a stranger, where are the defensive wounds? And if she was too tired or too full of wine to struggle, why was there "evidence of a struggle" in the foyer? That's all I'm asking.

 

[azwildcat]

Again, you guys are great with your comments! I read every day to catch up and enjoy the different viewpoints.

So you think he killed her before 8AM and then dumped the body when he was later riding around with his girls? Now that's not being a good dad. Allowing them to to see him sling their nearly nude, deceased mom in a ditch is beyond sick. But if that's your theory.....

Their ages would make me believe they were both still in car seats, or high back booster for the older one perhaps, so he could have packed the trunk while the kids were watching tv, loaded the kids up, drove to the site, backed up to it, and dumped the body while the kids never saw a thing. The car seats usually have enough around the head, and buckle in so well, that you can't turn around in them.

 

[LyndyLoo]

Again, you guys are great with your comments! I read every day to catch up and enjoy the different viewpoints.



Their ages would make me believe they were both still in car seats, or high back booster for the older one perhaps, so he could have packed the trunk while the kids were watching tv, loaded the kids up, drove to the site, backed up to it, and dumped the body while the kids never saw a thing. The car seats usually have enough around the head, and buckle in so well, that you can't turn around in them.

The biggest problem with that possibility or theory is it would have been broad daylight ...also some think the eldest could have called at 640AM....and if so why didnt Nancy?..because she couldnt lying in that ditch on Fielding Drive:maddening: All someone would have to ask the oldest would be "Did you see mommy leave for her jog this morning?"..Not a complicated or leading question..I'll bet someone did, but couldnt use her statement due to age JMO

IMO I think Good Daddy Brad gave them some Benedryl or something to ensure they would be in a deep sleep that night..bedtime 9PM..Brad was up all night attacking, cleaning, transporting ..Its not a wonder he looked pale and dazed the next day :banghead:

 

[gracielee]

That's my point. Was there a struggle or not? Whether it was BC or a stranger, where are the defensive wounds? And if she was too tired or too full of wine to struggle, why was there "evidence of a struggle" in the foyer? That's all I'm asking.

Sure there was a struggle. I can't recall how many seconds it takes to press that area of the neck to render one unable to breathe, fight back, what ever it does. But there wasn't a lengthy struggle, or there would have been far more damage IMO. Nancy was caught from behind, off-guard, and when she was finally murdered, vomit, pee, you know the drill, hence the need for clean up.

 

[SleuthinNC]

where is the Sony Laptop??

There was no Sony laptop. It was purchased by somebody else for somebody else. Waste of time evidence.

 

[MrsWendy]

I have not had the time to watch more than a few hours of all of the testimony, so I don't know the answer to this. Has someone testified that they even tried to account for the equipment? Did someone testify that they asked BC where the router and FXO card were and he was unable to provide an answer? Did someone testify that the serial numbers of the router and FXO port were determined and that the lab in which BC works was searched for the items? Did someone from Cisco testify that they had searched their acres of labs, offices, and other employee homes and verified that they cannot be accounted for? Or, are we just saying that because they were not in the house, they cannot be accounted for?

I've been wondering about this too. I wasn't able to follow too closely while this was being discussed on the stand so I wasn't sure if I missed something. Did anyone actually look for the missing equipment at Cisco?