April 29 weekend of Sleuthiness

[JBean]

Since I am new to the case, I have the luxury of no preconceived notions and now have the information being presented to me for the very first time. But I have a lot to read.

Can someone tell me what became of the statement supplied by Rosemary that said she saw Nancy jogging at 7:10 am? Was that discounted?

 

[RaleighNative]

Since I am new to the case, I have the luxury of no preconceived notions and now have the information being presented to me for the very first time. But I have a lot to read.

Can someone tell me what became of the statement supplied by Rosemary that said she saw Nancy jogging at 7:10 am? Was that discounted?

CPD did not take a statement or contact her until the night before she was to testify in the custody hearing. So it's safe to say she was discounted.

IMO, RZ was not a reliable witness. I do not believe she saw NC. But the fact that CPD did not follow up is troubling.

 

[sunshine05]

Some disconnects I have noticed about this case are with Brad's actions that morning. We have to assume he planned this murder, as the state suggests. If we're going to assume he planned this murder, he would want to be sure to really make himself *look* innocent, beyond cleaning up DNA evidence, crime scene, etc.

Things he did to make himself LOOK innocent:
1)Google searches that morning for museums, things to do with the kids later that day.
2)HT trips for milk, laundry det., juice
3)Spoofed call (LOTS of planning/expertise would have had to go into this).
4)Calling JA to find CC's phone number to try to track NC down.
5)Work related phone calls intermingled with the spoofed call.
6)Making morning tennis plans with a friend.

So we know his mind had to be in a place where he knew it was very important to act natural and not look suspicious since he knew he just murdered someone, so why would he?
1)Buy green juice instead of typical kid juice?
2)NOT go to the memorials?
3)NOT get rid of the necklace?
4)Change his shoes btwn trips?
5)Leave drop cloth receipt on floor of the car?
6)Pretend he couldn't remember what she was wearing that night?
7)Not call family members to notify them when NC was missing?

IMO, those things only make him look guilty *because* he is the main suspect. I believe, if he planned this so methodically as to spoof a call, he would have done much more to appear to be innocent. There wouldn't be the list above because he knew life in prison (or worse) would be in his future.

Regarding the memorials, because this is a big part of the state's case: I believe he was well aware of the finger-pointing and whispering from all of her so-called friends that he did this and couldn't bear the thought of subjecting himself to that. But if he DID kill her, he would have gone because it was an important part of the act to appear innocent.

He never thought he would have to put on a show of innocence because he didn't do it so he knew there would be no evidence found. Maybe he even suspected there were items on her phone that would lead to the killer and that's why defense drafted that letter requesting the careful handling of this evidence. I'm sure he could have never imagined they would destroy possibly the only clues that could have drawn suspicions away from him.

 

[jrb0124]

The ducks were not important to the case....

Then I guess neither were:

...the necklace (which she did not wear all the time)
...the 2 left shoes (not her size, not considered missing be CPD,her current PAIR of running shoes was missing)
...NC having no $ Friday (she paid for lunch and HT shopping)
...NC always telling her friends who/when she was running with (nope)
...the black dress (she was wearing one earlier)
...the laundry detergent brand
...the cleaned out garage (NC asked BC to do it)
...the 'pristine' trunk (not pristine according to SBI, only CPD)
...the constant yelling/fighting (none according to witnesses)
...NC 'fear' of BC (non-existent according to witnesses)
...BC's squeeze on the side (nope, none)
...NC's painting appointment with JA (highly unlikely at this point)

I'm sure the list can be doubled, but all of these issues were 'important' to the case at some point along the line, and the folks who at one time claimed this have now run quickly in the other direction.

 

[Tink56]

When JA was testifying, didn't she appear to swallow a pill on camera during a break? Or am I imagining that?

The best place to check is her testimony. Here's a link:

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/asset_gallery/9271464/

Please let us know what you discover. Then, you can let us know if this was your imagination or not.

 

[jrb0124]

Maybe he even suspected there were items on her phone that would lead to the killer and that's why defense drafted that letter requesting the careful handling of this evidence. I'm sure he could have never imagined they would destroy possibly the only clues that could have drawn suspicions away from him.

My guess is that there was a lot of case relevent text messaging on there that has been lost.

We already know that one witness (JP) lied about the extent of his communication with NC in the weeks before her death. The phone records proved him a liar, its a safe bet there was some texting going on too.

 

[Shadow722]

she did not forward it..It was in court that he was forwarding her emails to his account...
Separation agreements go between lawyers not spouses, it was a draft that her lawyer sent Nancy..this was in testimony from Nancy's lawyer

Who was the intended final recipient of the separation agreement if not BC? If it was just a draft, not intended for BC eyes, then where are NC's comments back to AS, saying: change this or that. Redo it: add this X?

A separation agreement is intended for the husband to accept or reject.

NC sent nothing back to AS saying that BC has accepted or rejected this document. She in fact did nothing further with her lawyer to facilitate a divorce from BC from April through July.

She in fact paid AS $7,000. to make one draft of a separation agreement, and did nothing else with her attorney.

That is a big why question, that points directly to the motive in this case, that has not been explained, by either side.

If divorce and escape from BC was NC number one priority, why did she ignore her own legal council for more than 3 months??

Maybe there was a mini reconciliation going on in spite of NC's comments to her friends. If not why did she not proceed with divorce with her highly paid attorney?

 

[Danielle59]

Offensive? When it's standard protocol that the spouse of a murder victim is always the first person LE investigates? That's the course of an investigation--to either rule them in or out. I'm sure you know that but I don't understand how it's offensive.
pat

This was your comment, "This 'safe' reputation is why the CPD was so quick to jump on the spouse, which is understandable." I find it offensive that the CPD would only assume it is the spouse to save the reputation of the town.

 

[dramamama]

Track him down? He worked for Cisco, they could have garnished his pay. I don't think anyone would expect that draft agreement to be accepted as it was written. You can believe the he considered it ungrateful, but there is nothing that supports that belief.

Yes, he worked for CISCO. Does that mean that he was going to continue to work for CISCO? Does that mean he planned on staying in Cary? Does that mean he wouldn't leave the country? How do you know the answers to any of these questions? And how is it not due processs to ask them, considering he told her to go to Canada, and then pulled back from that when he saw financial responsibilities? Am I wrong, because I have experience with divorce, to question these things? My ex would have left me and my children high and dry, if it not for his suspended sentence and probation that required compliance, if he had the chance. IMO, it is ridiculous to assume that all ex-husbands plan to pay in a divorce....and to further the argument with BC, if he cared so much, why didn't he just get the green card for her to work years earlier? Why didn't he suggest he would just get it now if she would stay in the area with the kids, so she could support herself. Who says that was in the mix?

 

[jrb0124]

Since I am new to the case, I have the luxury of no preconceived notions and now have the information being presented to me for the very first time. But I have a lot to read.

Can someone tell me what became of the statement supplied by Rosemary that said she saw Nancy jogging at 7:10 am? Was that discounted?

Her statement was never followed up by a detective. She says she called CPD several times in the aftermath, and was never called back.

While she may or may not have seen NC, in support of her account - the time it would have taken NC to get to where she was if leaving the house at 7:00 was perfect. If NC left her house for a run at 7:00, then RZ definitely saw her.

If it wasn't NC, then who was it?

I can't imagine that the CPD or the neighborhood would not have been able to find the runner that RZ did see if it wasn't NC.

In fact, I half-expected the pros to march in a handful of women who would testify to the fact that they were running that hour, that morning on those roads...they did not. Maybe in rebuttal? who knows. If there are none in rebuttal, this alone is a serious red flag (IMO) to the pros case. (remember someone else also tesified he saw her running).

 

[Danielle59]

I am not Canadian and I expect everyone (in my family and children's friends-I would not require grownups to remove their shoes!) to leave their shoes at the door, so I don't think this is a Canadian thing exclusively. But I can tell you, with a family of four, there are so many shoes out in the garage that I will many times just wear whatever shoes I can find two of quickly. I thought too much was made of the location of the shoes. Photos of actual evidence would have been much more helpful, but alas, there are none.

There are piles of shoes at all my doors, my friends call them the shoe graveyards (they also think I am a bug aphobe, I am and I admit it), and sometimes the animals hide one or two of a pair. I don't wear shoes in the house, I don't like when anyone wears them in my house - I used to work in healthcare, YUCK, on what is on the bottom of shoes. My mother never allowed shoes in her house, I have a neighbor who is the same way. I also never put my purse on the counters in the kitchen, YUCK, on the bottom of your purse too. Toilets are cleaner then the bottoms of shoes or purses.

 

[oenophile]

To find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the state has presumed the following, and therefore must prove:
...
3) The only direct evidence, as opposed to circumstantial which can cut both ways, is the 7/11 Google search and the 6:40 AM phone call.
...

Disagree. Stomach contents, alcohol content and caffeine are direct evidence, and they do not cut both ways. They cut only one way: that she was alive in the morning.

Stomach contents, alcohol content and caffeine. Stomach contents, alcohol content, and caffeine. Stomach contents, alcohol content, and caffeine.

Thus far, no one supporting the BDI theory can demonstrate that these three pieces of physical evidence support their theory. These three pieces of evidence disprove their theory, and support BII. No hearsay, gossip or innuendo. No need to go into the 6:40 call. The physical evidence demonstrates that he is innocent.

 

[GhostCrab]

Go back and look at the documents, she forwarded in email to his work account about three days after she received it. Why would she have it written up if she was not going to share it with him?

Some of Nancy's friends created a blog the day she disappreared, nancycooper.blogspot.com.....something like that. Anyway, in one of the posts they state that they cancelled "the saddest party" ever because Nancy had to change her plans due to receiving the separation agreement back from B unsigned. CLEARLY, he was given the SA at some point. Which makes so much more sense because without some sort of agreement on custody in hand she wasn't going anywhere.

 

[CrimeAddict]

The ADA's can always find other employment if they like, I am sure that their office space is paid for, the utilities on it are paid for, their benefits are paid for. Kurtz is not making buck on this trial, he still has taxes, and employee's salaries to pay, and rent/mortgage on his office, and utilities, and mal practice insurance. He is probably taking in less than the ADAs at this point. You don't know which of these ADA's, if any, have been given 100s of other cases to handle during this trial, you are speculating.

Not earning money right this second but publicity=$$
How many of you have said this weekend you would hire him or refer him to a friend and thought he was an excellent attorney? Tada.. $$$.

 

[Bottle Cap]

Worth repeating.

Also might add (since the defense has thrown it out there), its been stipulated that JP may in fact be the father of NC youngest daughter, and if so - may have feared future 'obligations'.

Basically, what you're saying here is that a future financial obligation to support a genetic child might be a motive for murder. So how do you figure that this is a valid motive for JP, but not a valid motive for murder for BC? Either it's a valid motive or not, right?

 

[Just the Fax]

The ducks do NOT mean nothing to the case for me. JA was insistent they were missing from the house AFTER NC went running. Obviously they were not. Many other of NC's friends were INSISTENT about things. These INSISTENT statements have been used by the state to help prove their case. And they are incorrect.

The ducks themselves mean nothing. Their significance however is important.

Ok, you win.
Forget all the hearsay by the friends...that was never evidence of murder.

BTW, if Bradley is guilty (I believe he is), does that mean the witnesses that INSISTED they saw Nancy jogging Saturday am are not credible either:waitasec:

 

[Danielle59]

she did not forward it..It was in court that he was forwarding her emails to his account...
Separation agreements go between lawyers not spouses, it was a draft that her lawyer sent Nancy..this was in testimony from Nancy's lawyer

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...E-mail_to_Cooper_with_separatin_agreement.pdf

The first page shows where she forwarded it to him three days after she received it.

 

[GhostCrab]

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/loca...E-mail_to_Cooper_with_separatin_agreement.pdf

The first page shows where she forwarded it to him three days after she received it.

Well that ends THAT conversation.

 

[SleuthinNC]

Basically, what you're saying here is that a future financial obligation to support a genetic child might be a motive for murder. So how do you figure that this is a valid motive for JP, but not a valid motive for murder for BC? Either it's a valid motive or not, right?

Well your statement supports the point I was making so let's use it.

JP feared having to pay child support money. (Some say BC also feared having to pay child support money)

Again I ask, how is BC not able to be excluded but JP is?

 

[jrb0124]

Basically, what you're saying here is that a future financial obligation to support a genetic child might be a motive for murder. So how do you figure that this is a valid motive for JP, but not a valid motive for murder for BC? Either it's a valid motive or not, right?

I agree with you - if its valid for one, it should be valid for the other.

The message I was replying to laid out the points of a theory involving him.