Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #20

[MoonFlwr]

Please look at the document: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/15/3387954/willoughbymotions.pdf.

The paperworks still states that it could hamper/impede an ongoing investigation and/or etc. etc. etc.

The media seems to cherry pick portions of the motion.

Hey, you're right carolinalady. It sure reads differently when you take the whole paragraph into account!

"That to publicly disclose the search warrant, application or the results thereof might hamper or impede this ongoing investigation and/or may release information that could adversely affect persons who are not charged with committing a crime and materially prejudice further adjudicative procedures involving this investigation and any subsequent prosecution."

 

[carolinalady]

I'm not surprised that Brad would be a suspect - in fact I believe he is the suspect.

I am surprised the Assistant DA acutally worded it that way - there are only three people that could be affected by the search warrants of the house Brad, Bella, and Katie. I'm pretty confident in ruling Bella and Katie out as the "possible defendant" - leaving only Brad - I just find it odd wording.

Again, read the motion. The ADA gave the standard lists of reasons. The media focused on that one portion, just like they did when the initial order to seal was implemented.

 

[raisincharlie]

Please look at the document: http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2008/08/15/3387954/willoughbymotions.pdf.

The paperworks still states that it could hamper/impede an ongoing investigation and/or etc. etc. etc.

The media seems to cherry pick portions of the motion.

I read it - seems pretty obvious to me there was evidence found at the residence to either prove it a crime scene or to implicate someone in nancy's murder. I would much rather take this approach as it is clear the murder happened in that house - based on not cherry picking the motion.

 

[Roy23]

I read it - seems pretty obvious to me there was evidence found at the residence to either prove it a crime scene or to implicate someone in nancy's murder. I would much rather take this approach as it is clear the murder happened in that house - based on not cherry picking the motion.

I do not read anything that tells me the murder happened in the house. What makes you think that?

 

[carolinalady]

I read it - seems pretty obvious to me there was evidence found at the residence to either prove it a crime scene or to implicate someone in nancy's murder. I would much rather take this approach as it is clear the murder happened in that house - based on not cherry picking the motion.

I just was trying to point out that the media cherry picked a portion of the motion, just like when the original decision to seal was handed down. It would lead some to believe that he has been officially named a defendant or POI, when in fact he has not been named. Of course, we all know the husband is always looked at when a wife is murdered. But again, I was pointing out that the statement was only a portion of the reasons listed.

What approach would you rather take? I don't understand what you're referring to.

 

[raisincharlie]

I do read anything that tells me the murder happened in the house. What makes you think that?

Release of evidence from the house or cars or DNA for that matter could hinder the investigtion - if there was nothing - how could that possibly be true ?

 

[Roy23]

Release of evidence from the house could hinder the investigtion - if there was nothing - how could that possibly be true ?

How could that hinder the investigation and protect a possible defendant?

 

[carolinalady]

I do not read anything that tells me the murder happened in the house. What makes you think that?

I don't see it either. The wording seems the same on all three requests.

 

[raisincharlie]

How could that hinder the investigation and protect a possible defendant?

Roy, i ask myself a lot of very simple questions.

If nothing was found in that house , why did LE drag all that stuff out of there and if it all means nothing how could it possibly hinder an investigation or in any way harm Brad ? If there is nothing, why not say so and move on.

Looking at it on basic terms, it seems obvious that just as the DA says - releasing the information would hurt the investigation and possibly someone who has not yet been charged. I don't see this as complicated, to release information, you must first have information.

 

[fran]

Again, bolding is mine. Which statement of his makes you think he blamed Nancy for his wife's infidelity?

Well, Heider's wife slept with Brad. Or, at least had sex with him, while she was married to Mr. Heider. Yet, he's all buddy, buddy with the guy who slept with his wife and trashes the aduterer's murdered wife.

Seems pretty hostile to me. Like maybe he blamed Nancy for Brad messing with his then wife, Mrs. Heider NO Hyphen.

You'd think he'd be angry at Brad. I guess he and Brad just have different values than MOST people.

Or.............maybe that's just me.

JMHO
fran

 

[fran]

Roy, i ask myself a lot of very simple questions.

If nothing was found in that house , why did LE drag all that stuff out of there and if it all means nothing how could it possibly hinder an investigation or in any way harm Brad ? If there is nothing, why not say so and move on.

Looking at it on basic terms, it seems obvious that just as the DA says - releasing the information would hurt the investigation and possibly someone who has not yet been charged. I don't see this as complicated, to release information, you must first have information.

Or even more importantly, IF LE didn't find anything in the house, what led them to Brad's office at his place of employment, Cisco?

Had to have GOOD grounds for that!

Hope they found what they're looking for.

JMHO
fran

PS....At the least, imo, Brad Cooper may NOT be a suspect.....YET.......but he has NOT been cleared yet!

 

[fran]

Earth to all!

Brad Cooper IS the FOCUS of this investigation into the MURDER of Nancy Cooper.

No matter what way your lay it, BRAD is the focus. :behindbar

JMHO
fran

 

[raisincharlie]

Or even more importantly, IF LE didn't find anything in the house, what led them to Brad's office at his place of employment, Cisco?

Had to have GOOD grounds for that!

Hope they found what they're looking for.

JMHO
fran

PS....At the least, imo, Brad Cooper may NOT be a suspect.....YET.......but he has NOT been cleared yet!

Exactly Fran - to get that warrant for Cisco - it took something more than just a hunch to serve a warrant on a company totally unassociated with the victim. Most likely that reason was found in the home or in one of the cars.

Specifically office 7A in Buildng 9 which so happens to be Mr. Cooper's office space.

 

[carolinalady]

Earth to all!

Brad Cooper IS the FOCUS of this investigation into the MURDER of Nancy Cooper.

No matter what way your lay it, BRAD is the focus. :behindbar

JMHO
fran

Bolded statement (bolding done by me) is a little uncalled for. Do you really think that we don't know that Brad is the focus? No need to imply that we aren't intelligent enough to realize that. IMO, of course.

 

[Roy23]

Earth to all!

Brad Cooper IS the FOCUS of this investigation into the MURDER of Nancy Cooper.

No matter what way your lay it, BRAD is the focus. :behindbar

JMHO
fran

There is no doubt about that. Even if they have almost nothing, though, with that marriage LE would still be persuing him no matter how complicated it seems.

 

[SleuthSayer]

With his HUGE bonus, you'd think he'd offer a reward of sumpin'. :waitasec: Or is he waiting for someone else to pick up the tab,........like for Nancy's funeral?

Except he didn't get the "HUGE" bonus. Or, I should say, I suppose the definition of "HUGE" varies depending on your own perspective. But, the scale of bonus mentioned in a previous thread here was vastly incorrect.

 

[Anderson]

Except he didn't get the "HUGE" bonus. Or, I should say, I suppose the definition of "HUGE" varies depending on your own perspective. But, the scale of bonus mentioned in a previous thread here was vastly incorrect.

Just curious about how you know this. I may have missed something.

 

[raisincharlie]

Except he didn't get the "HUGE" bonus. Or, I should say, I suppose the definition of "HUGE" varies depending on your own perspective. But, the scale of bonus mentioned in a previous thread here was vastly incorrect.

I agree, I think it was thrown out there to prove one point and in the end made things look a whole lot worse.

 

[Onescout]

Except he didn't get the "HUGE" bonus. Or, I should say, I suppose the definition of "HUGE" varies depending on your own perspective. But, the scale of bonus mentioned in a previous thread here was vastly incorrect.

Huge or not, the point being, BC never offered a reward for the killer/killers of Nancy.
Even if the marriage was strained , my God , wouldn't you move heaven and earth to find the person who killed Nancy.....or hire a PI to clear yourself?

As far as Scott Heider is concerned , wouldn't you punch the man who bonked your wife rather than praise him?

It's all too wierd...nothing adds up from the get-go.

And I am so happy to hear the words "possible defendant"...this means a trial is in the future....someone is going to be be charged.

 

[SleuthSayer]

Just any amount for a reward is better than nothing! IMO if Cisco believed in their employee they would make an attempt help with a reward.

I asked about this several days ago, but never saw a response. Apologies if I just missed it.

You say that your opinion is that Cisco would offer an award. Can you site some examples of other huge companies offering rewards in association with crimes where employee's family members are victims when those crimes don't involve the company in any way? I.e., didn't occur on company property, at a company event, etc.

I've seen this opinion posted several times and I'm just curious where the notion comes from that a company would/should involve themselves in this way.

As far as "believing" in Brad. How would Cisco know what he did or didn't do in his home (assuming that's where the crime was committed)?