Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #24

[SleuthSayer]

By not saying this has proved he has lied ?

It appears there are just differences in folks' definition of "proof" of a lie. I would have thought that proof of a lie would be an instance when someone has verifiable evidence that demonstrates that demonstrates that statements that someone has made are untrue.

However, it appears that proof of a lie is being defined here as:

- an instance where the information that someone provides is different than the information that someone else believes that they would provide in similar circumstances.

- an instance where where someone provides a different level of detail to describe some period of time than they had used to describe the same period of time at a different instance.

 

[Skittles]

AND she is holding the keys in her hands....interesting

Also, I think I also see red or pink toenail polish. Someone noted that NC did not have polish on her fingernails in the pictures we've seen of her. Perhaps LE found a toenail, not a fingernail, at the house. The inventory said just "a nail." Maybe she tore a toenail fighting off her attacker?

I agree with reddress58, we need to get that picture enhanced.

 

[SleuthSayer]

For me, I guess I'm still very much open to the notion that there exists a set of circumstances that would lead me to believe he didn't do it. [ Not saying I think that chance is high, but it's certainly much higher than zero ]

Anyway, just curious, am I the only one (based on current knowns) who is of the opinion that it's still completely within the realm of possibility (even if a small possibility) that he didn't do it?

If I were betting, I would bet that he did it, just because it seems that in these cases it's always the husband that did it and because there is not an obvious set of other potential suspects. However, with only the limited facts that have been made available thus far, it seems that it would be extremely hard for him to be convicted in court for it.

So, I guess that what I'm saying is not much that I've read here convinces me that he's guilty, particularly since some of the speculation here doesn't match my limited personal knowledge of some of the folks involved. But, I tend to go with the statistics in these types of cases and they certainly don't look good for him.

 

[rwesafe]

If I were betting, I would bet that he did it, just because it seems that in these cases it's always the husband that did it and because there is not an obvious set of other potential suspects. However, with only the limited facts that have been made available thus far, it seems that it would be extremely hard for him to be convicted in court for it.

So, I guess that what I'm saying is not much that I've read here convinces me that he's guilty, particularly since some of the speculation here doesn't match my limited personal knowledge of some of the folks involved. But, I tend to go with the statistics in these types of cases and they certainly don't look good for him.

I agree that little here would convince me that he is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I don't think it is odd that a 2 year old is up at 4:00 am. I have one, she does this from time to time, for various reasons; gas, leaky diaper, spit up on the sheets. Have none of you with children ever had to put the sheets in the washing machine in the early morning hours only do discover you are out of detergent? When he says she was doing laundry, perhaps she was only sorting the laundry or loading up the machine? If Bella saw or heard anything, him "choosing" the smaller child who can not yet articulate would be of little benefit to him. I think everyone who has a four year old can attest to the fact that they tell everything!

I guess I am not convinced primarily because LE said that this was not a random act and that it appeared that "suspicious circumstances" surrounded her death. I don't see how, if it was a shooting, stabbing, rape, apparant strangulation or such, that LE would not have had the absolute duty, without a POI or suspect, to announce for the safety of the public that this was indeed random. So, I suspect that it was a hit and run and what made it suspicious was the location of the body. Or, perhaps the fact that JA had called her in missing instead of BC, made it suspicious...I just can't imagine that LE would risk the saftey of the public, if it was not apparant that she had been struck by a car. Perhaps they are just ensuring that BC did not hire someone to run her down. Everyone seems to think her friends are the only truth tellers in this whole mess, yet pictures and documentation that he provided shows that some of them were only going by what they had been told, not what they knew to be FACT. As for the scratches on the left side of his neck...it says small scratches or marks...I would imagine a woman that was as tall and physically fit as NC was, there would be more than small scratches or marks, even if she was using a key.

Just not convinced....

 

[jumpstreet]

Just not convinced....

Good posts rwesafe & SleuthSayer - thanks for the responses.

I'm not convinced either, and that's not a contradiction with the statement that "statistically speaking" he probably did it [agree with that too].

But if we really do look at the known facts, and only those that are hard evidence, there's just way too much room for doubt. Even yesterday, most agreed that we really know very little for sure [ I think RC summed it up as 'she is dead, and the death has been ruled a homicide' and that's pretty much it on hard evidence... ] Other things are just 'hints at evidence', vs solid evidence (that we're aware of).

Call me crazy, but I'm a "benefit of the doubt" type of person by nature (I realize that may offend some on this board - apologies if so ]. In order for me to be convinced that someone is a killer, I'll need to be able to pretty comfortably eliminate any other possible reasonable explanation that would have them be innocent. (That's just me...)

Looking at just the known facts that we have - there's a ton of not unreasonable explanations that would support his innocence.

Therefore, I'm simply not nearly convinced yet either. [ Just MO ] This is not to be confused with "I think he's definitely innocent". It is simply a statement that "he very well could be innocent".

I respect others who say they are already totally convinced with zero room for doubt, even based on the few facts we have, that he's guilty. Hopefully those of us that aren't fully convinced just yet receive the same respect in return, as we discuss the case, share viewpoints, and ultimately try to see it through until justice is done.

 

[maconrich]

 

[rmass]

Why did she even get up? What did he do to resolve the situation? No specifics, no times documented to the store...he takes her to the home office? Why? Why not the family room downstairs so she wouldn't waken her sister at that hour? Too many whys.

If this is true, then I guess it makes me wonder why he even bothered telling LE about the 4am wakeup to begin with. If the desire is to keep 4am a secret, why disclose it to anyone?

Just some things that I also find note worthy...that it was stated it was Katie who got up, maybe so, but remember Katie does not talk and would be a convenient choice because she could not confirm or deny in words any details of why she was up, what time, what woke you up , what was daddy and/or mommy doing at the time. She could nod yes or no, but IMO she could not give any verbal details.

One possibility is he was already up (as others have suggested) and needed an excuse for using his computer starting at 4am and maybe after (SW is not clear when he actually was in the home office). He may have been able to clean his hard drive of history and cache files, but could not remove any record of network activity kept by his internet service provider. The ISP may not record the content, but could have a record that the network connection was active. The story of taking Katie into the home office explains why he was there. As noted above, Katie couldn't contradict his story.

 

[EntreNous]

Call me crazy but I think the "pink nail" the LE found is a toenail maybe, not a fingernail.
None of the pictures of Nancy show her wearing polish on her nails or artificial nails. In fact her nails are trimmed short. That fits her personality, she's too sporty for french tips.

However, pedicures have been mentioned before and she did paint or have her toenails painted. I'm really starting to think it's a toenail they found.

 

[Star12]

One possibility is he was already up (as others have suggested) and needed an excuse for using his computer starting at 4am and maybe after (SW is not clear when he actually was in the home office). He may have been able to clean his hard drive of history and cache files, but could not remove any record of network activity kept by his internet service provider. The ISP may not record the content, but could have a record that the network connection was active. The story of taking Katie into the home office explains why he was there. As noted above, Katie couldn't contradict his story.

Many 2 year olds are pretty darn shy when it comes to strangers; they also aren't really time-concious. And IMO, I do NOT think LE would ever question a 2 year old with a time relevant question like this. Nodding or shaking her head in response? I just can't see it.

And just because BC says Katie was up, doesn't make it so. And if she by some change WAS up, where doesn't really make any difference. For how LONG she was up with be more relevant. For instance, if NC were killed sometime after returning home from the party, BC would not be able to leave on his legendary 4:20 disposal and HT trip until she went back to sleep. Little ones generally do not stay up all night when they awaken in the night. And I truly doubt he would take her with him. While it would not be safe nor prudent to take either or both of the girls with him on any of the trips, it would have been worse to take them with him. Could NOT leave them alone in the HT parking lot, and he didn't take them inside. (And by the way, a 2 year od is capable of unlocking car seat straps, AND opening the car door and getting out.)

 

[rmass]

Many 2 year olds are pretty darn shy when it comes to strangers; they also aren't really time-concious. And IMO, I do NOT think LE would ever question a 2 year old with a time relevant question like this. Nodding or shaking her head in response? I just can't see it.

And just because BC says Katie was up, doesn't make it so. And if she by some change WAS up, where doesn't really make any difference. For how LONG she was up with be more relevant. For instance, if NC were killed sometime after returning home from the party, BC would not be able to leave on his legendary 4:20 disposal and HT trip until she went back to sleep. Little ones generally do not stay up all night when they awaken in the night. And I truly doubt he would take her with him. While it would not be safe nor prudent to take either or both of the girls with him on any of the trips, it would have been worse to take them with him. Could NOT leave them alone in the HT parking lot, and he didn't take them inside. (And by the way, a 2 year od is capable of unlocking car seat straps, AND opening the car door and getting out.)

I was just trying to provide a possible reason why his story to LE would include the home office. I agree it doesn't have to be true--the girls could have been in bed asleep the whole time.

If you take what he said to LE (from the SW) and his 1st custody affidavit together, he got up at 4am, but didn't go into the home office until after he returned from the 2nd HT trip (after 645am). That leaves a lot of time for which he has to explain what he was doing. IMO

 

[Skittles]

Thanks so much, maconrich, for enhancing the picture!

 

[Skittles]

Call me crazy but I think the "pink nail" the LE found is a toenail maybe, not a fingernail.
None of the pictures of Nancy show her wearing polish on her nails or artificial nails. In fact her nails are trimmed short. That fits her personality, she's too sporty for french tips.

However, pedicures have been mentioned before and she did paint or have her toenails painted. I'm really starting to think it's a toenail they found.

EntreNous: I think so, too. See my earlier post here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2630859&postcount=962

 

[Star12]

EntreNous: I think so, too. See my earlier post here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2630859&postcount=962

It's possible it was a toenail since it was not specified. However, when you get pedicures, you have no clippings in your home, and your nails are done quite short - shouldn't have any to break off??

 

[SleuthyGal]

That 'pink colored' nail may end up being one of those press-on child play nails or something not connected to the crime.

 

[Skittles]

Star12: Or her nails had grown out and it was time for another pedicure.

SleuthyGal: Yes, could be. Guess we'll have to wait to find out.

 

[EntreNous]

EntreNous: I think so, too. See my earlier post here:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2630859&postcount=962

Word! Great minds think alike.

 

[EntreNous]

It's possible it was a toenail since it was not specified. However, when you get pedicures, you have no clippings in your home, and your nails are done quite short - shouldn't have any to break off??

At our salon we don't clip, rather file and we never do them short. It encourages ingrown toenails. That's a big no-no. A lot of people also get acrylic toenails. We have lots of clients that swear by them.

 

[EntreNous]

That 'pink colored' nail may end up being one of those press-on child play nails or something not connected to the crime.

I guess it could but why would they take it into evidence?

 

[SleuthyGal]

I guess it could but why would they take it into evidence?

Because they don't know who it belongs to or if it could contain some evidence on it. I'm obviously speculating as the 'pink nail' wasn't described beyond that.

 

[sunflowers]

In the pic on the memorial site with the subtitle 'acting silly', did anyone else notice that NC is wearing what looks a lot like rainbow brand flip flops?

I wonder if these were the ones taken with the SW...

http://www.imorial.com/memorials/NancyCooper/images/Full/FULL-13956.jpg

i haven't been online today, so i don't know if this was mentioned, but in this "acting silly" picture, it looks like Nancy has toenail polish on.