Nancy Cooper, 34, of Cary, N.C. #25

[Anderson]

Seems reasonable enough to conclude, based on MH's affidavit, that there's record of at least one phone call that, as of 4 weeks ago, had LE stymied, or at least looking for an explanation. Who knows - solving that puzzle piece may be all that remains for an arrest. [ LE/DA doesn't want that phone record to translate to reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror, no matter how many explanations are offered from "experts" as to how it could have been 'crafted', especially if they don't believe it was 'crafted' ].

Seems they're looking hard for an explanation of the phone call. Any chance this thread also ties the federal involvement? Or - hard to say?

Very interesting thought.

 

[raisincharlie]

Seems reasonable enough to conclude, based on MH's affidavit, that there's record of at least one phone call that, as of 4 weeks ago, had LE stymied, or at least looking for an explanation. Who knows - solving that puzzle piece may be all that remains for an arrest. [ LE/DA doesn't want that phone record to translate to reasonable doubt in the mind of a juror, no matter how many explanations are offered from "experts" as to how it could have been 'crafted', especially if they don't believe it was 'crafted' ].

Seems they're looking hard for an explanation of the phone call. Any chance this thread also ties the federal involvement? Or - hard to say?

Given that TOD most likely will be noted as a range, perhaps a rather wide range, the phone call at 6:40 am does become very important if it was indeed made from Nancy's cell. if it can be proven that someone else used that phone at that time - it basically narrows TOD down significantly - infact it places it sometime before the time Brad said she left the house.

The more relevant questions are, is MH the only person being questioned about using that phone and if so, what pointed LE to MH with respect to the phone ? A fingerprint, YSTR DNA that does not belong to Brad but defines a male, where was MH at that time on that day, does he have an alibi himself for that time of day specifically and so on... ???

I doubt this has anything to do with the FBI involvement. I suspect the FBI is involved to assist in determining something more related to TOD if I were to take a guess.

 

[raisincharlie]

Yeah, that's a good point too... in theory, the HM affidavit (or much of it) isn't overly relevent to the custody. I assume BC's lawyers are just trying to "fight the PR battle" as best they can - that seems to be their stated strategy.

But yeah, fair enough - maybe not a complete "push". Still, as SG suggests - the "safest" course is to totally discount the opinions offered by both sides (as best we can, but I suspect it's too late for that), and only look at the facts.

Are you suggesting that MH just made this up about LE questioning him three times about the cell phone ? I kinda think it might well be true, otherwise he might well be charged with obstruction.

 

[Anderson]

I doubt this has anything to do with the FBI involvement. I suspect the FBI is involved to assist in determining something more related to TOD if I were to take a guess.

I wondered if the FBI may be able to provide technical expertise related to the phone calls. If BC were able to 'rig' the phone calls in some way that I can't imagine, then they may be able to figure that out. However, maybe there is enough local expertise for this purpose.

 

[jmflu]

How is it "pro-Brad" ? It looked pretty straight forward to me... basically just stating facts as to what had happened and why the judge would need to bring the "who killed Nancy" into the picture...

You have to be sensitive to the nuances of the writing.

For instance, a writer could state, "Brad Cooper has taken a lie detector test and passed it."

Or, the writer could state, "Brad Cooper has already taken one lie detector test, which proved his innocence."

Which sounds more objective?

 

[raisincharlie]

I wondered if the FBI may be able to provide technical expertise related to the phone calls. If BC were able to 'rig' the phone calls in some way that I can't imagine, then they may be able to figure that out. However, maybe there is enough local expertise for this purpose.

Seems to me there is plenty of local expertise - CISCO itself might well provide such an answer. But it seems to me doing it across a cell line might not be nearly as easy as a landline.

 

[jumpstreet]

I did a quick re-browse of some of the other custody subpoenas BC made (back in early September). Seems like there were a couple of fairly pointed questions as JA and her husband related to their personal extra-marital activities. In most everyone else's, it seems to just ask for their knowledge/records of NC's contact with <blanked out>. Hmmm...

Doesn't necessarily mean anything - could be strategy on BC's part to imply something. On the other hand, there could be something there.

As to the notion that any extra-marital affair NC may have been having would only add motive to Brad, I suppose it's possible (though they obviously weren't "happily married" regardless). If it were established that she were having an affair, then similarly to LE wanting to "eliminate the husband" as a suspect, it would seem also natural to need to "eliminate the affairee (not really a word), and spouse of affairee (if a spouse exists)".

What a tangled web...

 

[raisincharlie]

ROFL - affairee ! :crazy:

 

[SleuthyGal]

It's one thing to have your murdered spouse's friends paint you badly - but quite a different animal to have LE paint you badly. WTH does Hiller's three conversations with LE have to do with respect to the custody of the kids may I ask ? Because LE did this, has what exactly to do with Brad being a good father or even sane ?

excellent point!

 

[SleuthyGal]

I have revised and customized the meter

 

[jumpstreet]

Are you suggesting that MH just made this up about LE questioning him three times about the cell phone ? I kinda think it might well be true, otherwise he might well be charged with obstruction.

No - sorry - didn't mean to imply that.
Was speaking to the notion that much of the amended affidavits from BC's side have a "paint BC as the victim of bad LE" slant, and much of NC's original affidavits have a "paint NC as a victim of BC" slant.

You were saying it isn't exactly apples to apples, so not a complete push - I agree. Though, if we view all but the factual pieces (ie the stuff like who is controlling, who exaggerates, etc) as just he-said/she-said, then those pieces become more like a push (since they're all he-said/she-said anyway) at least. [ Which is what SG was getting I think - try to ignore the "painting" angles of the affidavits when we read them, and just extract the facts ]

 

[Anderson]

I did a quick re-browse of some of the other custody subpoenas BC made (back in early September). Seems like there were a couple of fairly pointed questions as JA and her husband related to their personal extra-marital activities. In most everyone else's, it seems to just ask for their knowledge/records of NC's contact with <blanked out>. Hmmm...

Doesn't necessarily mean anything - could be strategy on BC's part to imply something. On the other hand, there could be something there.

As to the notion that any extra-marital affair NC may have been having would only add motive to Brad, I suppose it's possible (though they obviously weren't "happily married" regardless). If it were established that she were having an affair, then similarly to LE wanting to "eliminate the husband" as a suspect, it would seem also natural to need to "eliminate the afairee (not really a word), and spouse of affairee (if a spouse exists)".

What a tangled web...

I imagine that it probably is a very tangled web with no angels. Pending divorce proceedings seem to have that effect. The only reason that I can think of for BC to emphasize this would be to try to implicate someone else. It seems to me that MH is doing more of the same now.

I'm not saying that it is impossible that someone else did this, but I would pay more attention to this view if other SWs had been issued. At the moment only BC and MH are pointing fingers at Nancy's group. NC's friend's do not seem to be 'people of interest' for LE.

 

[SleuthyGal]

At the moment only BC and MH are pointing fingers at Nancy's group. NC's friend's do not seem to be 'people of interest' for LE.

They have to go where the evidence (physical and otherwise) leads them. What is in dispute is whether Nancy ever left that house alive Sat. morning. Allegedly no witnesses outside of her husband have been found or have come forward saying they saw her after she left the party Fri night.

 

[jumpstreet]

I'm not saying that it is impossible that someone else did this, but I would pay more attention to this view if other SWs had been issued. At the moment only BC and MH are pointing fingers at Nancy's group. NC's friend's do not seem to be 'people of interest' for LE.

Agreed!

 

[Anderson]

I have revised and customized the meter

:rolling: Wish we could add this to the smilie list!!

 

[momto3kids]

Yes, I hope Mom is okay.

Anderson...I will use your quote since it is the 1st one I have found inquiring about me recently.

Yes, I have been absent for a short time. Many reasons outside of WS, but one is pertaining to the NC case. I have been pondering about something that was said to me not too long ago.

I made contact with a few people on here to discuss what I had been told. It has been a hard decision, but I have had to think thru what was mentioned to me, but believe me MH has made it easy since he paved the path.

Recently I had it mentioned about an accomplice in this crime. I did not know if it was true or not, so I chose to stay away and think about it, talk about it and try to decide if it could be true.

This answers I hope my short disappearance.

 

[raisincharlie]

No - sorry - didn't mean to imply that.
Was speaking to the notion that much of the ammended affidavits from BC's side have a "paint BC as the victim of bad LE slant", and much of NC's original affidavits have a "paint NC as a victim of BC" slant.

You were saying it isn't exactly apples to apples, so not a complete push - I agree. Though, if we discount only the factual pieces (not the stuff like who is controlling, who exaggerates, etc) as just he-said/she-said, then those pieces become a push at least. [ Which is what SG was getting I think - try to ignore the "painting" angles of the affidavits when we read them, and just extract the facts ]

I am surprised this hasn't already been done by most. I suspect it has as many of these statements could be true or not and we will never be able to parse that since the affidavits give no time reference as to when what was said. Outside of a nasty marriage I see very little in any of them that could possibly be used to say Brad is a murderer, however, motive is presented whether we like it or not. 14 people have provided affidavits, not all of it is true I suspect, but a fair portion most likely is given the volume and consistency across the board. But I see nothing that could or does prove Brad is a murderer. These statements were made for a different purpose, a civil matter and should have been viewed from that perspective from the beginning. Pretty simple.

 

[jmflu]

But it is an affidavit. There should not be any ambiguity. Right?

Isn't "Saturday or Sunday" ambiguous?

Funny how he is so exact on some things, but on others, vague.

I agree that his affidavit sounds very BC-ish.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Recently I had it mentioned about an accomplice in this crime. I did not know if it was true or not, so I chose to stay away and think about it, talk about it and try to decide if it could be true.

Glad you feel comfortable talking about it now, Mom. Yes, MH's affidavit did pave the way.

 

[raisincharlie]

Isn't "Saturday or Sunday" ambiguous?

Funny how he is so exact on some things, but on others, vague.

I agree that his affidavit sounds very BC-ish.

You mean fishy right ? :crazy: