Brad Cooper April 1st Weekend

[sunshine05]

Isn't is possible she had finished eating by 7PM which would have allowed enough time for all the food to digest by 12:30? Or was she seen eating later than that? I know the food was out, but maybe she didn't touch it past 7 or so.

 

[cody100]

Find out and let me know. I'm always looking for a new method/type of cleaner that works.

LOL. A good time to break for commercial floor cleaners. I think my cleaning lady used something for floors that was a spray. I had to finally ask her not to do it because it made them so slippery in socks. So, vinegar and water sounds like a reasonable alternative, especially if you dry it up quickly and do it by hand.

 

[BrownRice]

Best interests of the children. They have been in Canada for nearly three years. I doubt a judge would restore custody to BC, even though he is the bio father. That would be very disruptive to young children. And I think a judge would look at testimony that at one time BC said he didn't want to see the childred ever again. He probably, though, would be given visitation.

But, let's talk this thru (this scenario is based on a not guilty verdict).

BC is arrested for a crime he did not commit. Due to the severity of the crime, he is in jail for 3 years awaiting his day in court. Because he did not commit the crime, the jury was able to acquit him based on lack of evidence.

Sure, the kids have gone thru SO much trauma in their short lives and one more move from their "home" (and maybe the only home they remember since they are so young) would be very disruptive to them. But, BC is an innocent man (remember, this is a scenario), or at least he was found not guilty. Why should he not get his kids back? They're his kids. It's not his fault he hasn't been able to see them (he's been locked up in jail).

I wouldn't suggest he go and take them back the day he gets out of jail, but a very slow transitional period would be appropriate imo.

Don't start throwing things at me now.

 

[cody100]

But, let's talk this thru (this scenario is based on a not guilty verdict).

BC is arrested for a crime he did not commit. Due to the severity of the crime, he is in jail for 3 years awaiting his day in court. Because he did not commit the crime, the jury was able to acquit him based on lack of evidence.

Sure, the kids have gone thru SO much trauma in their short lives and one more move from their "home" (and maybe the only home they remember since they are so young) would be very disruptive to them. But, BC is an innocent man (remember, this is a scenario), or at least he was found not guilty. Why should he not get his kids back? They're his kids. It's not his fault he hasn't been able to see them (he's been locked up in jail).

I wouldn't suggest he go and take them back the day he gets out of jail, but a very slow transitional period would be appropriate imo.

Don't start throwing things at me now.

I agree completely with your reasoning and think a slow transition to him would not be unreasonable. I am sure her family would fight him big time, but it is not an unreasonable approach.

 

[sunshine05]

But, let's talk this thru (this scenario is based on a not guilty verdict).

BC is arrested for a crime he did not commit. Due to the severity of the crime, he is in jail for 3 years awaiting his day in court. Because he did not commit the crime, the jury was able to acquit him based on lack of evidence.

Sure, the kids have gone thru SO much trauma in their short lives and one more move from their "home" (and maybe the only home they remember since they are so young) would be very disruptive to them. But, BC is an innocent man (remember, this is a scenario), or at least he was found not guilty. Why should he not get his kids back? They're his kids. It's not his fault he hasn't been able to see them (he's been locked up in jail).

I wouldn't suggest he go and take them back the day he gets out of jail, but a very slow transitional period would be appropriate imo.

Don't start throwing things at me now.

I totally agree with you. I think the best thing for them would be for him to regain custody but live close enough so they could still have NC's family in their lives. But they are his kids so he definitely should get them back, imo.

 

[sunshine05]

I'm listening to the realtor now. It's so interesting to me that they were working on building a new house. That costs so much $$$. All the little extras...it's so much more than buying an existing home and they were already on a HELOC on their current home and almost approaching the height of the housing bubble. If anything they should have been downsizing.

 

[obsessive]

I follow your possible scenarios regarding Brad's comments about Nancy's going running. Based on your reasoning, I could eliminate number 4 and 5 since I don't think Nancy would be mistaken or change her mind. Number 3could be possible if she told Brad the running story to get out of the house and still make it back to paint even if she were a little bit late. I don't think you can eliminate this with certainty. Number 2 can't be eliminated. He may have been mistaken that it was CC she was running with since he probably didn't listen too closely to what she may have said. And of course Number 1 is certainly a likely scenario. So, to recap, I don't think it is possible at this point to eliminate scenarios 2 and 3 with certainty. And as yet, I don't think the evidence has proven scenario 1 without reasonable doubt. However, by this time next week, I might agree completely with you once we have additional information by the FBI experts.

I believe number three can be rulled out because if she were trying to just get out of the house (to meet someone or whatever), she would have driven and would have taken her phone.

 

[borndem]

There is no 'paternity issue.' The youngest daughter is his. She looks like him. This is a nasty rumor put out by the defense.

Absolutely she looks like him. From the first photo I saw of the four of them, the older is Nancy all over again, and the younger is just like her Daddy eyes especially. No doubt that she is his.

 

[less0305]

During the time Nancy and Brad were looking at newer homes in the $500,000 and less range and then also talking about building - was this in the same time frame that the huge bonus was rumored to have come in?

 

[cody100]

I believe number three can be rulled out because if she were trying to just get out of the house (to meet someone or whatever), she would have driven and would have taken her phone.

She could have forgotten the phone accidentally, and she could have run out of the neighborhood to meet someone rather than being picked up in that neighborhood. I know I would if I were meeting someone. I admit that your scenario is possible, but I personally wouldn't rule it out. Not without more information or evidence.

 

[cityslick]

If the state is hanging their hat on a 12:30 AM TOD and the vomit theory to make it work, they are in trouble.
Not saying it didn't happen, but too much for the jury to believe.

IMO, they have to get it closer to 12-1am than later because it's more plausible for the jury to believe he had enough time to do all he needed to do. If they try to go for later, say 4am, you're only giving him 2 hours to kill her, clear the garage, think (or look online) where to dump the body, undress her, make sure the kids are not going to wake up, actually go to the dump site and get back before he starts working on the dupe phone calls. It's still possible, but may be harder for the jury to buy. I think it's even harder to buy if he didn't have a plan going in on what he was going to do.

 

[cityslick]

Absolutely she looks like him. From the first photo I saw of the four of them, the older is Nancy all over again, and the younger is just like her Daddy eyes especially. No doubt that she is his.

This is solved simply with a DNA test. They took the kids DNA samples so I think if it turned out he wasn't the father, I gotta think it would of came out (or even leaked) by now.

 

[Star12]

But, let's talk this thru (this scenario is based on a not guilty verdict).

BC is arrested for a crime he did not commit. Due to the severity of the crime, he is in jail for 3 years awaiting his day in court. Because he did not commit the crime, the jury was able to acquit him based on lack of evidence.

Sure, the kids have gone thru SO much trauma in their short lives and one more move from their "home" (and maybe the only home they remember since they are so young) would be very disruptive to them. But, BC is an innocent man (remember, this is a scenario), or at least he was found not guilty. Why should he not get his kids back? They're his kids. It's not his fault he hasn't been able to see them (he's been locked up in jail).

I wouldn't suggest he go and take them back the day he gets out of jail, but a very slow transitional period would be appropriate imo.

Don't start throwing things at me now.

Best interests of the children. That has absolutely nothing to do with what BC wants, deserves, or thinks he is entitled to. People, even children, are not belongings. Even if a judge would seriously consider a change in custody, there would be lots and lots of evaluations. But, IMO there would not be a change.

 

[cityslick]

During the time Nancy and Brad were looking at newer homes in the $500,000 and less range and then also talking about building - was this in the same time frame that the huge bonus was rumored to have come in?

I can't really understand why they were looking for homes in that range, bonus or not. They could barely sustain living in the home they currently were in and were looking to upsize.

It's this stuff that really is confusing to me about the state of their marriage prior to her finding out about the affair. Her friend testifies that NC told her she didn't have sex with him since the 2nd kid was born, but yet she obviously was happy enough to look for new houses and she had an STD test after finding out about the affair. Stuff like that makes me wonder how much truth she was telling her friends.

 

[FullDisclosure]

I do think that Nancy vomited during the attack which necessitated the cleanup. I remembered petechiae referenced on the autopsy, and Dr. Butts testified to that fact on the stand about it, although I feel that Cummings lost his opportunity to further question him about that. Or did he and I lost that info in a fit of buffering?

If she had vomited because of drinking and eating, why would not Brad mention that to the detectives? But he never said anything. "She came home and was so drunk she threw up all over. I had to clean it up. It was so disgusting." It would have explained a lot. But he said nothing about vomiting. Ever.

From the autopsy report:
There is darkening of the laryngeal and
sublaryngeal epithelium with the suggestion of some fine petechial hemorrhages.

For reference from one of many websites:
Other causes for red pinpoint dots on skin petechiae symptoms include:

aging skin
alcoholism
local injury, trauma
violent vomiting, coughing
newborns ~ right after birth
pregnancy ~ close to delivery
penis pump side effect ~ erectile dysfunction
toxic chemical exposure ~ pesticides, arsenic, benzene
http://www.healthblurbs.com/petechi...le-red-skin-spots-pinpoint-red-rash-symptoms/

I need to go back and listen to the ME's testimony again, but IIRC Cummings asked him several times/ways if Nancy could have vomited during the attack (seems it was the State's theory that Brad strangled her right when she returned home) and each time the ME stated that it was unlikely. Does anyone else remember it that way?

 

[cityslick]

Best interests of the children. That has absolutely nothing to do with what BC wants, deserves, or thinks he is entitled to. People, even children, are not belongings. Even if a judge would seriously consider a change in custody, there would be lots and lots of evaluations. But, IMO there would not be a change.

A lot goes into it and Canadian law might be different as far as how it's determine who gets custodial rights of the children. I think your right that in a 'normal' situation, the court usually favors the parent if they can provide a means. This is not a normal situation though.

 

[cityslick]

I need to go back and listen to the ME's testimony again, but IIRC Cummings asked him several times/ways if Nancy could have vomited during the attack (seems it was the State's theory that Brad strangled her right when she returned home) and each time the ME stated that it was unlikely. Does anyone else remember it that way?

He didn't say unlikely, he said he could not determine one way or the other. Cummings tried to get him to say it was more likely than not but he didn't say that, mainly because he could not put a more precise TOD.

 

[BrownRice]

Best interests of the children. That has absolutely nothing to do with what BC wants, deserves, or thinks he is entitled to. People, even children, are not belongings. Even if a judge would seriously consider a change in custody, there would be lots and lots of evaluations. But, IMO there would not be a change.

Sure, kids are not belongings, but this happens every day. Look at the adoption cases where the bio parent comes back after a couple of years and the kid goes back with them (and most often the bio parent is NOT as accomplished in society as the adoptive parents). Judges usually rule in favor of the bio parent saying it's in the best interest of the kid down the road.

Nowhere has it been determined BC was a neglectful, poor father. He sucked as a husband, no disagreement there. But if he gets off from the jury, he is absolutely entitled to his kids back. I'm not saying they would not have a more loving family with Krista, who knows. But, you know what, life ain't fair and these kids are living examples of this, as well as their mother.

 

[Star12]

A lot goes into it and Canadian law might be different as far as how it's determine who gets custodial rights of the children. I think your right that in a 'normal' situation, the court usually favors the parent if they can provide a means. This is not a normal situation though.

I have no idea which jurisdiction such a case would fall under. However the children are US citizens residing in Canada.

As to the part I bolded, I did NOT say that. What I said is that the courts look to what is in the best interests of the children. Always. The children are now in a loving, nurturing two-parent home, and are doing well. Courts do not change custody except for a compelling reason. The children are in no danger and are emotionally secure. Like I said, children are not belongings, and just because BC is a bio dad, tht is no reason to change custody.

 

[FullDisclosure]

Keep in mind that upon death, your bladder and bowels immediately release.
That would cause quite a mess to clean up too.

I have been present for the death of 3 family members. None of them released bladder and bowels upon death. Granted, none of them died as a result of strangulation/sudden death, but I'm just making the point that bladder and bowels do not always immediately release.