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

[Roy23]

Roy you might think about that again - his actions are very important. For example if it was indeed his action to walk into a store at 420 am and buy cleaning products and then deny that to LE and they have proof - that action and denial says something pertinent to the case. If he walked into Lifetime Fitness and tried to use his wife's card on the day she is missing well that certainly says something doesn't it. Not all circumstantial evidence is physical in nature -and a persons actions, where abouts, and emotional feelings about a deceased person are indeed relevant and circumstantial - motive is all about thoughts and actions. Circumstantial cases are built on a variety of things not just physical evidence. There is little doubt this will be a circumstantial case - without a confession or eyewitnesses - it can be nothing else. How he treated his wife will certainly be important.

Sure, we already know he treated his wife bad. And we don't know he walked in HT at 4:20. If you are on a jury right now, do you find him guilty?

 

[raisincharlie]

Sure, we already know he treated his wife bad. And we don't know he walked in HT at 4:20. If you are on a jury right now, do you find him guilty?

Right now with what little we know - as a juror - absolutely no way.

 

[Roy23]

Sure, we already know he treated his wife bad. And we don't know he walked in HT at 4:20. If you are on a jury right now, do you find him guilty?

My point is without physical evidence it is all about nothing. They gotta have it. There is already enough circumstancial stuff that proves that Brad would want to kill his wife.

 

[raisincharlie]

My point is without physical evidence it is all about nothing. They gotta have it. There is already enough circumstancial stuff that proves that Brad would want to kill his wife.

Physical evidence is circumstantial Roy- nothing more.

 

[Roy23]

Right now with what little we know - as a juror - absolutely no way.

That is my whole point RC. All this other stuff is just icing on the cake. They have enough as even evidenced by Brad's affidavit. But without physical evidence I think it is nothing at this point. Any decent physical evidence and this guy's ship has sunk.

 

[Onescout]

Fran,

If you would answer this one question. And anybody else that wants to play feel free. If you are sitting on a jury right now and the evidence presented right now is what it is, do you find him guilty?

I mean he had a horrible marriage and his friends say he didn't give her enough money and he didn't offer a reward do you find him guilty?

HI Roy23,

Actually there couldn't be a trial based on what we have as evidence right now.....we have no TOD, COD or DNA findings.
BUT is there enough to name him as a POI, yes...but LE is choosing to play this one very close to the vest and not naming him.
Plus the mumbo jumbo of that term really means little to those deep in the case.
I will say however, that Charles Manson was convicted on pure circumstantial evidence, no DNA, no blood no nothing...
This forum is about theories and good old common sense, it acts as a think tank.

 

[Roy23]

Physical evidence is circumstantial Roy- nothing more.

Not in my eyes. TOD, evidence of a stuggle, blood----sure they can be argued but it would be central piece with all of this other stuff for me to convict. They need it.

 

[fran]

My point is without physical evidence it is all about nothing. They gotta have it. There is already enough circumstancial stuff that proves that Brad would want to kill his wife.

The physical evidence is Nancy's body. The rest will most likely be circumstantial, IF he's tried.

We'll just wait until LE finishes investigating, then we'll see IF they have enough.

Right now, NO, I couldn't convict him. But believe me, he's getting there. IF I knew what LE knows, I may already personally say, yes....BUT, I don't KNOW what they do.

JMHO
fran

 

[Roy23]

HI Roy23,

Actually there couldn't be a trial based on what we have as evidence right now.....we have no TOD, COD or DNA findings.
BUT is there enough to name him as a POI, yes...but LE is choosing to play this one very close to the vest and not naming him.
Plus the mumbo jumbo of that term really means little to those deep in the case.
I will say however, that Charles Manson was convicted on pure circumstantial evidence, no DNA, no blood no nothing...
This forum is about theories and good old common sense, it acts as a think tank.

To me, other persons who testified that Charlie sent them out there to kill other people is not as circumstancial as Brad not offering a reward. Food for thought. To our knowledge, Brad hasn't done anything violent in his past unlike Charlie.

 

[Roy23]

The physical evidence is Nancy's body. The rest will most likely be circumstantial, IF he's tried.

We'll just wait until LE finishes investigating, then we'll see IF they have enough.

Right now, NO, I couldn't convict him. But believe me, he's getting there. IF I knew what LE knows, I may already personally say, yes....BUT, I don't KNOW what they do.

JMHO
fran

That is my point Fran. All I want to see is evidence of violence. I can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

Do you guys follow me?

 

[fran]

HI Roy23,

Actually there couldn't be a trial based on what we have as evidence right now.....we have no TOD, COD or DNA findings.
BUT is there enough to name him as a POI, yes...but LE is choosing to play this one very close to the vest and not naming him.
Plus the mumbo jumbo of that term really means little to those deep in the case.
I will say however, that Charles Manson was convicted on pure circumstantial evidence, no DNA, no blood no nothing...
This forum is about theories and good old common sense, it acts as a think tank.

Scott Peterson was convicted on completely circumstantial evidence as well. They had no TOD, no COD, no crime scene.......

It was all circumstantial. But it was so voluminous, anyone in their right mind who really studied the trial, knew there was no way there could be that many 'coincidences' and NOT ENOUGH excuses could make it look any better.

JMHO
fran

 

[raisincharlie]

Not in my eyes. TOD, evidence of a stuggle, blood----sure they can be argued but it would be central piece with all of this other stuff for me to convict. They need it.

Roy - everything you have mentioned above is circumstantial evidence. TOD is not going to tell LE exactley when Nancy died - it will be a range but the precision will not be in minutes -it is essential but it is still circumstantial. Evidence of a struggle - LE observed that house not long after nancy went missing - LE will testify as to what they saw at that time. Evidence collected under the warrants and sent for testing will be presented - but the truth is this is also circumstantial evidence - so is blood, so too is DNA.

 

[fran]

That is my point Fran. All I want to see is evidence of violence. I can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

Do you guys follow me?

There was never one shredd of evidence that Scott Peterson ever abused Laci either mentally or physically. It was all 'circumstantial.' But you see, circumstantial is more powerful than even an eye witness. Eye witnesses are wrong all the time.

Too many circumstances can point to murder.

We do NOT know everything they have on Brad. Heck, they may not have anything. I don't know. But,........he looks good for it to me. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

TOD turns out to be well BEFORE 7:00 a.m. that Saturday morning, I don't believe anything could save him. Believe me, IF she were killed shortly after returning home, LE will know as soon as they get the autopsy back.

THAT would be pretty powerful, IMO.

JMHO
fran

 

[Jess]

Roy
There is circumstantial evidence and there is eyewitness evidence. All physical evidence is circumstantial. Not all deaths leave behind a trail of 'bloody' evidence or signs of violence.
No, I could not convict Brad with what is KNOWN right now. But I am confident that with what we don't know, an arrest will be made. I happen to think it will be Brad, but I could be wrong. Time will tell.

 

[raisincharlie]

That is my point Fran. All I want to see is evidence of violence. I can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

Do you guys follow me?

Then you would never be selected as a juror if that is all you want to see.

Here's a very basic list of evidence types -and uses. perhaps it will help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

 

[Roy23]

There was never one shredd of evidence that Scott Peterson ever abused Laci either mentally or physically. It was all 'circumstantial.' But you see, circumstantial is more powerful than even an eye witness. Eye witnesses are wrong all the time.

Too many circumstances can point to murder.

We do NOT know everything they have on Brad. Heck, they may not have anything. I don't know. But,........he looks good for it to me. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

TOD turns out to be well BEFORE 7:00 a.m. that Saturday morning, I don't believe anything could save him. Believe me, IF she were killed shortly after returning home, LE will know as soon as they get the autopsy back.

THAT would be pretty powerful, IMO.

JMHO
fran

I totally agree on the TOD. And I know what you are saying too RC. In SP's case they caught him in lie after lie. Yeah, it is circmstancial but they pieced together a puzzle that was solved with concrete, lies, infidelity at time of death, witnesses, and ultimately the bodies found near where SP was for his alibi.

You guys don't need to get so technical on me

They haven't found any lies or any of this that they have released. The 4:20 am HT purchase would convince me he did it. They would need more but that would be circumstancial enough. Personally, I do believe Nancy was a little materialistic. Not that it means anything.

 

[MoonFlwr]

i can promise you that only a moron can't see motive here. I think this board has covered motive ad nauseum.

ea-sy....!

 

[Roy23]

Then you would never be selected as a juror if that is all you want to see.

Here's a very basic list of evidence types -and uses. perhaps it will help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Come on RC. That is condescending.

Maybe my ideas of circumstancial are not text book. As far as we know, Brad hasn't lied. It is amazing of all that have crucified him for not having one small piece of evidence. I understand the SW but nothing has been said other than Brad and Nancy abused each other mentally. That is it.

I totally get that there is a 95% chance he is guilty from history. But LE is throwing me for a loop with their actions and quietness. It is impressive.

 

[raisincharlie]

I totally agree on the TOD. And I know what you are saying too RC. In SP's case they caught him in lie after lie. Yeah, it is circmstancial but they pieced together a puzzle that was solved with concrete, lies, infidelity at time of death, witnesses, and ultimately the bodies found near where SP was for his alibi.

You guys don't need to get so technical on me

They haven't found any lies or any of this that they have released. The 4:20 am HT purchase would convince me he did it. They would need more but that would be circumstancial enough. Personally, I do believe Nancy was a little materialistic. Not that it means anything.

Okay - got you ! Sorry - we do get a tad technical , it just happens after following cases.

Things will be much better if we ever get any information - but to be very honest, I believe those search warrants are going to stay sealed right up to who ever's trial and only at trial will stuff of importance start coming out. Despite Judge Stephens saying this is not a trend - it is indeed an emerging pattern - the public has the right to know but is continuously denied that right because our PC society dictates a suspect's rights are more important than the victims and the public's right.

 

[Onescout]

To me, other persons who testified that Charlie sent them out there to kill other people is not as circumstancial as Brad not offering a reward. Food for thought. To our knowledge, Brad hasn't done anything violent in his past unlike Charlie.

Hi ROy,

AS I recall from reading the book by Bugliosi, there was no testimony from the other family members that convicted Charlie Manson. They in fact protected him. Exception being Tex Watkins who testified of the Helter Skelter philosphy, and CHalies vision of violence.
But what I am saying here, is that everything matters, every hard piece of evidence and his demeanor through the whole she-bang...including how he acts at trial (which has been known to sway jurors).
Andrea Yates was never violent before she killed her children, Scott Peterson was never violent before he killed Lacy...so it doesn't matter if BC never did anything violent in his past.
In fact, this could have happened by accident , during a fight ,and he panicked, now he's in too deep to come clean.
It reminds me of how they cume statistics... and we're at the "acts like a duck, quacks like a duck" stage, and the hard evidence will bring us to "it is a duck."