April 15th wknd of Sleuthing

[Cheyenne130]

OK so why did HP tell so many lies, misleading statements?

HP claimed she was with NC on Thursday. Not likely

HP claimed NC wore screw back earrings. Lie but I'll play along and say she was just confused.

HP said BC only gave NC $80. Misleading, she knew he gave her $300 for months.

HP said NC never went on a vacation in 2008. Misleading she knew NC went to Washington, DC.

HP said she never spoke with Det. Dismukes about the password to unlock NC cell phone. Lie.

HP purposely left out details when talking to the woman who said NC should call InterAct. Misleading.

HP starts the "suicide lists" story then claims the notes she saw were different. Lie.

HP sent the email asking for pictures with NC wearing the necklace only. Suspicious, potentially misleading.

HP story about the preschool drop off, NC had the girls, BC followed and took the oldest girl out of NC car and into the building. NC and girls crying. Supposedly happened in February. Doesn't add up with BC trying to be "Father of the Year" after the separation talks. Lie, misleading, you choose.

HP talks about being at the pool with NC Fri, describes each piece of jewelry she is wearing and specifically she drank Diet Coke but doesn't remember if she had a cover-up. We can say she forgot but very suspicious testimony.

How many of those statements do you actually believe lead to any evidence of the actual crime of the murder of Nancy?

 

[Palomine]

I am still kinda in shock he planned this in advance.

I think he needed more time in his planning,, after Fridays argument went on and on and probably continued when she came home..he had, had enough

 

[SleuthinNC]

Trying to find it. It's regarding smart phones. It was worded the same as Young. I am nearly positive. The impression I got was that they were trying to downplay the cell phone stuff, but couldn't downplay it TOO much because the blackjack was the likely tool for the alibi. Totally weird.

Do you mean how they were trying to act as though they were not familiar with the capabilities of a smartphone and what kind of data might need to be preserved on this type of cell phone when investigating a crime? Yeah, you're right, that was a lie.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2011/03/04/9219449/20110304205150825.pdf

Page 4

 

[LaLaw2000]

I didn't find the detective to be arrogant at all. It's difficult to maintain ones composure while being whined at IMO. I thought he did a great job. Much rather watch somebody who comes across as confident then someone who is squirming. I totally agree, anger and rage behind the murder. The sight witness line of questioning struck me as opposite to what most have spoken of here. I thought Kurtz came off looking bad IMO. I totally got what GD was saying. 'You said you had info that we hadn't followed up on, yet you don't give it to us to check out.'

I did not find Detective Daniels arrogant either. He is a seasoned detective and knows his job.

I had seen the web page that Kurtz had up. I did not like it that Kurtz was wanting any witnesses to call him rather than LE. Any witnesses should call LE (she did), not a defense attorney. She is just miffed that LE did not rush right over to talk with her, IMO, so she contacted Kurtz at a later time. Kurtz did not immediately pass this on to LE. He would rather criticize LE than actually go ahead and pass on what he thought might be important information.

Someone mentioned Detective Daniels' body language on the witness stand. He is a big man. He was getting uncomfortable in that chair from having sat there so long, IMO. That does not dictate arrogance.

I could see that Detective Daniels was getting a little aggravated with Kurtz. I certainly would have also. Kurtz was basically accusing him of not doing his job well, and basically calling him a liar. Kurtz was also trying his very best to trip him up. I admit that it is Kurtz job to try to destroy a witness' credibility, but he is going way overboard, IMO. It is going to backfire on him.

I am looking forward to Monday morning!

 

[SleuthinNC]

How many of those statements do you actually believe lead to any evidence of the actual crime of the murder of Nancy?

Not really an answerable question in this forum. I will say that they lead me away from thinking BC committed the crime.

 

[Maja]

Witness says she saw Nancy Cooper running the morning of 7.11.08. Hmmm. Did she KNOW Nancy? If not, she saw a woman who LOOKED like Nancy (from pictures she saw).

Reminds me of the two witnesses who swore they saw the defendants drive away from the scene of a crime in the silly movie, My Cousin Vinny:

Vinny Gambini: Mrs. Riley, when you saw the defendants were you wearing your glasses?
Constance Riley: Yes, I was.
Vinny Gambini: Would you mind putting your glasses on for us, please?
[Stumbles a bit from Mrs. Riley's glasses]
Vinny Gambini: Whoa. How long you been wearing glasses?
Constance Riley: Since I was 6.
Vinny Gambini: Have they always been that thick.
Constance Riley: No. They've gotten thicker over the years.
Vinny Gambini: So, as your eyes become more and more out of whack, as you've gotten older, how many levels of thickness have you gone through?
Constance Riley: I don't know, over 60 years, maybe 10 times.
Vinny Gambini: Maybe you're ready for a thicker set.
Constance Riley: Oh no. I think they're okay.
Vinny Gambini: You sure? Let's check it out.
[Grabs a tape measure from his deak and brings it over to Mrs. Riley]
Vinny Gambini: How far away were the defendants when when you saw them enterin' the Sac-o-Suds?
Constance Riley: About 100 feet.
Vinny Gambini: A hundred feet.
[Hands Mrs. Riley the end of the tape measure]
Vinny Gambini: Would you mind holding this, please?
[Goes to the courtroom door]
Vinny Gambini: All right, this is 50 feet, that's half the distance.
[Holds up 2 fingers on his right hand]
Vinny Gambini: How many fingers am I holding up?
[Mrs. Riley is squinting, trying to see the fingers]
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Let the record know that the counsler is holding up 2 fingers.
Vinny Gambini: [Annoyed] Hey, your honor please, huh?
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Oh, sorry.
Vinny Gambini: Now. Mrs. Riley, and only Mrs. Riley.
[Judge Chamerlain gives Vinny an ugly look, Vinny holds up 2 fingers on his right hand again]
Vinny Gambini: How many fingers am I holding up now?
Constance Riley: [Squinting, trying to see the fingers] 4.
Vinny Gambini: [Coming back to Mrs. Riley] What do you think now dear?
Constance Riley: Thinkin' of gettin' thicker glasses.


Vinny Gambini: [to the jury] Hey, how ya doin'?
[to witness]
Vinny Gambini: Mr. Crane, what are these pictures of?
Ernie Crane: My house and stuff.
Vinny Gambini: House and stuff. And what is this brown stuff on your window.
Ernie Crane: Dirt.
Vinny Gambini: Dirt. And what is this rusty, dusty, dirty looking thing that's covering your window?
Ernie Crane: That's a screen.
Vinny Gambini: A screen! It's a screen. And what are these really big things that are right in the middle of your view of the Sac-o-Suds and your kitchen window, what do we call these big things?
Ernie Crane: Trees?
Vinny Gambini: Trees, that's right, don't be afraid just shout 'em right out when you know 'em. And what are these thousands of little things that are on trees?
Ernie Crane: Leaves.
Vinny Gambini: And these big bushy things between the trees.
Ernie Crane: Bushes.
Vinny Gambini: Bushes. So, Mr. Crane, you can positively identify the defendants, for a moment of 2 seconds, looking through this dirty window, this crud covered screen, all of these trees, with all of these leaves on them, and I don't know how many bushes.
Ernie Crane: Looks like five.
Vinny Gambini: Uh, uh, uh, don't forget, this one and this one.
Ernie Crane: Seven bushes!
Vinny Gambini: Seven bushes. So, what do you think? Isn't possible you just saw two guys in a green convertable and not necessarily these two particular guys?
Ernie Crane: I suppose.
Vinny Gambini: I'm finished with this guy.


This movie is a hoot

 

[SleuthinNC]

If RZ was not a credible witness the prosecution would have a good reason to show why they did not believe her statement. There has been nothing to show that RZ was not credible. The only thing that makes her a poor eyewitness for the prosecution is that her story does not support their case. At no time did they say we spoke with her and statements she made led us to believe she was not credible, inconsistent or did not see NC. They are trying to discredit her eyewitness testimony by acting like she was just seeking attention. Det. Daniels spoke to her to try to convince her she didn't see what she saw. Guess it didn't work.

 

[sunshine05]

Just catching up here.

Yes, I hope Kurtz does call this woman as a witness. I do believe she saw a woman that resembled Nancy running that morning, but it was not Nancy.

The thing about eyewitnesses is that they tend to remember the action of someone more than the details of what that person actually looked like. I do feel this woman actually saw a tall female jogger.

A good example is one that was used here on this forum of a bank robbery. There were witnesses of the getaway vehicles. It was blue, it was red, it was green. When the actual robbers were caught with all the money from the robbery, their vehicle was actually a different color altogether. People tend to remember the 'actions' rather than certain things about person(s). This woman is remembering a female jogger. She is telling the truth. However; there is no way she can be 150% certain it was Nancy.

I commend anyone who tries to help in a missing persons case. Z told her husband that she thought she saw a woman fitting that description jogging on Saturday morning. It was her husband who suggested she call LE. She did. THEN she wasn't satisfied with how LE followed up with her. I doubt she would want to be called as a witness. She knows by now that she was wrong that it was Nancy.

Sorry for the long post! I am catching up from when WS went down yesterday, then was too tired to read until this morning!

Did anyone catch the mention that Officer Hayes made a note that he believed he saw NC running that morning too? It was mentioned in the defense petition. I thought it was interesting.

 

[Cheyenne130]

Not really an answerable question in this forum. I will say that they lead me away from thinking BC committed the crime.

I can appreciate someone being suspicious with any and all inconsistencies. I can't figure out how those inconsistencies can lead away from a belief that BC committed the crime unless you ignore any and all evidence against him. I'm not talking about how much money he gave her for an allowance or what a lousy husband he was. I'm talking about his own stories, timeline and digital evidence against him in addition to all of his inconsistencies. The only "alibi" is that a call was received by his cell phone at 6:40 a.m. that came from the home phone number. There is no evidence that NC made that call. MOO

 

[Palomine]

Remember that picture we saw of the kitchen Thursday? That had that big ole boiling pot with the tongs in it sitting on the stove? Unless Brad boiled a ham for the children for lunch on Saturday, I guarantee you that was the pot Nancy boiled the ribs for the party in on Friday still sitting there.

and the plate with ketchup on it...I think he got the kid's chicken nuggets that morning to calm them down
he mention that specifically in depo as child's favorite food

 

[Maja]

Did anyone catch the mention that Officer Hayes made a note that he believed he saw NC running that morning too? It was mentioned in the defense petition. I thought it was interesting.

Unless Officer Hayes knew NC, personally, he only saw a woman running who LOOKED like NC on the morning of 7.12.08.

 

[Madeleine74]

Given that Nancy's body was found in a place where she would not have run, and no one saw her running there, and she was found not wearing anything but a red & black jog bra rolled under and her diamond earrings, whatever sighting RZ gave ultimately would not have led the cops to either Nancy's body or her killer.

The bug guy further added corroborating testimony that Nancy's body was available for fly infestation very early Sat morning.

Whatever RZ saw the runner wearing, wasn't found anywhere. Not on or near Nancy's body. Not around any of the running trails or sidewalks or streets. Common sense informs most people, and it is not reasonable that random attacker(s) would remove every single item of NC clothing, ponytail elastic, hat, shoes, socks, put a jog bra on her (rolled under) and then leave diamond earrings in her ears.

Nancy would have tried to fight off some random attacker, but no one heard or saw any such thing, and yet all these people saw Nancy running. So many people. Makes you wonder how anyone was able to snatch her off the sidewalk or trail with so many witnesses.

Common sense is what I think the jurors will use to determine that Nancy never went for a run on Sat July 12 because she was dead and discarded long before 7am.

 

[dramamama]

OK so why did HP tell so many lies, misleading statements?

HP claimed she was with NC on Thursday. Not likely

HP claimed NC wore screw back earrings. Lie but I'll play along and say she was just confused.

HP said BC only gave NC $80. Misleading, she knew he gave her $300 for months.

HP said NC never went on a vacation in 2008. Misleading she knew NC went to Washington, DC.

HP said she never spoke with Det. Dismukes about the password to unlock NC cell phone. Lie.

HP purposely left out details when talking to the woman who said NC should call InterAct. Misleading.

HP starts the "suicide lists" story then claims the notes she saw were different. Lie.

HP sent the email asking for pictures with NC wearing the necklace only. Suspicious, potentially misleading.

HP story about the preschool drop off, NC had the girls, BC followed and took the oldest girl out of NC car and into the building. NC and girls crying. Supposedly happened in February. Doesn't add up with BC trying to be "Father of the Year" after the separation talks. Lie, misleading, you choose.

HP talks about being at the pool with NC Fri, describes each piece of jewelry she is wearing and specifically she drank Diet Coke but doesn't remember if she had a cover-up. We can say she forgot but very suspicious testimony.

i understand you have concerns. But for me, this is a magnification of a witness's testimony that has not bearing, for me at least, on how and why Nancy was killed.

If the defense can show me that NC was having an affair w someone HP was trying to protect, and that there was also significant evidence of this person having the motive and opportunity to commit such a crime, and this evidence is so compelling it completely overwhelms the evidence we already have seen, then this will perhaps be noteworthy and need examination.

However, IMO, these statements do not in themselves destroy the evidence that we have seen that points to BC. And it is dangerous to magnify these points as having significant importance at this point. Worth pointing out? Perhpaps. But the defense already crossed this witness, and I did not think they did anything to undermine what I thought was very credible and sincere testimony of a loving and grieving friend. If anything, my heart goes out to her, because she has been at the trial every day with NC's family, and I am sure she lives every day not only missing her friend, but wondering if there was anything more she could have done to prevent this tragedy.

 

[less0305]

Do you mean how they were trying to act as though they were not familiar with the capabilities of a smartphone and what kind of data might need to be preserved on this type of cell phone when investigating a crime? Yeah, you're right, that was a lie.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2011/03/04/9219449/20110304205150825.pdf

Page 4

Most municipalities and police departments can't afford smart phones for all their employees. Usually they have some generic flip phone that's about as updated as a tin can. Most people just use their work phone and don't carry around two cell phones, so it doesn't surprise me that neither detective know how anything about a blackberry or a smart phone. I know in my municipality - NONE of our police, public works, or administrative departments have smart phones. I'd say 99% of those employees just use the work phone as their cell and don't have their own cell phone on the side. Most don't know anything about what all a smart phone can do.

 

[dramamama]

If RZ was not a credible witness the prosecution would have a good reason to show why they did not believe her statement. There has been nothing to show that RZ was not credible. The only thing that makes her a poor eyewitness for the prosecution is that her story does not support their case. At no time did they say we spoke with her and statements she made led us to believe she was not credible, inconsistent or did not see NC. They are trying to discredit her eyewitness testimony by acting like she was just seeking attention. Det. Daniels spoke to her to try to convince her she didn't see what she saw. Guess it didn't work.

Regarding if RZ is a credible witness or not, when I was reading her statement last night, this caught my attention:
She sees NC jogging on sat., observes the search around Lochmere Lake on Sun, and calls the police to leave a message. She then says in a sworn affadavit, that on several subsequent weekends, police were stationed on Lochmere Drive asking questions about the missing jogger, handing out fliers, and she volunteered again that she saw nc jogging, and mentioned police did not call her back. Then she says that at one point after the body was discovered on a weekday, she was stoped by another road block, and she explained yet again that she had seen nc.

So, a few observations:
-perhaps the writing is misleading
-what is ZD's sense of time and memory if she remembers missing fliers being handed out for several subsequent weekends for a missing, not murdered jogger
-after these weekends, are we to presume she is just finding out that nc was found? and if that is the case, was she really so certain that this was the person, when she lived in lochmere, and somehow missed the body's discovery for several weeks
(you would think if she really thought she saw her, then she would be a bit consumed with the idea of something terrible happening to her)

since we have not heard her speak, IMO, i think there is sufficient reason to believe she may not be very reliable

I posted this earlier in the week regarding RZ. Wondering if there are any other thoughts?

 

[less0305]

Today at lunch I rode my Triumph Scrambler down Holly Springs and turned left onto Fielding Drive. I rode the considerable distance to the end and made my way to the cul de sac where Nancy was found. Houses on the street now, though it is still not built out all the way. On the cul de sac were tradesmen on break from construction so I did not stop.

Life there has moved on. There was no sign of the drama of the trial. I had not gone there before. But, today I just felt like I should. It was a bit of a strange feeling, and I suppose a strange thing to have done anyway.

I looked at the new houses, the construction and I thought this place was meant to be a foundation for the dreams of families moving forward in life, making homes, raising children. The signs remain, calling one to visit the model home, and of course imagine you and your family in it. And yet one night or morning, someone came down this road with the purpose of putting an end to a family, to hide the evidence of the the crushing of dreams.

The person who left that neighborhood not with the idea of moving to a brighter future but rather running from the darkest past had a single hope too - that he might not be spotted and brought to light for what he had done. Back to present and just a few miles away, the community's representatives were convened for the express purpose of dashing that twisted hope.

A criminal gets an advantage twice. First, with an unfair, cowardly attack on the victim made at the time of the criminal's choosing. And second, the high burden the state carries before it can levy the punishment of the law upon him. His disadvantage is that the truth is not on his side, and good people with patience and diligence work to see the truth exposed.

Brad Cooper lied about his actions before his wife was murdered, when she was murdered, and after she was murdered. He is a man afraid of the truth and he sits in a tribunal charged with nothing less than the discovery of the truth. He must be particularly uncomfortable. The verdict, whatever it is, is soon to come.

Can you please do the closing arguments??!!! You're just so eloquent and super smart!

 

[Danielle59]

Here's the thing: The witness knows what the prosecution is going to ask. He's a prosecution witness. He comes prepared. He might have an idea what the defense is going to ask but he doesn't know, especially when the defense asks questions about someone elses documents that the witness doesn't have with him.I would expect to see the same sort of "memory lapses" during the prosecution cross when the defense presents their case.

This is what bothered me because Young said certain things were Daniels and when Daniels was questioned he said they were Young's, neither one wanted to take ownership. The Judge said Young could not testify if it was Daniels work and then Daniels just said they weren't his notes.

 

[Palomine]

Me I couldn't run for my life...Nancy Cooper could easily out run someone who was following her. People today whether walking, standing, running are very aware of their surroundings if someone was following her..or near by her she would have known..and ran off

 

[SleuthinNC]

I can appreciate someone being suspicious with any and all inconsistencies. I can't figure out how those inconsistencies can lead away from a belief that BC committed the crime unless you ignore any and all evidence against him. I'm not talking about how much money he gave her for an allowance or what a lousy husband he was. I'm talking about his own stories, timeline and digital evidence against him in addition to all of his inconsistencies. The only "alibi" is that a call was received by his cell phone at 6:40 a.m. that came from the home phone number. There is no evidence that NC made that call. MOO

There is no evidence that NC did not make that call. Until I hear the defense side of the google search I don't know how real it is and that is the only actually incriminating piece of evidence I have seen.

Looking at his stories which have been impeached by witnesses that appear to have lied pretty much makes those things a wash for me.

 

[Danielle59]

To be honest, when Kurtz and Blum still had that website up and they had pictures that they took of Brad's neck I thought, "I don't know if that's helping them. It looks like red marks to me in the picture." Definitely not scratches but red marks. Almost like he might have been rubbing his own neck. They were lower toward the shoulder. (Think about simulating a frustrated or nervous "rubbing" of your own neck and see where your hand goes.)

They, the attorney's, Pros and Defense, have annoying voices, all of them. I hate to say it, but, tone wise, the Judge has the best tone, but he whines too much and his look of indifference like he is dreaming of being at the beach or playing golf bothers me. But BZ has a similiar tone as Kurtz, a bit lower, but not by much, and Cummings is so darn slow, and can't pronounce words.